I was recently at a church social function, sitting with a group of sisters who were making chit-chat, and one sister made a comment that took me off guard. She said, anticipating universal agreement from the group, that “some people (presumably none of us present) acted like the church has been deliberately hiding its history.” I nearly laughed out loud and said, “Well, they think that because the church clearly has hidden information over the years. There are lots of things that aren’t openly taught or talked about that are historical thorny issues.” Another sister who was a former seminary teacher pointed out that polygamy was glossed over in the teaching materials, but she taught it anyway so they wouldn’t be taken off guard when they found out Joseph Smith had dozens of wives. As it turned out, this sister was pretty much alone in her assertion that the church has always been super transparent about history. We all chimed in with counter examples.
We talked at length about how older generations often kept things secret–skeletons in family closets–that you can’t do in today’s internet age. Several of us shared family stories that older generations had deemed needed to be kept secret: children from adulterous affairs, prior marriages, abuse. Several talked about how surprised they were to discover things like relatives who went to the temple but also drank alcohol. Even the entire #metoo movement is a byproduct of things being hidden and silenced that people didn’t want to deal with. People knew; people just didn’t want to deal with it. It was easier to ignore it, to push it aside, to silence victims, to avoid unpleasant discussions and actions.
I was reading yesterday in Greg Prince’s Arrington biography about church history under the five decades of Joseph Fielding Smith’s leadership that preceded Leonard Arrington’s stint, and it’s exactly what I was saying in this conversation with these sisters: closed documents, lack of scholarship (assignments based on cronyism, not on actual research skills), labeling anything that attempted to be impartial as “anti,” preventing access to church materials except through personal connections, reviewing notes taken by researchers to prevent unflattering facts from coming to light.
When Fawn Brodie’s biography of Joseph Smith No Man Knows My History was published, a review in the Deseret News at the time called it a composite of all the anti-Mormon books that had come before, implying that if it had been researched in the church’s archives which she didn’t have access to use, it would have been a different book. Arrington disagreed on two counts: 1) that the restricted access was a bigger issue in the early 1950s, after Brodie’s book was published, because of an influx of BYU grad students trying to gain access and overwhelming the department, and 2) the book’s contents could have been written using materials in the church’s collection as her book was based in the same historical evidence in the Church’s collection (even if it was also extant in anti-Mormon literature). From the Arrington biography:
There is no question that the archival staff during those years was generally unfriendly to scholars. Though unstated, the real problem appeared to be that the staff, including Church Historian Joseph Fielding Smith, felt that the history that emerged from the archives should continue to be written the way it had been written for decades: uncritical and celebratory of the triumphs of an exceptional, God-favored people. Anything short of that–including scholarly history that attempted to be data-driven and unbiased–was viewed as aiding the enemy.
Arrington’s own book Great Basin Kingdom was just such an unbiased attempt, and it was in fact labelled as “anti-Mormon” by the Church History library as Arrington found out years later when he was named the Church Historian.
“Why would it have been classified as anti-Mormon?” I asked.
“Well,” one person replied, “it was a scholarly book, which meant it wasn’t designed to be faith-promoting; and if it wasn’t for the Church, then, by classification, it had to be against. Moreover, it didn’t go through a Church reading committee, which meant it wasn’t approved.”
Despite this classification, President Harold B. Lee had called the book a monument to LDS history, the finest thing on LDS history since B.H. Roberts’ Comprehensive History. Arrington’s philosophy in writing history was:
You work from documents and let the chips fall where they may. You’re not defending, you’re not promoting, you’re not attacking.
As a testament to how unbiased the book was, a BYU professor assigned his class to read it for the semester, and at the end, asked students whether the author was Mormon or not. The class was evenly divided on whether they thought the author was a member of the Church or not.
Under Joseph Fielding Smith, the focus was on amassing materials, not on studying them. The department was staffed with non-scholars and loyalists, including relatives of Smith, but not individuals with the kind of background to comb through the archives like a historian might.
Since the primary mission of the archives had been to collect material, rather than to study it, it was not surprising to Leonard that he “discovered many things which they did not know existed and which I did not call to their attention.”
Arrington’s book (Great Basin Kingdom) reviewed the economic history of Salt Lake City, including oversight by church leaders in all city planning, colonizing and financial matters. What he found in his research was that the missteps that occurred were almost always a byproduct of the decision to defer to church leaders who lacked experience or knowledge in an area of policy-making rather than consulting experts.
Brigham Young and his appointed lay leaders were outstanding colonizers, and there can be no doubt that they were dedicated to the Kingdom, but the more the specialists depended on them for leadership, the more the specialized industries were apt to suffer from inexpert direction.
Rather than learning from these mistakes that had resulted in repeated failures with sugar cultivation and iron ore mining, a pattern of doubling down and blaming the victim was established.
The church hierarchy responded to the failures–and to the consequent privations caused by them–by blaming the people rather than the flawed economic system that the leaders themselves had established: “the failure of the people to do what they had been commanded; namely, cease to patronize the [non-Mormon] merchants and establish home industries.”
Members were excommunicated for disagreeing with economic policy which was declared to be a matter of dogma. One might as well expect ‘to differ honestly with the Almighty!’ was a charge laid at the feet of William Godbe who was excommunicated in 1869 for attempting to persuade church leaders that developing trade and cooperating with non-Mormon interests was the way of the economic future for the state. Nevertheless, the choice to refuse to adapt to a changing economy led to an interesting outcome. By 1900, although the state was still overwhelmingly a Mormon majority, 90 percent of the state’s millionaires were non-Mormons whose hands weren’t tied by church direction.
This pattern is interesting in that it’s similar to the pattern of what happened in the Church History department at that time. Those in charge didn’t have expertise in history or research, but they restricted access to the materials they had amassed even while not comprehending what they had. If something unflattering comes out, circle the wagons and blame others, or blame the members for not having enough faith. These tactics might have worked for the man in the gray flannel suit, but they are long past their effective date in the internet age.
What was fascinating is that Arrington, who fought so hard to create an open environment in the Church History department, hid the fact that his wife Grace had been previously married. Their adult children accidentally discovered the fact while doing family research (their mother had a different last name on one of the records than her married and maiden names), they confronted their parents about this hidden history. Grace said she never could get “permission” to tell them about her abusive first husband, and Leonard simply didn’t respond to their questions, walking out of the room. For whatever reason, he didn’t want this information to be acknowledged. His son Carl who only found out about his mother’s first marriage when he turned 21 years old, was very surprised, but became more sanguine about it upon reflection:
“The secrets within the family were just so bizarre,” he mused. His immediate reaction was “Wow! You’re a historian, and this doesn’t come out?” His second, more reflective reaction was, “I think that was a part of Dad. He was a keeper of secrets. He was a keeper of the Church’s secrets, and he was a keeper of the family’s secrets.”
