July 16th, 2006

“Wisdom”

In recent weeks I have come across several articles, blog posts, and websites that seek to tear down the faith of another. I don’t understand this at all. I don’t see what benefit there is. Masked under the guise of trying to “enlighten” or “teach” the person about their errant ways, the person’s (errant and false) words only do harm and cause confusion.

These so-called intellects seek to bring to light any nit-picky little thing that might prove, disprove, debunk, or support their issue. Often times, quotes and “facts” are misrepresented, taken out of context, twisted and contorted to support the proposed view.

An excellent talk discussing this issue was given by Elder Boyd K. Packer some years ago, and is titled “The Mantle is Far, Far Greater Than the Intellect“.

Lastly, I think the best way to sum up my feelings on the matter is found in 2 Nephi 9:28-29:

O that cunning plan of the evil one! O the vainness, and the frailties, and the foolishness of men! When they are learned they think they are wise, and they hearken not unto the counsel of God, for they set it aside, supposing they know of themselves, wherefore, their wisdom is foolishness and it profiteth them not. And they shall perish.
But to be learned is good if they hearken unto the counsels of God.

Well said. Very well said. Oh, so true.

7 Responses to ““Wisdom””

  1. the narrator
    July 17, 2006 at 12:23 am #

    I just posted this link on a comment on my blog earlier today. I, however, disagree very much with Packer’s take on doing history (as did Howard W. Hunter, Spencer W. Kimball, and N. Eldon Tanner who all fought against Packer Ezra Taft Benson).

    Hunter and Kimball opened the Church archives for real history to be done. However Packer and Benson constantly fought the work being produced (which Kimball, Hunter, and others constantly had to step in to protect). Two prime examples are Brigham Young’s Letters to his Sons which Packer and Benson tried to ban because of Brigham Young mentioning his former tobacco use, and President Kimball’s own biography which he commissioned his son and grandson to write. Kimball himself highly approved of the finished book, but Packer and Benson still stepped in to try to ban it from getting printed, because they did not like the Prophet being portrayed as being part human.

    There has been a bit of related discussion going on my blog. While the post was supposed to be about how long the church will be able to maintain an inaccurate portrayal of it’s history, I was planning on writing a new post today on whether the church should maintain an inaccurate portrayal of it’s history. Because some other things got in the way, I’ll be posting it tomorrow. I will use Packer’s Mantle talk and Quinn’s ‘On Being a Mormon Historian’ which is a response to Packer. I would really like your comments (why haven’t you commented on anything yet?).

  2. the narrator
    July 17, 2006 at 12:24 am #

    Another thing, I can’t help but feel that this post is a response to my post on Church history. Am I correct?

  3. Connor
    July 17, 2006 at 7:24 am #

    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.

  4. the narrator
    July 17, 2006 at 8:21 am #

    You should read Leonard J. Arrington’s Adventures of a Church Historian.

    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.

    The reason I linked to an Anti site was it was the first that came up when I googled it. Isn’t it a bit interesting that more Antis have this talk linked (unedited) than LDS sites?

  5. Connor
    July 17, 2006 at 10:47 am #

    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.

  6. the narrator
    July 17, 2006 at 9:56 pm #

    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.

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

    Anyways, I have begun a discussion on my blog on both Packer and Quinn’s talks. I’d like you input.

  7. Connor
    July 17, 2006 at 10:09 pm #

    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.

Leave a Reply

Leave your opinion here. Please be nice. Your Email address will be kept private.