Criticism of Mormonism/Books/One Nation Under Gods/Use of sources/Boyd K. Packer on the truth


Brigham Young on thieves
A work by author: Richard Abanes
 The Anti-Mormon Articles of Faith

Boyd K. Packer on the truth

The Claim

One Nation under Gods, page 441 (paperback)

  • Boyd K. Packer said: "I have a hard time with historians because they idolize the truth."

The References

Endnote 10 (paperback)

  • Roger D. Launius, Book Review, Journal of the West, reproduced online at Signature Books.

Part I: The Problem

The author is apparently quoting from a secondary source, the Signature Books website. There is much that he does not reveal about this quote or its context.

Source of the quote

The source of this quote is the now excommunicated D. Michael Quinn, who wrote in a footnote that

When Elder Packer interviewed me as a prospective member of Brigham Young University's faculty in 1976, he explained: "I have a hard time with historians because they idolize the truth.[1]

So, this claim is not from any recorded address by Elder Packer, nor is it in any of his writings. At best, all we can say is that "Boyd K. Packer is alleged to have said these things, and the allegation comes from a hostile critic with clear personal animosity[2] for Elder Packer."

Others have noted Quinn's repeated tendency to vilify those with whom he has professional disagreements, and to caricaturize their positions.[3] Quinn's decision to "come out" as a practicing homosexual coincided with the publication of his work Same Sex Dynamics: A Mormon Example. This work was criticized on numerous counts for its distortions, misrepresentations, and fraudulent use of data to argue that the early Church was much more favorable to male homosexual behavior than the present Church:

  • Duane Boyce, "A Betrayal of Trust (Review of: The Mormon Hierarchy: Extensions of Power, by D. Michael Quinn)," FARMS Review of Books 9/2 (1997): 147–163. off-site
  • Klaus J. Hansen, "Quinnspeak (Review of Same-Sex Dynamics among Nineteenth-Century Americans: A Mormon Example by D. Michael Quinn)," FARMS Review of Books 10/1 (1998): 132–140. off-site
  • George L. Mitton and Rhett S. James, "A Response to D. Michael Quinn's Homosexual Distortion of Latter-day Saint History (Review of Same-Sex Dynamics among Nineteenth-Century Americans: A Mormon Example by D. Michael Quinn)," FARMS Review of Books 10/1 (1998): 141–263. off-site

Thus, it appears indisputable that Quinn is not above manipulating, distorting, or misreading evidence when it serves his agenda. He did so repeatedly and flagrantly in his efforts to justify his homosexual conduct. Why, then, ought we to believe his account of what Elder Packer did—or did not—say, much less then spin and implication he imputes to it, especially when his account forms part of his effort to justify his ideas about history and condemn those who disagree? These questions become even more weighty when we realize that Quinn has also demonstrably misrepresented on-the-record statements about Elder Packer in another of his works?[4]

The complete quote

Let us turn, now, to the complete source from Quinn. It reads:

When Elder Packer interviewed me as a prospective member of Brigham Young University's faculty in 1976, he explained: "I have a hard time with historians because they idolize the truth. The truth is not uplifting; it destroys. I could tell most of the secretaries in the church office building that they are ugly and fat. That would be the truth, but it would hurt and destroy them. Historians should tell only that part of the truth that is inspiring and uplifting."

As noted, we cannot be sure that this completely or accurately reflects Elder Packer's words or intent. As we will show below, there is good reason to think that in some respects it does not. But, let us assume for the sake of argument that Elder Packer said something like this.

It is absurd, though, to think that Elder Packer would say simply, "The truth is not uplifting; it destroys." This might tickle the ears of anti-Mormons, or those determined to vilify Elder Packer, but it is difficult to take such a claim seriously when the totality of Elder Packer's writing and thought is considered.

It is much more plausible, however, to argue that Elder Packer said that some uses of the truth are not uplifting, but destructive. After all, the example he gives makes exactly this point—it might be true that a secretary was ugly, but to merely inform her of this blunt fact would be destructive.

