The LDS Apostle Who Declared War on Historians

Added: 2026-05-30

[00:00:00]So, you want to know more about the dispute between a prominent LDS apostle and a popular BYU historian that resulted in the famous phrase, "Some things that are true are not very useful." A couple months ago, I did a series on the Mormon history debates of the 1970s and the 1980s. I recommend going to check out those videos if you haven't yet. But, there is one story that I wasn't able to fit in that I really wanted to. Uh it's one of my favorite stories that touches on a lot of these central issues and it frequently comes to mind. Uh it includes in one corner D. Michael Quinn, one of the most influential historians in modern Mormonism. And in the other corner was the Apostle Boyd K. Packer, known as one of the most dedicated guardians of LDS orthodoxy. It culminated in a public clash that was covered in the national media. Now, this episode reveals a lot about the stakes of Mormon history. What is the purpose of digging into the past? Is it to capture the messiness of history, the warts and all, or is it meant to reaffirm faith and fit into these faithful narratives that are often at the heart of LDS truth claims? This is an especially potent topic for the Mormon tradition as history typically stands in for theology. So, as part of my so you want to more know more about X series that I do many Fridays, we're going to dig into the primary documents behind these fights. One document that comes from Elder Boyd K. Packer and another document that comes from the historian D. Michael Quinn. Now, this story is important in itself, but it's also a case study of the broader issues of how Latter-day Saints wrestle with the past. This episode often comes to mind when people in my comments say that I'm being too negative. Critiques that I often want to just dismiss, but I recognize reflect the broader world view. That is not just some uh rejection of modern history, but it's a conflict of what we see the purpose of history to be. So, in this video, I'll lay the groundwork for the battle among historians and apostles that culminated in this 1981 clash. I'll detail Boyd K.

[00:02:23]Packer's critique of New Mormon history, including his influential address that still shapes LDS education today. I'll then survey D. Michael Quinn's response.

[00:02:33]And then I'll touch on some of the legacies. Sound good? Let's dig in. Now, I've already done quite a few videos on the new Mormon history movement of the 1970s and 1980s that I recommend going to check out. There's an entire series, a playlist on my YouTube channel, uh, if you're interested. But here's the cliffnotes version. Leonard Arrington was the first professional historian to be assigned as the church historian in 1972 which inaugurated what we call Arrington's Camelot better access to the archives more uh professional historical work and a confronting with traditional myths and D. Michael Quinn who was a graduate student at the University of Utah at the time worked with Davis Bittton who was an assistant church historian was hired to work in that church history department. He worked in the archives digging up these sources and analyzing them until he left for his PhD program at Yale. He deeply believed that Mormonism and its faith was strong enough to withstand historical criticism and he reflected this broader new Mormon history movement that was devoted to archival research uh uh emphasizing cultural influences and disrupting traditional myths. And among those most concerned with what they saw as the naturalistic streak of the new Mormon history was the Apostle Boyd K. Packer.

[00:03:56]Now Packer himself was to a degree an academic. He received a doctorate in education from BYU. He worked in church education and he served as president of the church's New England mission which put him in touch with a lot of the faith's intellectuals like Richard Bushman. And then he was called to the quorum of the 12 uh in 1970 at the age of 45. But he very quickly became known as the anti-intellectual apostle trying to uh tamp down on these influences in part because he recognized how powerful ideas were. Um, he was one of the critics of the 1976 story of the Latter-day Saints volume, something that I covered in an entire video where historians tried to provide a new general survey of the faith uh, directed to Latter-day Saints, but was deemed too naturalistic by apostles like Ezra Benson and Boyd K. Packer. He was also influenced by the broader cultural wars of the 1970s when many white evangelicals were similarly denouncing historians as being too secular and not playing up the notion of God's hand in history. A phrase that's going to be quite quite crucial. And it's during that time that D. Michael Quinn finishes his PhD at Yale and is hired at BYU. And as part of the hiring process, you have to have an interview with the church authority. And because history is often ironic, uh Boyd K. Packer was assigned to give D. Michael Quinn his interview.

[00:05:25]And Quinn wrote in his diary one of the things that Packer said that really frames this debate. This is what he says Packer told him in the interview. Quote, 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.