Maybe that’s why it’s called the Silent Generation. They’ve seen a lot, and they don’t care to talk about it, particularly avoiding emotionally charged topics.
Today’s generations do not understand this mindset. Personally, I don’t understand it. But I know it’s how older generations viewed (and view) things. You didn’t talk about things that were “disloyal” to the group or didn’t portray the in-group well, whether that was family, country or church. It’s behind the claim that sharing a “warts and all” history is unpatriotic somehow, that portraying Thomas Jefferson as someone who fathered children with his slave, or that Christopher Columbus committed genocide, or that George Washington owned 300 human beings are things we shouldn’t say because it’s disloyal.
Before I got married, I mentioned to my mom that I had tried on some wedding suits and that one of them made my butt look fat. My mom was alarmed that I said this in front of my fiance. I pointed out that it wasn’t like I was going to be in a position to hide it if my butt looked fat. The idea that we can hide things others can see plain as day doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to me. Playing CYA doesn’t work. Your butt is invariably more visible to others even than to yourself.
We are in an open era, the day of Wikileaks and the information superhighway. It’s not possible to hide these things anymore, nor do we value that type of secrecy. The secret things will be made known.
Luke 8:17 “For nothing is hidden that will not become evident, nor anything secret that will not be known and come to light.”Luke 12:2-3 “But there is nothing covered up that will not be revealed, and hidden that will not be known. Accordingly, whatever you have said in the dark will be heard in the light, and what you have whispered in the inner rooms will be proclaimed upon the housetops.
But it’s still our legacy, it’s been in charge of our information for a long time, and it’s hard to challenge deeply held assumptions and values of a prior generation.
That was an excellent example of framing the trend as a core part of normal social interaction rather than something unique.
And a good example of why we need to not accept our culture without examination.
Thanks for this post. As with many things like this, I wonder if the decades to come will see shifts in church culture and leadership, or if we will witness retrenchment and “doubling down.”
Interesting post.
Yes my parents were of that generation of not discussing the past especially if it involved ,closet issues’ with the family like affairs, divorce or worst still children born out of wedlock….like you my kids have no understanding of keeping these things ‘quiet’.
Given all this, I think there is another layer that is very particular to Mormonism but more particularly from ‘ the Center Stake of Zion’. There is that cultural aspect that has grown and embedded in Western LDS culture…..as a ‘Foreigner’ who lived in both the east of America and In Utah I was complexed? Amazed? at this western culture I was in…..I was introduced to a lot of fairly foreign concepts like “we in the Center Stake of Zion” from the “ brother you go to” in the Sunday School class who said this phrase before answering any question as if “we” in this Center Stake of Zion were a special bred….also “we here “only deal with the positive….and here to me lay the real issue in this culture….there is obviously nothing wrong with positives…but to exclude the truth becomes problematic……I saw the “ unicorn and rainbow” culture in full flight and coming from a culture that speaks much more directly on issues I soon ran into trouble….we like those in Europe found the stories in lesson books so Sachin that in Europe where I was they outlawed the church stories especially in the youth program.
To me most of the historical issues, these troublesome issues, are centred in a culture that does not deals with the truth directly…..and still does not like to and my guess will continue to advance in some areas at glacial pace….
“It’s not possible to hide these things anymore, nor do we value that type of secrecy. The secret things will be made known.”
And yet, many find value in employing pseudonyms for blog posts and comments, showing that they value some sort of discretion in how much they reveal themselves. Or maybe they just like playing with colorful nicknames.
I wonder how much of differing views of Arrington and Smith came from different understandings of the word historian. Unaffiliated or academic historians are people who study and analysis the past. Historians who are officers of some body are primarily people who keep records of the present that the organization can use in the future; looking into the past isn’t part of their job description.
Very interesting. I would add 2 points.
One is that the church has seemed to emphasize that we as individuals shouldn’t really talk about our sins and weaknesses (except for those that need to be brought up to our bishop). Everything I keep reading is that it is much more emotionally healthy to be frank about our shortcomings rather than hide them in shame. Not that our sins are things we dwell on, but there are appropriate times.
The other point I would add is that from what I can see of the youth, they are MORE than willing to talk about all kinds of things that many in the older generations wouldn’t think of saying. And they do it on social media for the entire world to see. Even when I have seen my kids cross a line that at least I feel shouldn’t be put out in public, when I mention it to them they don’t seem to even comprehend what I am saying. Sharing is caring?
At least they collected materials. But that’s about the only nice thing one can say about the pre-Arrington operation. The legacy that long period has left the Church is a faulty view of its own history (overconfident, uncritical, even phony) and a culture that looks on accurate history as biased or “anti.” That’s a problem the magnitude of which Church leaders still don’t seem to grasp. The Gospel Topics Essays are not the solution, they are just a first step. The problem is so bad that the first steps to correct it will seem to make it worse.
The whole generational thing you hint at is worse in the LDS Church because the aging elders never relinquish power. Octogenarians still pull all the levers of power (that is, they control the money) and make all the decisions. So the LDS Church, generation-wise, is an extra generation behind every other institution in society.
I agree with Kangaroo that this is bigger than just the generation gap (though I agree the generation gap plays a role). As now-Elder Uchtdorf pointed out a few years back, we have a problem displaying Potemkin Villages as opposed to the messiness of life. Joseph Fielding Smith’s putting on the positive face of history is consistent with historical trends of the 19th and early 20th centuries. But we seem to have become stuck in that phase, and I think Mormon doctrine feeds into a glorification of our role in the latter days. There’s a reason we have Mormon myths floating around of how people in the afterlife will look up to those who lived in these times. Basically, we think really highly of ourselves, and we like to use anything to justify that perspective.
John Mansfield: You are conflating records management with the work of historians. They are not the same thing.
Thanks. Excellent analysis of a problem we’ve created for ourselves and that we are now paying for with a flood of desertions. The Church is still struggling with the notion that our history is messy and that our leaders are fallible (past and present). They are now finally admitting that mistakes have been made, but these acknowledgments are always passive voice and are always lacking in specific examples. I’d love to hear President Nelson stand up in conference and point out a few of the real big mistakes Church leaders have made in the past. It might be very healthy for a whole lot of members. He is a physician, after all. It would be fitting.
Nice post.
Though the church has taken some reluctant steps in the direction of transparency—largely because the Internet forced its hand—it still has a long way to go. Witness the fact that some conference speakers continue to classify all websites that are critical of the church, its history or policies as “anti-Mormon.” Many of those “anti-Mormon” materials are authored by faithful members of the church whose only perceived shortcoming is that their first loyalty is to truth, not an ecclesiastical institution.
Happy Hubby: “from what I can see of the youth, they are MORE than willing to talk about all kinds of things that many in the older generations wouldn’t think of saying.” Yes, like the poop emoji! How is that a thing??