Elder Packer's expressed attitude

Elder Packer's attitude to truthful matters and the Church is made clear in his account of two different teaching styles:

Years ago two teachers on the faculty of one of the large institutes of religion were both talented in their classroom procedures, and both enjoyed a large registration of students. One teacher, however, was always embroiled in controversy. The complaint would be oft–coming, and not without some foundation, that his teachings were destructive in faith. He took the position (and there is much to recommend it) that he was teaching alert, inquiring college students, and there must be freedom to explore and analyze all problems. Often they spent the class periods contesting issues that were very touchy and open to much speculation. After careful study, we were firmly convinced that although he was popular, his teaching did not foster faith. Indeed, it raised doubts.
The other teacher, in the same building and likewise popular with the students, seemed to consistently stabilize them. Faith was the product of his effort.
I sat through classes of both of these teachers. The second teacher was no more restrictive than the first. He was willing to discuss any question an alert, inquiring university student wanted to bring up. He would discuss the main channel of the question or readily be diverted up any side canyons. He talked just as freely about the same issues as the first teacher. The result of his teaching, however, was faith, whereas the first teacher left his students unsettled and doubting. It took some careful analysis to determine the difference between them, and it was a very simple difference.
The second teacher concluded every class period with a testimony—not always a formal, sacrament meeting–type testimony, but there was always a message at the end of his lessons. Quite often, of course, the lesson would conclude in the middle of the discussion, and the students would be left to ponder on and wrestle with the effects of the discussion sometimes for several days or a week until the new class period convened. He would simply say, "Now, we haven't been able to complete this discussion, and before you leave I want you to keep one thing in mind. When we've found all we need to find about this subject, you will come to know as I know that God lives and that He directs this church and kingdom and that He sustains a prophet of God who is our leader."
Or he would say, "While you are thinking about this during the week, keep in mind the certain truth that God is our Heavenly Father, that He loves us, and that we can come to know that as perhaps the most important part of the knowledge we gain. I know that and I want you to come to know that even better than I know it, if possible."[5]

In this example, it seems clear that Elder Packer has no complaint with discussing anything and everything—provided that the "big picture" was not lost, and that it was not done in a context or style which was destructive to faith.

The abuse of truth

One can, though Quinn and the author here under review may not believe it, use "truth" for untruthful ends. Our review of One Nation Under Gods repeatedly demonstrates how a true statement—transcribed accurately, say, from the Journal of Discourses—can through a lack of context, special pleading, distortion, or rhetoric, appear to mean something quite different. And, such a quote can be used to great a larger narrative which is inherently inaccurate and deceptive. The context and rhetorical environment in which a truth is placed will have an influence—as in the case of the two religion teachers—over how a given truth is interpreted, perceived, or used. A truth can be made into a falsehood.

This is, one suspects, what Elder Packer was alluding to when he compared some historians to idolaters (assuming—and it is a large assumption—that he has been properly quoted). One can rather disingenuously and self-righteously defend the spreading of local, proximate "truths" (e.g., like accurately quoting an early Mormon document) in a context which is deceptive, unfair, unbalanced, or purposefully destructive of faith with a simple shrug, "I'm only telling the truth." Facts and documents, however, do not interpret or position themselves—they are interpreted and positioned by authors, and true facts may be positioned falsely. Ironically, Quinn's work contains many examples of exactly this problem:

One can make "the truth" an idol if one praises the invocation of local truths while ignoring the wider use to which one is putting such truths. It matters less if all the quotes from LDS leaders cited in One Nation Under Gods are accurately transcribed than if the resulting story and atmosphere is accurate, balanced, and fair.

Elder Packer's biography notes this:

When using materials that detract from a leader, a historian making a case for realism or showing that the leader is a man with whom his readers can more easily relate will often cite examples from the Old Testament. Elder Packer has one response to this: he would not have written those accounts; rather, he would have focused upon the leader's inspiring works.[6]

We note that this does not say that Elder Packer would not mention faults, foibles, or failures. But he objects to "accounts" that focus on such things, to the point of obscuring the inspiring works accomplished by those with such faults. A lens can only focus on one thing; all else is blurred. Like the two CES instructors, two accounts might mention the same events, positive and negative, but the focus given to faith on one hand and doubt and criticism on the other makes all the difference.

Othello and Iago

Elder Packer elsewhere describes the same tactic in different terms, in a section entitled "Deceit by a Gesture, an Inflection":

I can best make the point by referring to Shakespeare's Othello....

Iago wanted most in life to be general. Motivated by malignant jealousy, he set out to destroy Othello, never openly, always careful and clever. In the play he does not tell an open, bald-faced lie. He works by innuendo and suggestion.

"Where is Desdemona tonight?" he might ask.

"Oh, she has gone to Relief Society," Othello might answer.

"Oh, has she?" Iago might question.

It is not the words. On paper they are a harmless inquiry, but the inflection makes them contagious with suspicion.