[00:05:48]Historians should tell only the part of the truth that is inspiring and uplifting. Now, in the words of the wise philosopher John Melany, we don't have time to unpack all of that, but I do think those notions of what should truth be used for and when should truth be ignored, it sets the clear stakes because the battlefield between these two figures is already quite clear and it's going to become quite pronounced later on. By the way, before I go much further, just a reminder that if you enjoy this kind of nerdy content where we dig into the past and show its relevance, make sure you are subscribed to this channel. I do deep dives on topics every Monday. I connect the past with the present every Wednesday. And then I pull back the curtains on the historians's craft every Friday either through these so you want to know more about X series interviews with authors or dissecting new books or digging into the sources so that you too can become a historical expert. And if you want to give back to this channel, and I'm so grateful for the many of you who have chosen to give back, you can become a member where for a nominal fee, you get early access to the videos. You get a little icon next to your name when you comment. And most importantly, you can feel satisfied that you're supporting public-f facing historical scholarship.

[00:07:05]I also recommend following my various social media platforms, especially Tik Tok and Instagram, where I do supplemental videos, and subscribing to my free kit newsletter. I usually send out newsletters every other week or so with links and updates and announcements. Uh, and also mark your calendars for Wednesday, June 3rd at 6:00 p.m. Mountain time. Note the time change from previous months where I will be sitting down with John Turner. We will both be in Las Vegas for the annual Mormon History Conference that's coming up just next week. And we will be discussing the stakes of Mormon history today. Many of you know John Turner from his award-winning biographies of Brigham Young and Joseph Smith. I currently serve as president of Mormon History Association and he is going to be the next president. So at this conference, we're going to be turning over this MHA presidential searstone. And so please come ask your questions about the politics of Mormon history. It should be a lot of fun. As a reminder, that'll be Wednesday, June 3rd at 6:00 p.m.

[00:08:07]Mountain time. Let's get back to the history. So Boyd K. Packer as an apostle was assigned to speak at the church's educational system symposium on August 22nd, 1981.

[00:08:19]This came after a decade of infighting between the apostles and the historians.

[00:08:24]And it's clear that Packer wanted to settle the debate once and for all. He titled his remarks, "The mantle is far far greater than the intellect." It's always that second far that gets me, that he's really trying to drive home the balance of power here. Now, while his address was directed at church educators, a setting which is important, it's clear his targets were much more broad, the historians, especially those employed in the church. Uh, now the link to his lecture is in the video description, but I'll dissect some key passages here alongside you. First, he critiqued historians for unnecessarily raising difficult issues. the same theme that he highlighted to Quinn during his BYU ecclesiastical address. Quote, "That historian or scholar who delights in pointing out the weakness 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. He is serving the wrong master and unless he repents, he will not be among the faithful in the eternities. The stakes are very clear and you'll note the similarities to what he said to Quinn in the ecclesiastical interview that seems to show that Quinn was quite accurate in writing down what he said that using truth in wrong settings to the wrong purpose can destroy faith. But Packer goes on in this address and emphasize that the gospel should be the standard against which scholarship is measured and not the other way around. Quote, "It is an easy thing for a man with extensive academic training to measure the church using the principles he has he has been taught in his professional training as his standard." In my mind, it ought to be the other way around. A member of the church ought always, particularly if he is pursuing extensive academic studies, to judge the professions of man against the revealed word of God. In other words, you should not take the tools of the academy to dissect the church, but you should be using the principles of the church to dissect the tools of the academy. And then he moves on to the purpose of history, why history should be written, and what your goal should be if you are producing historical works. quote, "As you take your students over the trails of church history in this dispensation, yours is the privilege to help them to see the miracle of the restoration, the mantle that belongs to his servants, and to quote, "see in every hour and in every moment the existence of the church, the overruling almighty hand of God."

