Mormon Discussions
http://mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/

Mormon Historian Leonard Arrington’s Battle For The Truth
http://mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=49083
Page 2 of 2

Author:  moksha [ Fri May 18, 2018 4:46 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Mormon Historian Leonard Arrington’s Battle For The Trut

cinepro wrote:
Here's the quote:

Quote:
"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."

If it is the truth, then the problem would be actually saying that in public (or to those women). But he didn't. He expressed something that is true, but not nice, in private to make a point. What is wrong with that?

Because it is unbecoming to someone who claims to be an apostle of God. Pretty sure they are supposed to have love and charity in their hearts. If those secretaries or their families did not have to worry about Church employment, they would have told Elder Packer where to get off in no uncertain terms.

Besides, Elder Packer's opinion about the secretaries was no true justification for covering up Church history. The secretaries never billed themselves as the world's truest beauties.

Author:  canpakes [ Fri May 18, 2018 10:39 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Mormon Historian Leonard Arrington’s Battle For The Trut

cinepro wrote:
Quote:
"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."


Now, on what grounds could someone object to what he says?

You could argue that "most of the secretaries" in the COB at that time weren't actually ugly and fat, and therefore Packer was lying. I haven't heard anyone make that argument, so let me know if that's your argument.

If it is the truth, then the problem would be actually saying that in public (or to those women). But he didn't. He expressed something that is true, but not nice, in private to make a point. What is wrong with that?

His point was that the reason he doesn't say it is because he knows it is hurtful. He knows that the compassionate thing to do is not say it to them, or in public. And he doesn't. That is a good thing.

And furthermore, when people hear it and get upset when they hear that he said it, they're just proving his point about how some things shouldn't be said because they might upset some people.

The only way to prove him "wrong" would be to read what he says and rationally and calmly respond by acknowledging that it is probably the truth, and that your respect for the truth is greater than your desire to be "nice." Which is what Packer was arguing against. But no one has done that yet.

The rational response (and an awesome comeback for Quinn) would be to say "With all due respect, Elder Packer, if someone started a Church based on the claim that all the secretaries in the Church Office Building were pretty, then as a historian it would be my job to let people know if that it wasn't the case."

Cinepro, it seems as if you’ve mostly addressed a limited and specific example of a particular philosophy rather than the philosophy itself. Aside from the comment about the supposed weight and attractiveness of selected COB staff, what is your opinion on the overall attitude and truthfulness of the last sentence of Packer’s quote?

Author:  Stem [ Sat May 19, 2018 12:25 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Mormon Historian Leonard Arrington’s Battle For The Trut

[quote="cinepro”]

Even weirder, it's one of the few things Packer would have said that is verifiably 100% correct.

Here's the quote:

Quote:
"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."


Now, on what grounds could someone object to what he says?

You could argue that "most of the secretaries" in the COB at that time weren't actually ugly and fat, and therefore Packer was lying. I haven't heard anyone make that argument, so let me know if that's your argument.

If it is the truth, then the problem would be actually saying that in public (or to those women). But he didn't. He expressed something that is true, but not nice, in private to make a point. What is wrong with that?

His point was that the reason he doesn't say it is because he knows it is hurtful. He knows that the compassionate thing to do is not say it to them, or in public. And he doesn't. That is a good thing.

And furthermore, when people hear it and get upset when they hear that he said it, they're just proving his point about how some things shouldn't be said because they might upset some people.

The only way to prove him "wrong" would be to read what he says and rationally and calmly respond by acknowledging that it is probably the truth, and that your respect for the truth is greater than your desire to be "nice." Which is what Packer was arguing against. But no one has done that yet.

The rational response (and an awesome comeback for Quinn) would be to say "With all due respect, Elder Packer, if someone started a Church based on the claim that all the secretaries in the Church Office Building were pretty, then as a historian it would be my job to let people know if that it wasn't the case."[/quote]

I’m thinking he was trying to be funny, but that’s the problem. It’s also quite possible it wasn’t true at all. The problem? He’s being stupid enough as a self-described representative of God to speak as if women should be seen/defined by their looks (it’s not as if he was above that—think of he address when telling women to put makeup on and such). Or better yet it’s problematic because he’s equating events in history and whether we should be honest about them to whether we should be civil with each other. It’s a categorical error.

Author:  Physics Guy [ Sat May 19, 2018 1:08 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Mormon Historian Leonard Arrington’s Battle For The Trut

If Packer and Quinn had been talking about discoveries of historical trivia, there would have been no need to talk about truth versus usefulness. Packer was telling Quinn that there could be important facts that a Mormon historian might uncover but which nonetheless should not be published even though they were important.

If you're looking for an example to explain why a fact might not be publishable even though it's important, you're looking for a fact which is obviously important. The fact which sprang to Packer's mind as a fact whose importance would be obvious was the fact that all the women who worked in Packer's building were ugly.

It's that implication of how Packer's mind worked that makes this statement by Packer disturbing to me.

Author:  kairos [ Sat May 19, 2018 8:44 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Mormon Historian Leonard Arrington’s Battle For The Trut

I could say that all of the current 15 PSRs are arrogant as&#ol*s and it would be true but if I took out a fullpage ad in the SLT Kirton McConkie would sue me for defamation of character arguing each apostle is only
an arrogant As#%ole part of the time.
by the way how much is an ad like that in the SLT?

Page 2 of 2 All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/