On one occasion Cassio comes to Othello's home with a message. After a conversation with Desdemona, he leaves to attend to other matters. As he is leaving the home, Othello and Iago approach.

Iago perverts an innocent situation with his comment, "I cannot think it that he would steal away so guilty-like, seeing you coming."

And so it unfolds. Nothing to incriminate Iago, so innocent is he. Just a sly reference, a gesture, an inflection, the emphasis on the word or the sentence....

Students may well meet an Iago one day as they move through life. Through innuendo and sly remarks, through an inflection or a question, in mock innocence, he might persuade them to kill their faith, to throttle their patriotism, to tamper with drugs, to kill their agency, to abandon morality and chastity and virtue. If they do so, they have an awakening as terribly tragic as that of Othello (italics in original, bold emphasis added).[7]

Part II: The mantle and the intellect


This section considers broader issues related to Elder Packer's position; it goes beyond the claims made by ONUG.

Much of what apparently stimulated Quinn's animus[8] against Elder Packer was the latter's address to religious educators, "The Mantle is Far, Far Greater Than the Intellect."[9]

Consider the audience

The first caricature of Elder Packer's remarks that one often hears (not least in Quinn) is the claim that:

Elder Packer demands that Mormon historians demonstrate and affirm that "the hand of the Lord [has been] in every hour and every moment of the Church from its beginning till now."[10]

Quinn misrepresents Elder Packer, however, since he fails to acknowledge (or realize) that Elder Packer was not speaking to "Mormon historians"—he was, rather, speaking to members of CES, the Church Educational System:

You seminary teachers and some of you institute and BYU men will be teaching the history of the Church this school year. This is an unparalleled opportunity in the lives of your students to increase their faith and testimony of the divinity of this work. Your objective should be that they will see the hand of the Lord in every hour and every moment of the Church from its beginning till now.

CES consists of Church employees who have been hired by the Church to teach its doctrine and promote faith in its young people. Surely it is well within the Church's purview to insist that the elements of Church history taught in its religion classes will be supportive of, and not destructive of, faith? Surely the Church's study of history is not an academic exercise, but with a spiritual goal?

Risks and warning

Elder Packer's worries about the actions of some historians were made clear in a letter to the First Presidency:

On several occasions I have expressed in our council meetings my concern for some projects being undertaken by the Church Historian's Office and some of those who have been engaged to work on the projects. May I state with emphasis, as I have in our meetings, that my concern does not deny in any way that these brethren are active members of the Church.… I think our brethren in the Historical Department are wonderful men. It is the principle that concerns me.
It is a matter of orientation toward scholarly work–historians' work in particular–that sponsors my concern. I have come to believe that it is the tendency for most members of the Church who spend a great deal of time in academic research to begin to judge the Church, its doctrine, organization, and history, by the principles of their own profession. Ofttimes this is done unwittingly, and some of it perhaps is wholesome. However, it is an easy thing for a man with extensive academic training to consider the Church with the principles he has been taught in his professional training as his measuring standard.
In my mind it ought to be the other way around. A member of the Church ought always, particularly if he is pursuing extended academic studies, to judge the professions of men against the revealed word of the Lord.
I do feel, however, and feel very deeply, that some tempering of the purely historical approach needs to be effected. Otherwise these publications will be of interest to other historians and perhaps serve them well, but at once may have a negative effect upon many. Particularly can they affect our youngsters, who will not view the publications with the same academic detachment that a trained historian is taught to develop.[11]

A "purely historical" approach will not do for the seminaries and institutes of the Church. That this would concern Elder Packer is unsurprising, since his early work with CES required that he confront a number of teachers who had become wholly secularized, leading to substantial problems for teachers and students.[12]

It is not merely Elder Packer who might conclude that Quinn does not understand the problems at issue. For example, David Bohn noted:

It is troubling, indeed, that Quinn does not seem to grasp in even the most elementary way what the discussion is about. It has nothing to do with saving the Church from embarrassment or sanitizing its past. It has to do rather with deep and complex issues that Quinn has never confronted. It explores the way historians use language to constitute the past and the limit of the claims that can be made for their accounts. Above all it opposes revisionism which for us is the recasting of the Restoration in language that explains the sacred in naturalistic terms, making genuine belief impossible. Revisionism is not simply "getting the details straight," or "the facts right." Actually, every generation of Mormons will necessarily "represent" their common past differently than those who went before. They will struggle with different issues and different questions; they will in some measure write a different script. But it will, nevertheless, work within the shared conviction that the Church was restored by God's power....
It is...the present generation of professional historians who advance such air-tight distinctions, believing as they do that scientific rationalism-and in particular that variant found in the social sciences-has given us a mode of discourse-a new meta-language-that can assure neutral and objective historical accounts. It is revisionist historians and their friends who have scoffed at treatments of our past worked out in believing language. It is they who label it "bolstering, uncritical, and pollyannaish." It is they who have found Hugh Nibley and others "outrageous" because these writers did not shrink from framing the Mormon past in faithful terms (italics added).[13]