[00:11:07]What's remarkable is that quote within the quote saying in every hour and in every moment the hand of God while he's quoting Joseph F. Smith there it's also the same phrase that was being used by white evangelicals at the same time for critiquing historians for overlooking the hand of God in say the founding of America. In other words, there was much broader cultural capital in that type of argument. And so the stakes of course is important at large but especially high in the church itself. And this is where Packer ties in the broader culture war or eternal battle that historians are participating in. Quote in the church we are not neutral. We are one-sided. There is a war going on and we are engaged in it. It is a war between good and evil and we are belligerent defending the good. We are therefore obliged to give preference to and protect all that is represented in the gospel of Jesus Christ and we have made covenants to do it. In other words, objectivity is possible. Your goal as a historian is not to be objective. Your goal as the historian is to defend the kingdom of God. And it's in that context that Packer then gives the famous quote that you've probably heard floating around in various internet discussions. quote, "Some things that are true are not very useful." I hope you now see the context in which he made that argument. It's easy to disparage the remark, and to be clear, I fundamentally disagree with it.

[00:12:42]But I think it's important to understand where it's coming from. It's based in the in the agenda of teaching milk before meat, where the priority is not an accurate or rigorous history, but the preservation and development of faith.

[00:12:56]He did confess that saints might eventually get to a point where they can dig into these sources, but not before they are prepared and not before they have that firm testimony. And again, preserving that testimony, he argues should be the purpose of history. Now, there's a lot more to the speech and you can go check it out in a link in the video description, but you get the idea of why this would be seen as an affront to academic historians like Quinn. So by 1981, Quinn had been teaching at BYU in the history department for four years.

[00:13:29]He was not the magisterial popular Quinn that he would later be known as. He in fact hadn't published a major book yet, but he was known for his influential articles as well as someone who was a dogged researcher trying to get at the past. And he was invited by the Fi Alpha Theta, the honor society based at BYU for or the honor, it's a national honor society, but the local chapter at BYU for historians to respond to Packer's remarks and talk about the goal of being a LDS historian. So he titled his remarks on being a Mormon historian. And it was not an attack on Packaron faith, but a defense of the balance of faith and history. Again, you can find this uh talk if you want to dig into the source in a link in the video description. He opens with his own background and it may surprise some people knowing pack knowing Quinn's later history that he spends much of this essay defending his own belief and even bearing his own testimony at one point saying that he reached a a a state in his uh PhD studies where he worried that what he was studying might destroy faith. And so he prayed and received inspiration, a revelation, personal uh calling that what he was doing was called of God.

[00:14:49]This is how he put it. Quote, "This faltering young historian obtained a spiritual witness that it was right to complete his dissertation despite the so-called controversies and sensitive areas of church history with which it dealt." And he then asked for the courage and strength to face the criticisms and consequences that might result from those who were hostile to the kinds of things he was researching and writing. He moved on even emphasizing that the LDS historian should be freed to balance both their faith and their historians craft that revelation might guide their research even into these unorthodox topics. He also emphasized that the historian should the Mormon historian should be able to recognize both revelation and cultural influences taking place at the same time that they are not in combat with one another. Quote, one can acknowledge the influence of environment and contemporary circumstances and still affirm the actuality of divine revelations like the word of wisdom that seem to relate directly to the contemporary environment. Remember I did a video just last week on the word of wisdom or I guess it was two weeks ago, sorry, on the word of wisdom that uh showed how it was the way they practice it was rooted in the broader environment. And here's Quinn saying that we can acknowledge that while still saying there's a divine element. In other words, they should not be seen as in competition. So in fact, Quinn's primary argument is that a Mormon historian has twin loyalties that should work together. a loyalty to the church and their faith and a loyalty to their profession and academia. And you have to follow the standards for the profession if you are going to work. This is how he summarizes it. Quote, "Therefore, the Mormon historian has both a religious and professional obligation not to conceal the ambivalence, debate, give and take, uncertainty, and simple pragmatism that often attend decisions of the prophet and first presidency, and not to conceal the limitations, errors, and negative consequences of some significant statements of the prophet and first presidency." In like manner, however, the Mormon historian would be equally false if he failed to report the inspiration, visions, revelations, and solemn testimonies that have also attended prophetic decisions and statements throughout Mormon history.

[00:17:10]So, you see his attachments to both loyalties, the faith and the profession.

[00:17:15]And he argued that the historian has to overcome these myths so that you can get to the actual truths. And the example he gives in his address is the myth of there were no postmanifesto polygamous ceilings. That was a topic that had first sparked his interest in history.

