Yet Another Attempt at Spinning BKP
Posted: Fri Mar 21, 2008 9:37 pm
Over on the aptly named MADboard, The Good Professor has really lit into the now-banned mocnarf (funny how DCP is commenting on mocnarf's sig at the precise same time that moc is banned...) over his use of BKP's infamous "The Mantle is Far, Far Greater Than the Intellect" talk. I have already discussed BKP's talk in some detail. (And, of course, I have long quoted it in my own sig. line, as I believe it cuts to the core of something fundamentally problematic in current Mormonism.)
Anyways, let's take a lookee at DCP's post:
Of course, DCP is warping mocnarf's comments. Neither BKP nor mocnarf mention "all truths"; they are both referring, specifically, to some truths---namely, the unpleasant and embarrassing aspects of LDS history.
Right. And, as per BKP's guidelines, knowing about MMM, or polyandry, of Blood Atonement, or the Danites, or the SCMC, or Helen Mar Kimball, are all "minimally helpful" in retaining members' testimonies. Right? I'm glad to see that DCP is finally acknowledging this. I'm glad that he's admitting that the Church has tried to hide its history for a rather dishonest reason. Well done, Good Professor!
It is true that Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon using a brown seer stone. It is also true that he got into some trouble for using this same stone in his necromancy and moneydigging pursuits. Which truth is most relevant to determining whether or not he was a true prophet?
Again, bravo, Prof. P.! Yes! If the goal is "maintaining members' testimonies," then it makes perfect sense to jettison anything which might affect that! Way to admit the truth!
Right, which again raises the question: Why is it that seemingly every possible embarrassing or bad thing concerning Church history is conveniently left out of these histories? Why does withholding certain, specific truths about Church history help in this goal of "foster[ing] faith and commitment"? Does BKP---and by extension DCP and CES instructors---know that telling members certain things will send them fleeing to the exit doors? Hmmmm.....
Wha... But, did he not tacitly acknowledge that this was the case? I.e., the "goal" is to preserve fragile testimonies, and thus, "unuseful" truths are left out of the lessons.... Correct?
Well, this is a new one. Now DCP is re-envisioning the talk as a finger-wagging lecture from BKP, who is scolding all the historians (and yes, I mean "historians"; DCP is neatly sidestepping the fact that BKP uses the exact phrase "historians," not "CES instructors." Elder Packer may have delivered the talk to CES, but he clearly meant for it to be heard by historians of the "Camelot"/Leonard Arrington vein) for "telling too much truth." And really, what's the difference? What critic has ever tried to interpret the talk as a "celebration"? So far as I know, everyone who's read it has understood it to be a warning against telling too much truth, especially those truths which might lead to apostasy.
Anyways, I though good ol' MC summed up the thread very well:
Anyways, let's take a lookee at DCP's post:
Daniel Peterson wrote:mocnarf wrote:Elder Packer. "There is a temptation for the writer or the teacher of Church history to want to tell everything, whether it is worthy or faith promoting or not. Some things that are true are not very useful."
If the goal is to maximize membership numbers and tithes, he is absolutely correct. There is nothing so counterproductive as the whole truth.
Mocnarf seems to believe that all things that are true are very useful.
Is this the case?
Are all truths equally useful for all things? Are all truths equally important?
It seems that this idea is obviously false.
Of course, DCP is warping mocnarf's comments. Neither BKP nor mocnarf mention "all truths"; they are both referring, specifically, to some truths---namely, the unpleasant and embarrassing aspects of LDS history.
Knowing the date of the fall of Fort Sumter won't help me to build a bridge. Having mastered karate won't enable me to write better poetry. Speaking fluent Japanese will be at best minimally helpful in Mexico City. Knowing that George Washington had wooden teeth (if, in fact, he did) won't go far toward helping me evaluate his generalship at the Battle of Trenton. Knowing the precise number of protons in my desk probably won't help in any regard at all.
Right. And, as per BKP's guidelines, knowing about MMM, or polyandry, of Blood Atonement, or the Danites, or the SCMC, or Helen Mar Kimball, are all "minimally helpful" in retaining members' testimonies. Right? I'm glad to see that DCP is finally acknowledging this. I'm glad that he's admitting that the Church has tried to hide its history for a rather dishonest reason. Well done, Good Professor!
It is true that Erwin Rommel was a leading twentieth-century German general. It is also true that the name Rommel contains six letters, two thirds of which are consonants. Which truth is most important? Which truth is most relevant to the military history of the Second World War?