That Elder Packer spoke his critique in more spiritual terms, while Bohn frames his in the language of academia in no way diminishes their relevance. Elder Packer's remarks appear, in retrospect, prescient, even prophetic, in the case of Quinn. Warned Elder Packer:

If we are not careful, very careful, and if we are not wise, very wise, we first leave out of our professional study the things of the Spirit. The next step soon follows: we leave the spiritual things out of our lives.[14]

Quinn's ultimate decision to indulge in homosexual behavior, and then squander his considerable talents on a tendentious work like Same Sex Dynamics is both tragic, and telling.

First caution

Elder Packer observed:

There is no such thing as an accurate, objective history of the Church without consideration of the spiritual powers that attend this work.[15]

A historian who rejects the existence of spiritual things a priori might disagree with this. Even a secularist, however, ought to admit that an objective history of the Church that does not acknowledge and treat seriously the idea that the early members sincerely believed in such spiritual things would be incomplete.

Again, though, we must remember the audience—Elder Packer is addressing CES personnel, and Church employees who presumably believe in things of the Spirit should not exclude them simply because they want to be considered "objective" by some academics.

Second caution

Elder Packer then made some remarks that have been particularly vulnerable to distortion, and opportunity for considerable derision:

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.[16]

This has been portrayed as an invitation to hide the truth or unsavory facts. Here Elder Packer does address himself to historians, saying:

Historians seem to take great pride in publishing something new, particularly if it illustrates a weakness or mistake of a prominent historical figure. For some reason, historians and novelists seem to savor such things. If it related to a living person, it would come under the heading of gossip. History can be as misleading as gossip and much more difficult—often impossible—to verify.[17]

Elder Packer is not objecting to such things because they are true—but, because one may (as discussed earlier) use a "true" statement (e.g., some person said X about Joseph Smith) in such a way or context as to give a misleading or even false impression. Note that he emphasizes that such things can be "impossible...to verify"—thus, the full, more global truth cannot be established. But, one can use one truth to give a false impression about the larger (and more important) "global truth."

This interpretation is made clear by Elder Packer's discussion of a historian who, he felt, had committed this error:

Some time ago a historian gave a lecture to an audience of college students on one of the past Presidents of the Church. It seemed to be his purpose

to show that that President was a man subject to the foibles of men. He introduced many so-called facts that put that President in a very unfavorable light, particularly when they were taken out of the context of the historical period in which he lived.

Someone who has not theretofore acquainted with this historical figure (particularly someone not mature) must have come away very negatively affected. Those who were unsteady in their convictions surely must have had their faith weakened or destroyed.[18]

In this case, the historian may well have used true statements ("so-called facts"), but he focused upon them. He chose to include some material and exclude other material. And, most importantly, he did not adequately prepare his audience, since he did not ground them in a proper understanding of "the context of the historical period in which he lived." Thus, true statements can be made to serve the cause of distortion and misrepresentation. Thus, Elder Packer's criticism is grounded not in a desire to "suppress" the truth, but an insistence that proximal truth telling not distort the broader, over-arching truths of Church history.

It is not without some irony that we note that one of Quinn's works was described by one reviewer as having "a total lack of any pro-Mormon bias. . . . Quinn is clearly no LDS apologist. There is not a single page of the main text that would appear to be motivated by loyalty to the LDS church or its doctrines or to be apologetic of the Church's interests."[19] Quinn could have mentioned the same ideas and material in a more supportive context, but chose not to. (His reviewers, for example, have seen the same data and come to quite different conclusions.)

Elder Packer's claim that "some facts are not very useful," has come in for particular ridicule. However, this statement is virtually self-evident. Facts about the price of rice during Ming Dynasty China surely is not very useful for teaching Church history. Unsubstantiated gossip by Joseph Smith's neighbors may likewise be of little use in discussing the foundational events of the restoration, though it may illustrate attitudes toward the Smith family.[20] For any truth to be useful for teaching any subject, it must be verifiable, and one must have the time, ability, and audience preparation to allow adequate contextualization. Since all class time is limited, any subject will have true matters related to it which simply cannot—or should not—be mentioned to avoid either leaving a misleading impression that cannot be dispelled without further work or ignoring material of equal truth and greater importance.