[00:17:32]And he was now turning his attention back to write about how the church wrestled with polygamy in the decades following Woodruff's 1890 manifesto. Now again, I recommend going to read the talk if you are interested. It's linked in the video description. It will likely surprise you how faithful Quinn presents himself. But of course, not everyone saw it that way. Now, when Quinn delivered that address, he didn't think much of it. There were only about 40 students in attendance. He considered publishing the essay in Sunstone, a magazine what that was pretty new at that time, but he didn't expect it to have a broad reach.

[00:18:10]But someone in attendance recorded it, transcribed it, and started spreading that talk around others. Very similar to the G. Homer Durham MHA presidential address on masonry that I talked about in a video back in March. And soon the address was published by 7th East Press, an underground newspaper published by BYU students. It was then picked up by local press and then eventually national press. Quinn's stake president was asked to call him in and Quinn agreed that I don't want to make much of a fuss. So he agreed not to publish it in Sunstone like he was thinking. But then it became national news when it was picked up by Newsweek. Here you see the story here.

[00:18:52]Take a moment and appreciate the handsome young D. Michael Quinn.

[00:18:56]Different than the later photographs of of course age. We need to remember he is a young man at this time. And because of the national press that came from this, Quinn was invited to go meet with Gordon B. Hinckley who was recently added the first presidency. And due to the health uh of th those above him in hierarchy, he was basically running the church. And Quinn notes that they ended up having a very pleasant conversation. Hinckley emphasized that we need to have faithful narratives. But Quinn countering that what about with what if one of the some of those narratives are false? And he used the example again of postmanifesto polygamy. And he says that that Hinckley was actually quite surprised to hear the actual details and said, "You know what?

[00:19:42]Maybe it would be good to have those details out." On the other hand, Packer never really forgave Quinn for those activities. And Packer would frequently speak about Quinn in public and private settings. And after Quinn finally published his massive article on postmanifesto polygamy and dialogue in 1985, uh, Packer directed Quinn's state president to revoke his Temple recommend, which would result in him being fired at BYU. That's a whole story. I did a whole video on that episode last year that I recommend going to check it out if you want. But the origins of that conflict were in these competing lectures four years earlier in 1981.

[00:20:26]This story is crucial for understanding not just the historical episode and the battles taking place around 1981 in Mormonism, but also the stakes of what history means in these divergent viewpoint. On the one hand, you have Packer's urgent push that history must be used to reaffirm faith that there is a war going on and we are not uh we are not both sidesing it. We have to be on the one side. It's a war between good and evil and the goal is to develop spirituality not become secular historians. and his address on this the mantle is far far greater than the intellect is still required reading for LDS educators showing how far that shadow is still cast into LDS tradition.

[00:21:11]On the other hand, you have Quinn arguing that true belief and true history must work together, that false histories like that of the LDS church not sanctioning plural marriages after 1890 destroy faith. and that the historian has these twin loyalties to both the LDS institution but also to their academic profession. He would later take his essay on being a Mormon historian and then provide that as it as he delivered in 1981 but then adding a koda of what happened later with him being forced into resignation from BYU and eventually excommunicated. It was later published in a compilation of essays um with the the new title of the essay on being a Mormon historian and its aftermath. We know a lot about that aftermath, but I hope you now understand the origins of that first part of the title and the essay. This was in other words not a fight between spiritual and secular, but competing views of how the spiritual should operate. Quinn and Packer would both emphasize that they are being faithful, but faithful to different ends. And this framework still structures so much of the LDS debates over history. And thankfully, while the church history department at Salt Lake City has come a long way in what they're allowed to do, you still get this uh coming from leaders, coming from fellow members. Just look at the comments in my YouTube videos and you'll see that argument still in full force that history can only be used to defend the church. Now, if you want to read more, I got two suggestions for you. One is D.

[00:22:45]Michael Quinn's own memoir, Chosen Path, published by Signature Books a few years ago. A very moving, if you know, troubling read, but it digs into the the full history of this. But if you want a secondary overview by a master historian, Sarah Patterson's book, The September 6th and the Struggle for the Soul of Mormonism is the best overview of these culture wars in the 1980s and 1990s. I hope you found this video useful. If so, hit the like button, share with others, subscribe uh if you want to hear more content, and become a member if you want to give back. History has never been more relevant than it is now. Because even if we're often addressing the same questions, looking at the answers to those questions can tell us a lot about how a community is growing and the stakes that are still in full force today.