It is true that Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon using a brown seer stone. It is also true that he got into some trouble for using this same stone in his necromancy and moneydigging pursuits. Which truth is most relevant to determining whether or not he was a true prophet?
Surely truths are valuable according to their relevance, and their relevance can only be determined against the standard of a selected goal.
Again, bravo, Prof. P.! Yes! If the goal is "maintaining members' testimonies," then it makes perfect sense to jettison anything which might affect that! Way to admit the truth!
If Fred calls out "I'm having a heart attack! Where are my nitroglycerin tablets????" replying that "Detroit is in Michigan" will be true, but not very useful.
Mocnarf cites Elder Boyd K. Packer's well-known address to the Fifth Annual Church Educational System Religious Educators' Symposium, which is entitled "The Mantle is Far, Far Greater than the Intellect."
Consider the audience: They were CES instructors. (This was not, in other words, a meeting of the Mormon History Association.) What is the goal of CES instructors? It is, plainly, not merely to transmit knowledge. It is not to create little Church historians or hotshot scriptorians. It is not to conduct value-neutral symposia on LDS historiography. (Such things have their place, but that is clearly not CES's mandate. The overwhelming majority of the members of any given seminary or institute class are not and will never be historians.) Instead, the primary purpose is to foster faith and commitment.
Right, which again raises the question: Why is it that seemingly every possible embarrassing or bad thing concerning Church history is conveniently left out of these histories? Why does withholding certain, specific truths about Church history help in this goal of "foster[ing] faith and commitment"? Does BKP---and by extension DCP and CES instructors---know that telling members certain things will send them fleeing to the exit doors? Hmmmm.....
(Mocnarf's cynical suggestion that the purpose is to maximize membership numbers and Church income is unworthy of serious notice. If he seriously believes such a thing, it is revealing . . . but not about the Church.)
What would be appropriate for a seminary or institute class might very well not be appropriate for an academic treatise or a scholarly seminar on Mormon history or theology, and what is appropriate for an academic treatise or scholarly seminar on Mormon theology or history might not be appropriate for an institute or seminary class. A sermon is not an academic lecture, and an academic lecture is not a sermon. A CES lesson typically falls somewhere between a sermon and an academic lecture.
Moreover, not all topics are very useful even for a value-neutral seminar or an academic treatise: An article on the grand strategy of Mormon settlement in the West (e.g., involving the hope for access to a sea port) would be far more interesting, for instance, than would an article totaling up the number of Lombardy poplars planted on the streets running from east to west in various Mormon settlements of the Iron County Mission in the decade of the 1860s, and comparing that total to the number of Lombardy poplars planted on streets running from north to south.
Of course, Mocnarf's real intent is to highlight the stale charge that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has routinely, and as a matter of deliberate policy, suppressed the presumably lethal truth about its own sordid and embarrassing past.
I deny this.
Wha... But, did he not tacitly acknowledge that this was the case? I.e., the "goal" is to preserve fragile testimonies, and thus, "unuseful" truths are left out of the lessons.... Correct?
Even if Mocnarf's implicit interpretation of an old talk by one member of the Twelve were correct, though, Elder Packer's speech would not go very far toward bearing out Mocnarf's insinuation. If anything, as a matter of fact, it could be read in precisely the opposite way: Elder Packer's remarks to Church Educational System employees can more plausibly be read as chiding them for telling too many "not very useful" truths than as congratulating them for suppressing those truths or as celebrating the success of the Church's fiendish plan of suppression and historical revisionism.
Well, this is a new one. Now DCP is re-envisioning the talk as a finger-wagging lecture from BKP, who is scolding all the historians (and yes, I mean "historians"; DCP is neatly sidestepping the fact that BKP uses the exact phrase "historians," not "CES instructors." Elder Packer may have delivered the talk to CES, but he clearly meant for it to be heard by historians of the "Camelot"/Leonard Arrington vein) for "telling too much truth." And really, what's the difference? What critic has ever tried to interpret the talk as a "celebration"? So far as I know, everyone who's read it has understood it to be a warning against telling too much truth, especially those truths which might lead to apostasy.
Anyways, I though good ol' MC summed up the thread very well:
Mighty Curelom wrote:I understand what you're trying to do just fine. With respect to MocNarf's sig-line, you're addressing a hyper-literalist rather than the intended meaning (which interpretation you've labeled "implicit"). Congratulations Amelia Bedelia.