Wally, I heartily agree. I think some of the reason for reticence in talking about our history is due to a misunderstanding of what evil speaking of the Lord’s anointed is. In my opinion, evil speaking is more or less lying through unfair criticism (of course “unfair” is as loaded a word as any you can think of). We certainly should not make up lies about our leaders, but I fail to see how being honest about our leaders’ mistakes is evil speaking.
Mary Ann: “Basically, we think really highly of ourselves, and we like to use anything to justify that perspective.” You’ve said a ton of really profound things on this blog, but this might be my favorite quote of yours of all time. I don’t think this issue is about the truth with a capital “T”. If it was, and if we valued the truth as much as we say we do, that is, that it’s important to tell the truth no matter what (“do what is right, let the consequence follow”), then all of this stuff would have been out in the open from the beginning. I think that Mormonism’s fatal flaw is the myth of its own exceptionalism, which is what Mary Ann’s words underscore. We value our own sense of spiritual authority (it’s only our church that is “true”), our maintenance of boundaries between “us” and “them” and we label ourselves members and others non-members instead of recognizing that we’re all members of the human race and of God’s family. It’s ironic that the very thing that many members think distinguishes Mormonism from other “untrue” religions, its “truth” and its exceptionalism, are the very things most likely to bring about its downfall. How is it possible to be a disciple of Christ and walk through the world with a viewpoint of “I’m right and you’re wrong” or “I have more truth than you do”? That position is simply untenable for anyone who claims to be a Christian. And yet the LDS church (and a whole bunch of others, btw) spend so much energy and time and indoctrination on trying to convince people that it’s “true” that it’s really staggering. I mean, we devote one fourth of our sacrament meetings to basically telling each other how true the church is and how awesome we are. That kind of arrogance is extraordinarily alienating to most people, including a good percentage of members, at least the ones I talk to. And shame on us for not recognizing that a lot of our young people are voting with their feet not because of the relative truth or not of the doctrine, but because of both the institutional arrogance of making the kinds of truth claims we make and the speciousness of such claims when it’s discovered how much the church has been hiding.
On the issue of transparency, #1 for me is disclosure about church finances and the use of tithes.
But another thing springs to mind. I have heard younger members ask their parents about the blood oaths and heard the parents absolutely deny any knowledge of what the kids are talking about. Meanwhile, that information — just like the oath of vengeance — is available on the net. I don’t think lying like that is constructive. And I think the church could be forthcoming about why the changes were made in the first place.
Then there is hearing all my life that we don’t have a paid priesthood only to discover (from other source, of course) that there is indeed payment that is generous and takes numerous forms.
If just makes it difficult to know what to take at face value, what to question and what needs to be questioned.
Not a Cougar: Calling any human being “the Lord’s anointed” is a problem, IMO. Either it means everyone who’s been through the temple, kings and queens possibly (who are anointed and considered to rule by divine right), or it just means the Savior. There’s no unique anointing process I’m aware of to become a local leader or even a high level leader. As I said in another forum, how am I supposed to be able to tell where your arm of flesh ends and the divine finger of God begins?
Mary Ann and Brother Sky: Studying collective narcissism helped me understand why the majority of members and almost all leaders so easily become complicit in hiding unsavory history. Collective narcissism is an individual personality trait characterized by strong identification with an in-group and strong but unstable belief the in-group’s superiority. You’ll find it in political parties, fundamentalist religions, and sports teams. The church basically teaches it as doctrine and strengthens it via culture. It predicts self-deception about the in-group’s claims, aggression toward any out-group that’s not affirming enough (e.g. Monson obituary), persecution narratives, and other behaviors seen in the LDS church in spades.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/40455337_Collective_Narcissism_and_Its_Social_Consequences
AuntM, try a web search on the terms historian and officer together, and you will find several links to historians of the second sort I described: senior class historian, historian 4H club historian, Fourth District PTA historian. Like the first LDS church historian, John Whitmer, their responsibilities are to keep a history of present events, not to research and interpret the past.
hawkgrrl,
Appreciate the post and your insights. Thought maybe I could add something which my wife’s Grandmother said to me some 30 years ago when I was driving her and her friend home from church as we talked about Church History. In substances she said, don’t be too hard on her grandparents and their parents. It is a hard thing to look at your wagon and ask yourself do I take my journals or do I take spare parts for the wagon, food, clothes, tools and then there was the ever present question of helping my neighbor. It is a hard thing to write a history of the Church when your resources are limited and you’re forced to make a decision to collect and preserve what is available or something else such as paying Karl Maeser.
I’m not sure what to call the generation before the Silent Generation but from what I can tell she and her friends were practical if nothing else.
So JohnMansfield, under your definition, who decides what current information gets recorded? Does the historian just record the Russell M Nelson world tour or does it also cover the Joseph Bishop et am scandal as well? If it is just a happy memory lane of the former and the latter, is it still covering up and interpreting history?
Correction. Just the former and not the latter.
Angela C.
Have you heard of the still-practiced 2nd annointing?
Danielwelburn: Yes, I’m familiar with that; however it doesn’t directly correlate with specific roles. It also was not widely practiced for decades and had nearly been discontinued when it was brought back into more common use in the last half of the last century. The phrase “the lord’s anointed” doesn’t seem to correspond with the wide range of leadership positions protected by it.
It’s not just a history problem. It is inextricably entwined with doctrine and practice and selective literalism about scriptures and words of those we “sustain” as “prophets, seers, and revelators” without regard to whether they have demonstrated any prophecy, seeing, or revelation. It is tied up with organizational authority, attempts to build a “zion community”, and the extent to which an individual can/will/should or should not relinquish thought and conscience and personal revelation to those in authority in the organization. WVS noted recently over at BCC that “There are, of course, people whose devotional life is enhanced by the sense that they live under [strong hierarchical] authority, but for the masses[?] who do not respond this way the choices are either to knuckle under, or leave, or live a semi-clandestine life. Armand Mauss is quoted as saying: “… I was forced to distinguish constantly between the human and the divine elements in my religious heritage. I had to learn to ‘give myself permission,’ as it were, to try to make that distinction, since it is not encouraged in one’s upbringing as a Mormon.” Some seem to be constitutionally unable to conceive of such a distinction or unwilling to try to make it. There seems to be a whole lot of all-or-nothing thinking going on among both those who stay/lead and those who leave. Is there any healthy way to deal with this at the organizational level?
John Mansfield: Here’s a good analogy for what I think you are conflating (and what often job titles conflate). “Librarians and archivists play a vital role in the world of research in the humanities, but it’s a different role from that of historians. To offer an odd simile, we’re kind of the connective tissue in the process: the sources are the bones, the historians are the muscle that mobilize the sources to create a certain argument, and librarians and archivists are the ligaments and tendons that connect the two and make the whole thing work.” Job titles are often conflating different parts of a position under one heading. Don’t we all find long titles a pain in the neck? Job titles are not meant to be specific or all defining.