For example, should an introductory physics class digress into adjusting for friction in all its calculations? Friction is certainly "true," and it is important. Indeed, one cannot do real-world physics without it. But, other vital concepts might be short-changed, ignored, or made confusing beyond recognition if friction is introduced every time it applies.[21]

Elder Packer also points out that one leader told him "how grateful he is that a testimony that the past leaders of the Church were prophets of God was firmly fixed in his mind before he was exposed to some of the so-called facts that historians have put in their published writings."[22] And, given that the goal and mission of CES is to develop testimonies, is it any wonder that Elder Packer wants his audience to focus first on helping students gain that testimony?

Elder Packer makes this point explicit:

That historian or scholar who delights in pointing out the weaknesses and frailties of present or past leaders destroys faith. A destroyer of faith—particularly one within the Church, and more particularly one who is employed specifically to build faith—places himself in great spiritual jeopardy.[23]

Again, we note the emphasis that his audience consists of those "employed specifically to build faith." And, Elder Packer's opprobrium is directed at those "who delight...in pointing out the weakness or frailties of present or past leaders." These then, are not motivated solely by a desire to "tell the truth," but to use the truth to focus on only one facet of it: weakness, failure, or frailties. This is a bias and distortion—though usually an unadmitted one—as much as an apologetic or unreservedly-celebratory history is.

Third caution

In an effort to be objective, impartial, and scholarly, a writer or a teacher may unwittingly be giving equal time to the adversary....Some of our scholars establish for themselves a posture of neutrality. They call it “sympathetic detachment.” Historians are particularly wont to do that. If they make a complimentary statement about the Church, they seem to have to counter it with something that is uncomplimentary. Some of them, since they are members of the Church, are quite embarrassed with the thought that they might be accused of being partial.[24]

Elder Packer recognizes what some historians ignore, but which everyone from scientist to historian should have recognized long ago: there is no such thing as a truly "neutral" or "unbiased" history. Some bias will always be present.[25] Yet, this pretended "objectivity" can, in fact, lead to even greater distortion. As in Elder Packer's example, one may feel inclined to balance every positive statement with a negative statement—yet, the negative evidence may not be as compelling as the positive. Or, negative statements may require greater contextualization to be understood. This issues simply must be grappled with, but Elder Packer is routinely caricaturized and attacked for suggesting their consideration.

Elder Packer observed further that:

President Joseph Fielding Smith pointed out that it would be a foolish general who would give access to all of his intelligence to his enemy. It is neither expected nor necessary for us to accommodate those who seek to retrieve references from our sources, distort them, and use them against us.[26]

Again, Elder Packer points out that is concern is not with the facts or the documents, but the distortion of them, especially by those with a hostile agenda. It is difficult to argue that the Church has not repeatedly been the victim of such tactics—as many of Quinn's works demonstrate. Many of Quinn's works remain perennial favorites for anti-Mormon writers: as One Nation Under Gods' repeated reference and cribbing demonstrates.[27]

Fourth caution

Elder Packer concludes:

The final caution concerns the idea that so long as something is already in print, so long as it is available from another source, there is nothing out of order in using it in writing or speaking or teaching. Surely you can see the fallacy in that.

The fallacy is obvious, but many have not grasped it, so we will here make it explicit. Elder Packer's concern is the use of facts, documents, or "truth" to distort other, perhaps greater, truth. It does not matter whether one is the first, second, or hundredth person to use a particular fact or statement—each use can potentially distort if one does not prepare the appropriate context, narrative, and audience. A fallacious or distorted use of the truth is no excuse just because it has been done before.

Elder Packer endorses President Benson, who said:

You must realize that when you purchase their writings or subscribe to their periodicals, you help sustain their cause. We would hope that their writings not be on your seminary or institute or personal bookshelves. We are entrusting you to represent the Lord and the First Presidency to your students, not the views of the detractors of the Church.[28]

We note again that Pres. Benson was here addressing CES teachers: he emphasizes that the reason for their employment is "to represent the Lord and the First Presidency," and "not the views of the detractors of the Church." As the employer of CES, surely the Church can tell them what it wishes to be taught, and how to do it?

