It's actually more complicated. And 'non-faithful' actually means academic, bear in mind. I found that cite on the fairLDS.org website while researching what fairLDS (a faithful history site) had to say about faithful history. FARMS is published by the Neal A. Maxwell Institute, which is a faithful history institute, and part of BYU, which is required to teach faithful history as part of the LDS church. Smith's book of essays, once I went back and read the online version again, included both faithful and non-faithful essays, but was published by a publisher, Signature Books, of both non-faithful and quasi-faithful LDS historians.
So the cite to Gary F. Novak, "Review of Faithful History: Essays on Writing Mormon History by George D. Smith," FARMS Review of Books 5/1 (1993) from fairLDS.org was a faithful site's cite to a faithful review of a non-faithful(?) editor's collection of faithful and non-faithful essays about faithful history, published by a publisher of non-faithful and quasi-faithful history, as printed in a faithful journal published by a faithful instituted sponsored by a faithful university.
As I said, it's not doctrine, this 'faithful history' admonition by Boyd K. Packer, but when it leads to articles by non-faithful LDS historians and other academics titled "How to Read a Mormon Historian," "Objectivity and History," "On Being a Mormon Historian," "Thoughts on the Relation of Faith and Historical Knowledge," "Faithful History/Secular Religion," "An Address to the Crisis in Mormon Historiography," and so forth:
Yes, reading both 'faithful' and "non-faithful" LDS history and knowing the difference is important.
If Mitt Romney secures the nomination, certainly he'll face problems with those who take issue with liberal views he's espoused in the past. Others will take issue with specific teachings and quotes of the LDS church about the apostasy of *all* other churches. For some people, the of the issues facing Mitt Romney will be separate and distinct from anything theological. It's that the LDS church and vocal apologists (see, e.g., MormonVoices.org and fairLDS.org), through the lenses of 'faithful history' or otherwise, denies, distorts, and (in the case of apologists) blatantly lies about obvious historical facts. That makes good people - fine, upstanding Mormons whom I work with in Scouting or know in the community - look like liars, like they have 'everything' to hide.
It's time for the LDS church to admit some truths that aren't pretty. Brigham Young was a racist. Blacks and the priesthood wasn't Joseph Smith's idea (there were blacks in the priesthood in his day) - it was wrong the moment men in the church made it up. Polygamy was wrong, from the beginning, and the First Presidency lied in 1890 and continued to bless polygamy until caught with the Reed Smoot hearings. And Gordon B. Hinckley lied about when polygamy was practiced when questioned on the Larry King show ('when we went west'). If you believe in exaltation, and a Celestial Kingdom open only to Mormons who have earned it through works and following rules, just say it. If it involves becoming a god and populating your own planet (and goodness knows, that's been taught by prophets, and is part of a doctrinal exposition by the First Presidency, and is currently taught in Gospel Principles, in the Celestial Marriage guide, in the CES materials for children 4-11, seminary, and institutes), just say so. And so forth. Then move on.
Americans are open to religions that believe in reincarnation - but they're not open when somebody denies believing in something that we can read in the educational materials (which may explain why CES materials are being placed behind portals that require an authorized LDS password to view).
Let's celebrate LDS beliefs, not deny them.