Excellent post. I agree that the desire to obfuscate or hide history is a phenomenon that falls on generational lines. I think it also represents a broader lack of taking responsibility that is also generational, such as when Elder Oaks declared that the LDS Church is not in the business of giving apologies, which in his own head probably sounded like a passionate defense of the faith, but to everyone else listening sounded arrogant and insensitive. We also have yet to hear any Church leader come forward with apologies for other past instances in which the Church has been responsible for causing pain to certain individuals or groups (LGBT, sex abuse victims, Blacks prior to 1978, women, the list goes on…). Even amoral politicians make bumbling attempts to publicly apologize when they make insensitive comments that get leaked to the press, but I don’t believe Elder Bednar has ever shown an ounce of contrition for his infamous “…there are NO homosexuals in the Church” remark. By contrast, watch Mark Zuckerberg, perhaps the world’s most influential Millenial, as he coolly testified before members of congress. Without hesitation, he unequivocally took personal responsibility for the mistakes of Facebook. The baby-boomer lawmakers were dumbstruck by that, and spent the remainder of the hearing asking bumbling questions about how the Interweb works.
Good post and comments.
While the internet is now ubiquitous, it is still relatively young. I first used an HTTP browser in 1995, when not too much was online. Folks younger than about 35, however, have grown up pretty much in an internet dominated world where information has been relatively easy to access. I figure part of the reason older Church members where ignorant of Church history had to do with the difficulty of getting information. Prior to 1995, my desire was to eventually retire near a large university, with libraries and archives, to help overcome that problem; with the internet it’s no longer an issue.
It is interesting to watch the information era unfold. For example, 23 and Me has intruded into our family history research by revealing hidden history that some of our forebears thought would die with them – and that hasn’t really gone over too well with a few of the ‘silent’ generation in my family. I can imagine similar consternation among Church leaders as the Church’s hidden history gets revealed and becomes easily accessible..
Angela C – I don’t get the poop emoji, but I can think of another thing shared that I am sure my parents couldn’t get their head around (because I can’t either). That is teen (and even early teens) sending naked pictures around. I remember in high school several kids being worried about being in gym shorts (they were a lot shorter 30 years ago). I am still scratching my head when trying to figure out the motivation of doing that. The only thing I have come up with is “not yet fully developed prefrontal cortex”.
Jack Hughes: “Elder Bednar has ever shown an ounce of contrition for his infamous “…there are NO homosexuals in the Church” remark.” Well, in fairness, his statement is taken out of context . . . a little. He was trying to say that nobody should limit themselves with a label, that people are more than just one thing, but what it sounded like was when Iran said that there are no homosexuals in their country. Is he unaware that Iran says that because they’ve made homosexuality illegal and punishable by death and they do in fact still kill homosexuals there? Because even a passing understanding the plight of gay people in the world should be required to be able to opine on their experience.
Actually, that brings me to another point that came up as I read the Arrington bio, the tendency of the Church to claim that leaders are somehow better than experts even when they are not well-versed in a topic. In his economic book Great Basin Kingdom, that was a fundamental issue, but it was also part of his church experience, that scholars were held in derision for challenging assumptions of ill-informed priesthood leaders. This is still de rigeur in the Church today, and it’s behind recent issues like the Church’s inability to handle abuse cases effectively and the unwillingness to stop youth interviews altogether. There’s a huge belief that just be being made a priesthood leader someone has miraculous discernment and skills with no education or experience, that all one’s ideas are suddenly gold. That’s just hubris.
Actually, that brings me to another point that came up as I read the Arrington bio, the tendency of the Church to claim that leaders are somehow better than experts even when they are not well-versed in a topic.
The Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet are very clear on this subject:
5. The prophet is not required to have any particular earthly training or credentials to speak on any subject or act on any matter at any time.
9. The prophet can receive revelation on any matter, temporal or spiritual.
10. The prophet may advise on civic matters.
11. The two groups who have the greatest difficulty in following the prophet are the proud who are learned and the proud who are rich.
There you have it! Sewn right up in a neat package. Or the shorter version I suppose we’ve all heard is “When the Prophet speaks the thinking has been done”.
There is no doubt that church leaders felt that keeping some aspects of church history out of sight served the best interest of the church. As Angela pointed out the silent generation’s inherited culture was to keep quiet about things that had the potential to undermine a persons character. Here’s an example, a young lady gets pregnant in high school. Is it better to make an attempt to keep this quiet by sending her out of state on family business until the baby is born, and keep it secret when she returns? Or let everything be known and let it take its course? You decide
One thing about the silent generation that we need to remember, the strength of family they had isn’t being matched by today’s families. Why?
I don’t think the so called openness we practice today is superior to their day. Someone will take issue saying that the #metoo movement is helping a lot of women. True, but the #metoo movement wasn’t needed in silent generations’s day. Could it be that the openness of our day in movies and the internet (think violence, drugs, godlessness, and pornography) is creating problems in our day that never would have appeared in the silent generations day?
The title of this post is Hiding History. Did the decision to “hide” history hurt church members of that day? The problem from the decision to hide history is hurting those in our day who take hold of the idea that church leaders lied. They reason, because they concealed portions of church history, they are deceivers and can not be trusted. Their reasoning doesn’t make sense to me. Concealing something isn’t a lie. The high school girl who moved out of state to have her baby to conceal her sin isn’t a liar. Would we reason that Corrie ten Boon was a liar when she didn’t tell the Nazis that her parents were hiding Jews in their home. In both examples, no intent to harm was behind the decision to conceal. In fact, it was to prevent harm.
In the early, 1970’s, I researched church doctrine and history while a student at BYU. I had no trouble finding everything we have on the internet today, and more. BYU’s Special Collections was not off-limits. The only difficulty for researchers of that day was that you needed to fill out a form to gain access.
I don’t think of past Church leaders as liars. They were not historians. Even Joseph Fielding Smith, the official Church Historian, was not a historian. I think Church leaders have generally acted in good faith, as men and women of their times. I want to be charitable to them.
Alice: The 14 Fundamentals are so ridiculous that I don’t understand why they were used in two conference talks in recent years.
Jared: I’m not willing to agree with you that women in prior generations didn’t need a #metoo moment. Marital rape was legal into the 1960s. There’s a reason women didn’t talk about their sexual assault histories and it’s certainly not because they were not abused. Women are in a much better place now than then.
Your question about Corrie Ten Boom concealing Jews is an interesting one that Sam Harris raised in his book Lying. He said even if you lie to protect someone from a murderer, the murderer will just go to the next house to kill. You haven’t saved a life so much as sacrificed a different one. Likewise with hidden history. You only end up kicking the problem down the street for later generations to deal with.