Mercy

Elder Packer's hopeful and merciful conclusion is often ignored by critics of this address, and so we include it here:

Now, what about that historian who defamed the early President of the Church and may well have weakened or destroyed faith in the process? What about other members of the Church who have in their writings or in their teaching been guilty of something similar?
I want to say something that may surprise you. I know of a man who did something quite as destructive as that who later became the prophet of the Church. I refer to Alma the Younger. I learned about him from reading the Book of Mormon, which in reality is a very reliable history of the

Church in ancient times.

You are acquainted with the record of Alma as a young man. He followed his father, the prophet Alma, about, and ridiculed what his father preached. He was, in that period of his life, a destroyer of faith. Then came a turning point. Because his father had prayed for it, he came to himself. He changed. He became one of the great men in religious history.[29]

Conclusion

Is all this intended as a defense of Elder Packer? Hardly—Elder Packer neither needs nor requires personal defense:

As I begin a new relationship with anyone—students, missionaries, or those with whom I associate or whom I supervise—it is on the basis of confidence and trust. I have been much happier since. Of course, there have been times when I have been disappointed, and a few times when I have been badly used. I do not care about that. Who am I not to be so misused or abused? Why should I be above that? If that is the price of extending trust to everyone, I am glad to pay it.[30]

One suspects that Quinn's report of Elder Packer's alleged remarks may represent something of a breach of trust. But, the key point for our purposes is not the breach (if any) of Elder Packer's trust. It is, rather, the breach of the trust of Quinn's and One Nation Under Gods' audience, who are not provided with all the facts and all the context. Thus it is that a truth can serve a lie.

