Yes, you are correct that my post is partly in response to your post. However, there are many other articles, sites, posts, and factors involved in my posting this.

I came across Packer’s article via your post, and read it in its entirety. Upon search for it, I found its content linked and quoted on several anti-mormon sites, which was disconcerting. I did not read it until I found it linked from BYU’s site.

First, I agree that we should not attempt to cover anything up in our history. If Elder Packer has so tried to do, as you claim, then I think that is wrong.

History is quite a beast, because it is almost never accurate. We make quotes, citations, and references to people’s histories, journals, vague recollections, and recited stories, but I often wonder how accurate some of these things are.

History will never be completely true, unbiased, and factual. If you learn about WWII in an American school, chances are high that it will be vastly different from the history lesson you’d learn in a former enemy country’s history class. History is biased, as Packer points out. Even somebody telling their own personal history to pass down to posterity will be biased and one-sided, based on their feelings, thoughts, and experiences. We should not expect the history of the church to differ at all.

I’m sure that Packer’s attempt to limit exposure to certain items (if it so happened) was based in his feelings he mentioned in the talk, which I think are very much in harmony with the gospel. Some people seek to “expose” and “analyze” any little thing that might gain them notoriety and acclaim in the world’s eyes, but will only undermine and destroy the faith of many others in the process. It’s not that we need to hide these things, because we don’t. It’s as Packer points out - without the spirit involved, and without proper context and understanding (which secular history fails to provide) you cannot accurately portray a history.

As per your blog, I’ve yet to comment on it because I try to not participate in flame wars, where suggestions are made such as smearing poo on one’s face, being a “dick” for supposed ignorance, diplomas being worth nothing, and that Chili’s gift certificates have been used in dating another person’s mother. I’m all for an open, honest discussion where the spirit is involved, but your comments section on that post seems to have strayed from from it.

Isn’t it a bit interesting that more Antis have this talk linked (unedited) than LDS sites?

Not really. Antis will pick and choose as they see fit, to support their views and goals. When they find something they like and can use as a “weapon”, of course it will proliferate in usage among their kind. There are thousands upon thousands of talks by church leaders, on a wide variety of topics. There’s no reason for multiple sources to link to these articles, due to its lack of applicability to the common member of the church.

Just as I would readily cite a certain passage of scripture to support my view on a specific issue, an “anti” would not use that same scripture (or cite it, or link to it, or make any mention of it) if the person cannot use it to support their views. Therefore, I do not find it “interesting” at all that the talk isn’t widespread and heavily linked to by faithful members of the church.

Isn’t that my point? More Antis find this talk useful than believing mormons?

Perhaps it was your point, but you asked if it was interesting. I disagree, because it seems pretty obvious and rational that such would be the case, and therefore do not find it out of the ordinary.