In your example of the pregnant teen, for example, there’s the data in Freakonomics that shows that crime rates dropped twenty years after abortion became legal. While it wasn’t your scenario, it suits for the discussion. If you prevent the abortion, but you don’t address the socio- economic problems the child and mother will face as a direct consequence of the burden of teen pregnancy, you cost other lives later.
ji: I agree with your point as Arrington noted that in many cases the CHL didn’t even know what it had as they had amassed but not read or researched. So no, that’s not lying. Just hoarding and controlling access to information.
Jared, that’s great you had so much access to so much information just by filling out a form. What about those who weren’t students at BYU during the early 1970s?
I mentioned in my much earlier post about growing up Mormon in Britain that a) we didn’t have the same access to information, and b) that in the early 1990s what information was available was stripped from the ces institute library (itself a rarity in the country) in London, because only approved materials were going to be permitted. Materials removed included the BYU studies journals. So yes, there were deliberate efforts to restrict access to information, and keep things “faith-promoting” at that time.
We live in an incredible world. I have just driven 500ks on a dirt road and found a bed for the night in Warburton Western Australia, on my way to Uluru.
In spite of the isolation I can read this blog, and could access the web to learn things about the church I was not able to when we joined the church, and until the web.
Agree trying to hide things only works with the cooperation of those who don’t want to know.
Jared, to infer there was no abuse of women in the silent generation is rubbish. They just had no rights or recourse.
“The 14 Fundamentals are so ridiculous that I don’t understand why they were used in two conference talks in recent years.” Great response.
They could at least be reduced to only one — President Kimball had a prophetic call.
» In February 1980, Elder [Ezra Taft] Benson gave a talk at BYU titled “Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet” that emphasized the precedence of living prophet’s statements over those of earlier prophets. … Spencer felt concern about the talk, wanting to protect the church against being misunderstood as espousing ultraconservative politics or an unthinking “follow the leader” mentality. The First Presidency called Elder Benson in to discuss what he had said and asked him to make explanation to the full Quorum of the Twelve [Apostles] and other general authorities. Elder Benson told them that he meant only to “underscore President Kimball’s prophetic call.”
Ed Kimball’s Lengthen Your Stride: The Presidency of Spencer W. Kimball — Working Draft.
alice – re: former temple oaths — In fairness, there’s now a sizable generation of parents who first went to the temple after 1990 and have no primary knowledge of the older oaths. As with recent events, the first response for many conservative members upon hearing something challenging or distasteful about the church is to refuse to give any credit to the information. I could easily see a young person approaching their parents to ask for information about prior temple practices, and getting the response “I’ve never heard of anything like that and I’ve never seen that in the temple! Your source must be mistaken.”
Bro. Jones – And this “stop talking about it” seems to be the modus operandi of the church. It has worked generally quite well until the Internet. How many “doctrines” have changed but give a few generation and it is all but forgotten? But I think your point is showing that it still works today even if not quite as well as in the past.
HH: right. The immediate follow up to my hypothetical conversation has the younger person responding, “I found this in four separate sources and none of them seem to be clearly anti-Mormon. There are also some primary sources. What now?” What now indeed.
I did bring up the vengeance oath in a gospel doctrine class that I taught. We talked about different ways to respond to the assassination of Joseph Smith, and I mentioned both the oath as well as the “old” lyrics to Praise to the Man (“Long will his blood which was shed by assassins/Stain Illinois while the earth lauds his fame”). I asked if these were appropriate, welcoming, and forgiving ways of mourning the prophet–and if they were not, what might have caused these feelings. I didn’t get released from my calling so I must not have overstepped too much.
On this very note: when someone first mentioned the old lyrics to that song, I laughed and said, “You’re kidding me, right? There’s no way that was actually in a hymnbook.” Using the BYU archives , I located a digital copy of an old hymnbook and there it was, plain as day.
Angela C and other W&T contributors, I think that we might agree that 2+2=4, but beyond that agreeing on many important topics appears to thin out. That’s OK. I find it worthwhile to explore ideas presented at W& T, nonetheless.
When I consider a topic, such as those presented in this post, I view it from the perspective of my experiences, just as you do. It appears that most of those who frequent W&T’s are at various levels of commitment to things Mormon. An example of this is found in how “Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet” is considered. Angela and JR labeled the Fundamentals as ridiculous. I find them far from ridiculous, even though I would make a few changes.
For me the bottom line question is how can we see things so differently? I don’t know the ultimate answer, but I have developed a few ideas over a life time of pondering this question. We see these differences in perception in matters of faith not only at W&T, but in our families, wards, etc.
Why do we see things so differently? I’ll quote Elder Faust to provide a partial answer to this difficult question.
“Every day faith is increased in the hearts of the faithful by evidences of revelation in their lives—in decisions regarding marriage, vocations, home concerns, business ventures, lesson preparations, danger signals—in fact, in all facets of life.” April Conference 1980 James E Faust
When our commitment to religious practices opens the channels of revelation so that we have concrete evidences of revelation in our lives then we have a paradigm shift. Our assumptions begin to change as we see the world through the eyes of faith.
Bro Jones: Speaking of altered lyrics, on Sunday we were singing Have I Done Any Good In the World Today, which always makes me remember the original lyrics that are super harsh: “Only he who does something is worthy to live. The world has no use for a drone.” My daughter found that plenty shocking! But I remember singing it that way growing up.
Jared, how come you didn’t comment on the Frankincense Trail post? I would expect tremendous agreement there, and it is specifically addressing the Book of Mormon? Or the D&C 132 polygamy posts? Yet you rarely comment on scriptural posts here (and only when prompted by me, it seems.) Why is that when you say the scriptures are so absent from the blog, yet when they are addressed directly, you pretend the posts don’t exist.
It seems you merely like to argue and promote the orthodox position. While you are welcome to do that, it is tiring for everyone and yourself it seems. Your criticisms seem a bit hollow, and you simply don’t put your money where your mouth is.
MH- I still think you’re a good man even though we have differences.
“In fairness, there’s now a sizable generation of parents who first went to the temple after 1990 and have no primary knowledge of the older oaths.”
Yes, Bro. Jones, I’m sure that does happen but I should have been more clear in my original post.
I am 70, older than many here, I’m sure. The contemporaries I was referring to had gone through the temple in the pre-90s blood oaths era, as I did. I have seen and heard them lie to their children about what they said and did. And I raised the issue because, contrary to the tone of hawkgrrl’s post, they are evidence not of the church obscuring more unsavory aspects of Mormonism but members doing it unbidden.
I meant to continue:
Is that part of a church culture — “milk before meat” — that is part of the problem?
Jared: “One thing about the silent generation that we need to remember, the strength of family they had isn’t being matched by today’s families. Why? ”
You’re making an assumption about family harmony of the past when leaving a marriage wasn’t a viable option for many women. So an intact family in the past wasn’t necessarily indicative of an healthy family. Marriage then could cover a multitude of sins only visible now that women have better options to free themselves from abusive situations. I’d put that up there as a large reason for your “Why?”