Endnotes

  1. [note]  The essay from which the footnote comes is derived from Quinn's Fall 1981 lecture to the BYU Student History Association. The first publication was, unsurprisingly, by the Tanner's anti-Mormon press (without Quinn's permission: see p. 89 of his account): "On Being A Mormon Historian," Salt Lake City: Modern Microfilm Co., 1982. The source here cited was from the reprinted version (with some additions) in D. Michael Quinn, "On Being a Mormon Historian (and Its Aftermath)," in Faithful History: Essays on Writing Mormon History, edited by George D. Smith, (Salt Lake City, Utah: Signature Books, 1992), 76 n. 22.
  2. [note]  For examples, see Duane Boyce, "A Betrayal of Trust (Review of: The Mormon Hierarchy: Extensions of Power, by D. Michael Quinn)," FARMS Review of Books 9/2 (1997): 147–163. off-site
  3. [note]  Examples include:
    1. Quinn, "On Being A Mormon Historian," 71-72, 78;
    2. William J. Hamblin, "That Old Black Magic (Review of Early Mormonism and the Magic World View, revised and enlarged edition, by D. Michael Quinn)," FARMS Review of Books 12/2 (2000): 225–394. [{{{url}}} off-site] pp. 6-7, 10-19, 46-49, 104-109, 114, 132-134, 145-146, 151-153, 156-157 and notes 20, 21, and 325;
    3. Rhett S. James, "Writing History Must Not Be an Act of Magic (Review of Early Mormonism and the Magic World View, revised and enlarged edition, by D. Michael Quinn)," FARMS Review of Books 12/2 (2000): 395–414. [{{{url}}} off-site] pp. 10-17.
    4. John Gee, "Review of Early Mormonism and the Magic World View, revised and enlarged edition, by D. Michael Quinn," FARMS Review of Books 12/2 (2000): 185–224. [{{{url}}} off-site]pp. 6-10, and notes 24, 33, 36.
  4. [note]  See pages 147-148, 150-151 of Duane Boyce, "A Betrayal of Trust (Review of: The Mormon Hierarchy: Extensions of Power, by D. Michael Quinn)," FARMS Review of Books 9/2 (1997): 147–163. off-site
  5. [note]  Boyd K. Packer, Teach Ye Diligently (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1975), 200–201.
  6. [note]  Lucile C. Tate, Boyd K. Packer: A Watchman on the Tower (Salt Lake City, Utah: Bookcraft, 1995), 243–244, citing Boyd K. Packer, Letter to the First Presidency, 24 October 1974, 246.
  7. [note]  Teach Ye Diligently, 222-224.
  8. [note]  See Quinn, "On Being A Mormon Historian," 71, 75-76, 78, 82-85, 88, 90, 92; see also Richard D. Poll, "Seeking the Past: Noble Quest or Fool's Errand," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 25 no. 4 (Winter 1992), 207.
  9. [note]  Boyd K. Packer, "The Mantle is Far, Far Greater Than the Intellect," Address to the Fifth Annual CES Religious Educators' Symposium, 1981; see also Let Not Your Heart Be Troubled (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1991), 101-122; see also Boyd K. Packer, "'The Mantle is Far, Far Greater than the Intellect.'," Brigham Young University Studies 21 no. 3 (Summer 1981), 259–278. PDF link Later references to this address refer to BYU Studies, since the PDF is available on-line.
  10. [note]  Quinn, "On Being," 80.
  11. [note]  Boyd K. Packer, Letter to the First Presidency, 24 October 1974; cited in Lucile C. Tate, Boyd K. Packer: A Watchman on the Tower (Salt Lake City, Utah: Bookcraft, 1995), 243–245.
  12. [note]  See That All May Be Edified (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1982), 45-46, 206; see also Teach Ye Diligently 208-218; see also his frequent reference to J. Rueben Clark's "The Charted Course in Church Education," cited on pp. 361-378, which was given during a period of similar difficulties in the CES.
  13. [note]  David Bohn, "The Larger Issue," Sunstone 16 no. (Issue #8/45) (February 1994), note 22. off-site
  14. [note]  Packer, "Mantle," 3 (in all cases, emphasis has been added to this address; all italics are in the original).
  15. [note]  Packer, "Mantle," 3.
  16. [note]  Packer, "Mantle," 5.
  17. [note]  Packer, "Mantle," 5.
  18. [note]  Packer, "Mantle," 5.
  19. [note]  Stephen E. Robinson, "review of Early Mormonism and the Magic World View, by D. Michael Quinn," Brigham Young University Studies 27 no. 4 (1987), 88. (needs URL / links)
  20. [note]  See, for example, a demonstration of the falsehoods on objective grounds of the Smiths' purported laziness in Donald L. Enders, "The Joseph Smith, Sr., Family: Farmers of the Genesee," in Joseph Smith: The Prophet, the Man, ed. Susan Easton Black and Charles D. Tate Jr. (Provo, Utah: BYU Religious Studies Center, 1993), 213—25. For more detail see Wiki: Lazy Smiths?.
  21. [note]  Elder Packer uses a similar type of analogy in his discussion of prerequisites, Packer, "Mantle," 5-6.
  22. [note]  Packer, "Mantle," 6.
  23. [note]  Packer, "Mantle," 7.
  24. [note]  Packer, "Mantle," 8.
  25. [note]  Peter Novick, That Noble Dream : The "Objectivity Question" And the American Historical Profession, Ideas in Context. Cambridge [England]: Cambridge University Press, 1988.
  26. [note]  Packer, "Mantle," 9.
  27. [note]  (See Chapter 2, Chapter 3, Chapter 5, Chapter 6, Chapter 7, Chapter 8, Chapter 10, Chapter 13, Chapter 14, Chapter 15, One_Nation_Under_Gods/Index/Chapter_18|Chapter 18]], Postscript.
  28. [31] Ezra Taft Benson, The Gospel Teacher and His Message, Address delivered to Church Educational System personnel, 17 September 1976, 12; cited in Packer, "Mantle," 11.
  29. [32] Packer, "Mantle," 13.
  30. [note]  Packer, Teach Ye Diligently, 95.

Further reading

Template code Inserts this reference Click to edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: 8: The Mormon Proposition}} To learn more box:responses to: 8: The Mormon Proposition edit
{{To learn more box:''Under the Banner of Heaven''}} To learn more about responses to: Under the Banner of Heaven edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: Robert Price}} To learn more about responses to: Robert Price edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: Ankerberg and Weldon}} To learn more about responses to: Ankerberg and Weldon edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: Ashamed of Joseph}} To learn more about responses to: Ashamed of Joseph edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: Beckwith and Moser}} To learn more about responses to: Beckwith and Moser edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: Beckwith and Parrish}} To learn more about responses to: Beckwith and Parrish edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: Benjamin Park}} To learn more about responses to: Benjamin Park edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: Bible versus Joseph Smith}} To learn more about responses to: Bible versus Joseph Smith edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: Bible versus Book of Mormon}} To learn more about responses to: Bible versus Book of Mormon edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: ''Big Love''}} To learn more about responses to: Big Love edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: Brett Metcalfe}} To learn more about responses to: Brett Metcalfe edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: Bill Maher}} To learn more about responses to: Bill Maher edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: Bruce H. Porter}} To learn more about responses to: Bruce H. Porter edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: Carol Wang Shutter}} To learn more about responses to: Carol Wang Shutter edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: CES Letter}} To learn more about responses to: CES Letter edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: Charles Larson}} To learn more about responses to: Charles Larson edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: Christopher Nemelka}} To learn more about responses to: Christopher Nemelka edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: Colby Townshed}} To learn more about responses to: Colby Townshed edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: Contender Ministries}} To learn more about responses to: Contender Ministries edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: Crane and Crane}} To learn more about responses to: Crane and Crane edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: D. Michael Quinn}} To learn more about responses to: D. Michael Quinn edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: Dan Vogel}} To learn more about responses to: Dan Vogel edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: David John Buerger}} To learn more about responses to: David John Buerger edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: David Persuitte}} To learn more about responses to: David Persuitte edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: Denver Snuffer}} To learn more about responses to: Denver Snuffer edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: Dick Bauer}} To learn more about responses to: Dick Bauer edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: Duwayne R Anderson}} To learn more about responses to: Duwayne R Anderson edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: Earl Wunderli}} To learn more about responses to: Earl Wunderli edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: Ed Decker}} To learn more about responses to: Ed Decker edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: Erikson and Giesler}} To learn more about responses to: Erikson and Giesler edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: Ernest Taves}} To learn more about responses to: Ernest Taves edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: Fawn Brodie}} To learn more about responses to: Fawn Brodie edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: George D Smith}} To learn more about responses to: George D Smith edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: Grant Palmer}} To learn more about responses to: Grant Palmer edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: Hank Hanegraaff}} To learn more about responses to: Hank Hanegraaff edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: Hurlbut-Howe}} To learn more about responses to: Hurlbut-Howe edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: James Brooke}} To learn more about responses to: James Brooke edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: James Spencer}} To learn more about responses to: James Spencer edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: James White}} To learn more about responses to: James White edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: Jerald and Sandra Tanner}} To learn more about responses to: Jerald and Sandra Tanner edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: Jesus Christ-Joseph Smith or Search for the Truth DVD}} To learn more about responses to: Jesus Christ-Joseph Smith or Search for the Truth DVD edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: John Dehlin}} To learn more about responses to: John Dehlin edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: Jonathan Neville}} To learn more about responses to: Jonathan Neville edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: Kurt Van Gorden}} To learn more about responses to: Kurt Van Gorden edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: Laura King Newell and Valeen Tippetts Avery}} To learn more about responses to: Laura King Newell and Valeen Tippetts Avery edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: Loftes Tryk aka Lofte Payne}} To learn more about responses to: Loftes Tryk aka Lofte Payne edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: Luke WIlson}} To learn more about responses to: Luke WIlson edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: Marquardt and Walters}} To learn more about responses to: Marquardt and Walters edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: Martha Beck}} To learn more about responses to: Martha Beck edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: Mcgregor Ministries}} To learn more about responses to: Mcgregor Ministries edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: McKeever and Johnson}} To learn more about responses to: McKeever and Johnson edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: New Approaches}} To learn more about responses to: New Approaches to the Book of Mormon edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: Richard Abanes}} To learn more about responses to: Richard Abanes edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: Richard Van Wagoner}} To learn more about responses to: Richard Van Wagoner edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: Richard and Joan Ostling}} To learn more about responses to: Richard and Joan Ostling edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: Rick Grunger}} To learn more about responses to: Rick Grunger edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: Robert Ritner}} To learn more about responses to: Robert Ritner edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: Rod Meldrum}} To learn more about responses to: Rod Meldrum edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: Roger I Anderson}} To learn more about responses to: Roger I Anderson edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: Ronald V. Huggins}} To learn more about responses to: Ronald V. Huggins edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: Sally Denton}} To learn more about responses to: Sally Denton edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: Simon Southerton}} To learn more about responses to: Simon Southerton edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: Thomas Murphy}} To learn more about responses to: Thomas Murphy edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: Todd Compton}} To learn more about responses to: Todd Compton edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: Vernal Holley}} To learn more about responses to: Vernal Holley edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: Walter Martin}} To learn more about responses to: Walter Martin edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: Wesley Walters}} To learn more about responses to: Wesley Walters edit
{{To learn more box:responses to: Will Bagley}} To learn more about responses to: Will Bagley edit
Retrieved from "https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/index.php?title=Criticism_of_Mormonism/Books/One_Nation_Under_Gods/Use_of_sources/Boyd_K._Packer_on_the_truth&oldid=37523"