As an example, I home taught a women in her late seventies. She told me her grandmother was essentially sold into marriage to help her parent’s family pay off debts and get the passage necessary to move from Europe to the U.S. The girl was in her teens when the marriage occurred and the husband was very abusive. But she stayed married (did she think she had a choice?) and raised a number of children. I wouldn’t count this as a “strong family”. Incidentally, I found it interesting that the sister I home taught usually didn’t refer to her grandfather as “grandfather” usually she just referred to him as the man who her grandmother was forced to marry. Made me wonder what she thought about her grandparents being sealed.
alice – I see where you’re coming from. I’ve actually noticed that adults who came of age prior to 1990 are much, much more guarded in speaking about the temple than those who came later. I could possibly understand an older adult pulling out the “I won’t discuss sacred topics” line, but outright lying is pretty bad.
We’ve had our own version of hiding history in the Reorganization (RLDS/CofC). Much of it, I think, had to do with the fact that the Joseph Smith Jr. family occupied many top leadership posts in the church, particularly that of prophet-president. Israel A. Smith (president from 1946-1958) was reportedly very protective of the Smith family name and legacy, and it’s been reported that he worked hard to keep information “locked up in the church vaults,” both literally and figuratively. A central issue was Joseph’s alleged involvement in polygamy, certainly, but I think it spilled over into Book of Mormon historicity and other areas.
That Smith-family protectiveness began to change some with the presidency of W. Wallace Smith (1958-1978). That era brought the beginnings of the New Mormon History and church scholars and historians such as Richard Howard (perhaps the first to write about different versions of the First Vision) and Paul Edwards (who, it perhaps should be noted, is a grandson of Frederick M. Smith, great-grandson of Joseph Smith III, and great-great-grandson of Joseph Smith Jr.). Those two men, along with others at church headquarters, Herald Publishing House, and the church’s college, Graceland (now University) actively worked with Arrington et al. in MHA and also established the John Whitmer Historical Association. It’s now been 20+ years since the church has had a Smith descendant as prophet-president, so all this has begun to fade from view for younger generations.
Also, I think all branches of latter-day saints tend to take an all-or-nothing approach. And so people who have a testimony of one part of the Restoration message are encouraged to transfer that over into everything being “true.” Of course, it works the other way, too: Once a crack appears in one part (often to do with historical issues, but certainly not limited to that), it’s easy to draw the conclusion that everything must be discarded. Not hard to figure out why institutional leaders don’t want that to happen.
Jared wrote: “When our commitment to religious practices opens the channels of revelation so that we have concrete evidences of revelation in our lives then we have a paradigm shift. Our assumptions begin to change as we see the world through the eyes of faith.”
I’m going to have agree with Jared on this one.
For me the channels of revelation have opened up to me after more than half a century of religious practices such as reading pondering, praying, listening, thinking, etc. Revelation of truth has led me to a place where I usually agree with Angelica C. The revelation of truth that changed the way I saw the world is that the church history has been changed. The truth is prevailing and the church leaders have deceived us and lost the trust of most of the members of the church to be reliable on matters of controversial history. Their Gospel Topic Essays although a small step in the right direction are too little and too ate for too many.
Dogma is when people who think like Jared try to claim higher moral ground over the likes of Angelica C and many others here by denying their revelations and promoting their own revelations as the true principles that are demonstrably wrong. Coming to view of untruths through the eyes of faith is not true revelation, it is brainwashing. You are entitled to your own opinion but you are not entitled to your own facts. Many of the things once taught as truth are not facts as surely as 2+2 is not 6. Eyes of faith do not make 6 into 4.
While we are at it: One of the things we need to start hiding is the home teaching program. It never happened. It was always ministering. Joseph and Brigham were ministering companions. It is a anti-Mormon rumor started up by apostates in high places to make the church look bad. I have a “revelation” that Home Teaching never existed. I see this through the eyes of faith.
MH: I don’t put any money where my mouth is. I put chocolate where my mouth is. Chocolate is more powerful building testimony than the sword. Jared needs more chocolate. Less sugar coating.
Jared, I am old enough to have personally witnessed a BYU devotional by ETB which was contradicted point by point by HBB in another BYU devotional a couple weeks later. At that stage I found HBB encouraging and inspiring, in contrast to ETB’s adamant declarations. I am old enough to have been interviewed by ETB in connection with a European mission conference. I found his approach to my then concerns as a young missionary encouraging, though I did not much appreciate his apparent anger directed at another unnamed general authority who told us something stupid in the SLC mission home. I am old enough to remember widespread anxiety at the prospect of Joseph Fielding Smith becoming president of the Church, and widespread anxiety at the prospect of ETB becoming president of the Church, and somewhat less widespread anxiety at the prospect of HBL becoming president of the Church. To the best of my observation and recollection (clearly not comprehensive), the things JFS and ETB had promoted as apostles that triggered that anxiety were not repeated by them after they became Church president. The Fourteen Fundamentals talk, as a whole, and not each element of it, was one of those things. Even more than those elements of the talk that do seem ridiculous to me, it seems ridiculous for them to be repeated in General Conference when the information about President Kimball’s negative reaction to that talk and ETB’s explanation/defense to the brethren, however cryptic, is readily available. Unfortunately, the series of PH/RS manuals on “Teachings of Presidents of the Church”, regularly failed to distinguish between what was taught before and what was taught after becoming president of the Church. The ETB manual even relied a number of times on the Fourteen Fundamentals talk. In context, the continued use of the Fourteen Fundamentals talk is ridiculous.
JR- Who is HBB?
Jared. If you are truly interested in understanding the genesis of the differences between traditional and progressive thinking, give The Righteous Mind by Jonathan Haidt a read. It’s a super interesting book.
ReTx-thanks for the tip.
Jared, I really am dated: Hugh B. Brown
Jared: I assume HBB means Hugh B. Brown who served in the first presidency for many years under David O. McKay. Otherwise it’s probably a typo of HBL, Harold B. Lee.
Thanks JR and Angela-
I remember Benson’s talk, but I don’t recall another GA coming a few weeks later and contradicting Benson.
JR it couldn’t have been HB Brown because he died in 1975 and Benson gave the Fundamental talk Feb 1980.
Here is a link for talks following Benson’s in 1980. Maybe seeing the list of speakers following Benson will help you recall who it is. I would like to know the details where Benson was called on the carpet for his 14 Fundamentals talk. Does any one have a source for this?
https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/1980/
For those interested, I just found an article in Dialogue that states that President Kimball was concerned about the 14 Fundamentals talk. It looks like Quinn was the author. See page 77 on.
This thread would be wise to understand presentism, and have at least a Wikipedia level understanding of it.
“Presentism, at its worst, encourages a kind of moral complacency and self-congratulation. Interpreting the past in terms of present concerns usually leads us to find ourselves morally superior; the Greeks had slavery, even David Hume was a racist, and European women endorsed imperial ventures. Our forbears constantly fail to measure up to our present-day standards. ” – Lynn Hunt, American Historian Association
Jared, the problem with concealing the truth is that the truth will out, and it is doing so as our literate and educated youth search for answers to difficult questions that have not been adequately addressed by the church. They are not as easily placated, and so we risk losing an entire generation who then feel they have been lied to. Whatever your experience at BYU, certainly when I was teaching seminary in the UK the information about, for instance, JS’s polygamy was not only concealed but spoken of as a vicious rumour spread by enemies of the church. Even those of my generation are losing testimonies as their children turn from an institution that discredits itself with this behaviour. What am I to say to my children having raised them to deal with life with integrity?
And no child should be a guilty little secret. Every child is a gift.
Jared, It was HBB and the ETB talk he contradicted was not the Fourteen Fundamentals. Sorry I wasn’t clear enough about that for you.
Jared, I mentioned the source in my first comment. Here is more — this description of the source from Salt Lake Tribune:
“When it was issued in 2005, Lengthen Your Stride: The Presidency of Spencer W. Kimball was an overnight sensation among Mormon book buyers who applauded its candor and complexity.
But it was not the book Edward Kimball hoped to publish.
After nearly three decades of research, poring over the president’s 33 journals and thousands of letters, and conducting scores of interviews with leaders and lay members, Kimball’s manuscript had grown to about 665 pages, with about 3,200 footnotes. It clearly was too long for most readers, so Deseret Book edited it to a more manageable 471 pages, with skeletal notes. The LDS Church-owned publisher put the rest on a CD-ROM that was sold with the book. Few book lovers, though, have the patience or desire to read an entire volume on screen.
So Benchmark Books, with Deseret Book’s permission, has produced 400 copies of the original manuscript, with the previously published text in blue and omitted material in black ink. As an added resource, it includes all of the footnotes.”
A couple of quick points related to some of the comments:
* I think that the original post makes a compelling argument about the culture of secrecy/privacy that existed/exists with those of older generations. I always enjoy Hawkgrrrl’s posts–even (and sometimes especially) if I disagree with points she makes.
* I could be wrong, but the ETB-HBB indirect exchange at BYU referred to above could be from 1969 when ETB spoke out strongly in support of anti-communism (and in favor of the Vietnam War)….and HBB took a much different position. The two frequently expressed opposing political views, so it is entirely possible that the reference could be to another pair of talks, but the 1969 talks stand out for their contemporary relevance and historical notoriety.
* I have a hard time believing that anyone who experienced the LDS temple ceremony/language prior to 1990 could gloss over the aspects referred to above; my mind *still* automatically adds the now-redacted phrasing to the current version.
Handlewithcare: “…when I was teaching seminary in the UK the information about, for instance, JS’s polygamy was not only concealed but spoken of as a vicious rumour spread by enemies of the church.” I have struggled to understand how Hans Mattson could be a 3d generation Mormon and as active as he was, including leadership roles, and not have learned decades earlier than he did about JS’ polygamy. Did he not read D&C 132? Your comment suggests an explanation, but I wonder if the “vicious rumour” talk was from official Church sources or where it came from. I suspect my understanding of what is known/not known to many is probably influenced by my family history of polygamous early apostles in the LDS church and it being common talk among the family and in LDS seminary in a US Northwest city where most of the LDS families had generations-long roots in Utah. Where did the “civious rumour” talk come from?
End of threadjack.
“civious”? s/b “vicious”!
In the heart of Utah in the ’90’s, professional seminary teachers responded to students’ questions about Joseph Smith’s polygamy by warning us to stay away from anti-Mormon sources. I don’t think any of my LDS friends in high school were aware that he practiced polygamy. Given that I heard more than one seminary teacher refer to it as “anti-Mormon,” I’d bet the CES program was telling seminary teachers to respond in that manner. Given the huge emphasis on Emma and Joseph’s relationship during that same time period, and the complete silence regarding Joseph’s other marriages, an entire generation grew up believing Joseph was a monogamist.
Thanks, Tim.
I would have no idea what was going on in the 90s in Utah seminaries. I’m so old I can remember George Albert Smith’s photo displayed in our church foyer as current president of the Church! But I do wonder what those 90s seminary teachers did with Section 132. Maybe they just skipped all the icky parts.
“This thread would be wise to understand presentism”
I do recall an earlier discussion I was involved in with Corbin Volluz over on Rational Faiths, in which I argued that society and institutions were much more paternalistic 40 years ago than would be acceptable today. That was the water we all swam in then. (https://www.britannica.com/topic/paternalism)
handlewithcare, JR, Tim, the experiences with ces in the 90s tie in with the timing of the stripping of the institute library I mentioned in my earlier comment (and also the whole intellectuals etc as a threat, and september 6 excommunications). It would be interesting to know which higher authority was responsible for seminaries and institutes at the time. My sense was that the institute director wasn’t very excited about what he had to do to the library…
Tim, I think that gets to the heart of the matter. As long as there is control over what is taught and no other access, it becomes part of the accepted culture, and a generation is unable to access truth or immunise themselves by grappling with the facts or helping their kids to do so. I”s only in the past ten years that I have been able to access facts confirming my own long held suspicions from my own limited experience and access to church history.All this now takes on the status of ‘open secret’ here though, and still is not generally discussed, although in a recent conversation with a member raised in New Zealand, she felt that it had always been open information over there, although her experience in church education would have been ten years later and there was a church college there until recently.
The issue for me is the effort to control information rather than treating the general membership with sufficient respect to grapple with facts and work it through, thus offering families the experience to be able to help their own kids go through a process of struggle and reconciliation.
‘Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free’
Hawk
“ji: I agree with your point as Arrington noted that in many cases the CHL didn’t even know what it had as they had amassed but not read or researched. So no, that’s not lying. Just hoarding and controlling access to information.”
Combined with presentism and we get to interesting places.
Now, add exceptionalism of the negative sort (anything we did in the past when it was normative wasn’t normative) and we get the heart of much of the anti-Mormon message.
Kind of like anti-colonialists who criticize the LDS while going Anglican. Fascinating to watch (and not to be confused with people who aren’t anti-colonial). The blends in thought impress me.
Noting I’m a big fan of interdiction of the international slave trade, ending burning widows alive with their deceased husbands and a number of the colonialist Anglican interventions.
JR, “But I do wonder what those 90s seminary teachers did with Section 132. Maybe they just skipped all the icky parts.” I went to seminary in the 90s as well. Section 132 was covered as the section which taught the doctrine of eternal marriage – our *current* understanding of eternal marriage. Any polygamy references were seen as vestiges of a prior age and nothing to worry about. Since we all knew about polygamy with Brigham Young, for those of us who were even aware that Joseph practiced polygamy we figured it was similar to the practice in Utah. But Tim is right that the relationship between Joseph and Emma was heavily emphasized, and Emma was spoken of highly. I think a lot of kids my age made a logical assumption that Joseph was a monogamist, but he received the polygamy revelation that was used by later leaders. Contrary to what a lot of people think, it is not obvious that Joseph took other wives when you read 132. He’s clearly laying down some principles, but you don’t see sneaking around behind Emma’s back, 14-yr-olds, or polyandry (if anything, polyandry is condemned in that section). When a teacher says that the revelation was received earlier but not made public till later, it’s actually not that hard to assume it also wasn’t practiced till later.
I do not recall ever hearing the context of section 132 – that it was given to convince Emma that Joseph’s expansive covert practice of polygamy was from God, or that Emma outright rejected and destroyed the revelation – before I came on to the bloggernacle. So maybe I was absent every time a teacher talked about it, daydreaming every time a teacher talked about it, skipping over any uncomfortable implications and purposefully blocking it out of my memory, or… just maybe… the teachers (seminary and college-level) never actually discussed that context.
Thanks for this post.
Brother Sky… Thank you also! I could not agree more with your comments. That kind of arrogance in the church is one of the reasons that I left (there were other reasons as well) for people who speak so often about being Christ Like in behavior to be so monumentally arrogant was just to much for me.
Thanks, Mary Ann. That helps me toward understanding what happened.
It may not be obvious that “Joseph took other wives when you read 132″ but I would have thought verses 51-55 should have made most thoughtful readers at least wonder what the heck they were about. Especially v. 55: ” I will bless him and multiply him and give unto him an hundred-fold in this world, of …wives …” and vv. 52 [“…let mine handmaid, Emma Smith, receive all those that have been given unto my servant Joseph, and who are virtuous and pure before me…”] and 54 [“… I command mine handmaid, Emma Smith…. But if she will not abide this commandment she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord…”]
But then, I was always a weird, bookish kid.
JR: “I have struggled to understand how Hans Mattson could be a 3d generation Mormon and as active as he was, including leadership roles, and not have learned decades earlier than he did about JS’ polygamy”
I’m an active fifth gen Mormon, with polygamous ancestors on both sides of my family, attended seminary in the 70’s (not in Utah), and attended BYU in the 80’s. Until the past 10 years I did not know the following details of Joseph Smith”s polygamy practices:
– Joseph Smith was married to women already married to other, living, men
– Was married to a 14 year old and most likely had sexual relations with her
– Was married to 9 other women younger than 20
– Most likely had sexual relations with nine women other than Emma
– Lied to Emma about his marriages
I happened to serve my mission in Sweden in the early 80’s also. If the above was known there, I didn’t hear about it. I image Hans Mattson didn’t either.
By the time I was at BYU I did know Joseph Smith was sealed to Eliza Snow. I also was aware he was sealed to dozens of women, however, many of these sealings were explained as performed after Joseph Smith’s death. If he sexual relations with anyone other then Emma, these weren’t spoken of or considered highly speculative.
So, despite knowing about Section 132 and JS sealings, much of the controversial parts of his practices were not well known. I suspect that might be what Handlewithcare means.
At BYU, I was fortunate to wind up in Lyndon W. Cook’s religion class for Doctrine & Covenant’s. I subsequently signed up for everything he taught related to Church History (when he taught New Testament, he told me not to enroll in his class. He was required to teach NT per department rules but he said he’d only be about 2 days ahead of the class). He didn’t really hold back on what he knew about church history. Among things I remember from his classes:
– Section 132 was written specifically for Emma, at Hyrum’s urging, and that Emma tossed her copy into the fire place
– Joseph Smith had a seer stone
– Joseph Smith used the seer stone, in his hat for most of the translation of the Book of Mormon
– Did not have a high opinion of Mark Hoffman (this was before the Salamander Letters and Hoffman’s bombings)
– The great animosity Brigham Young had for Emma Smith
– The different accounts of JS vision. Cook had us read them.
– About half of the people mentioned in the Doctrine & Covenants later separated ways with the Church
I don’t recall the controversial details of Joseph Smith’s polygamy practices coming up. I don’t know what Cook knew then, but I didn’t get the impression he was in the business of covering up church history. I don’t think that information was in the CES system then and it was never in any other Church curriculum.
Thanks, Dave C. I had understood Mattson to say he did not know JS was a polygamist, not merely that he didn’t know the details you list about JS’ polygamy. Perhaps I misunderstood. But, in any event, Hedgehog, Handlewithcare, Tim and MaryAnn have certainly explained how that could happen.
BTW, I’ve been reading Revelations in Context: The Stories Behind the Sections of the Doctrine and Covenants. It is significantly mis-titled on this subject. The chapter Mercy Thompson and the Revelation on Marriage is potentially valuable, but it is NOT “the” story behind section 132. Instead, it is “a” story that has something to do with the incomplete context of section 132.
Glad you had some good experience with the BYU religion department. Mine was earlier and mostly memorable for being bad — the department then seeming to consist largely of former professional seminary teachers unprepared to deal with learning or teaching at an appropriate level and some others engaged in what some might (and did) call priestcraft. I’ve been known to quip that the thing about higher education most damaging to my testimony was the BYU religion department. But it was not because of learning facts like those you mention.
Memory is a funny thing. We treat history and memory as sure when we only retain fragments. Thinking “i would have remembered something so big” is just self deception. Memory itself changes just with reviewing it in our minds. It may getting less common for people now to romanticize people or events in the past, but I think the whole “fake news” should be an indicator we’re still in the thick of the woods on this. It’s a bit of conceit to think younger generations are better about it than older generations, just because more information is available. It’s not the amount of information that defines how much we put things in a better light in our minds, but how much we are able to hold our thoughts alongside the thought “I could be wrong”.
Returning to a state of absolute memory recall is going to be interesting. Even then, perception bias should keep us from declaring anything as sure.
But all in all, I could be wrong, and often am.
JR – If Mattson wasn’t aware that JS didn’t practice polygamy, then I agree it’s hard to understand his being that unaware.
Cook was the only religion teacher I had who was also a scholar and actually doing research in Church History. His comment to me, waving me off from taking his New Testament class, might sheld some light on your poor experiences with instructors.
wasn’t aware that JS DID practice polygamy
I’m part of 90s seminary crowd. We really didn’t talk about polygamy and there was certainly no discussion about Joseph Smith and polygamy (and my parents didn’t seem to know much about it either beyond the “fact” that the practice was stopped in 1890). I didn’t find about it until I picked up a copy of the Church History in the Fullness of Times manual on my mission. For reasons I no longer recall, it didn’t freak me out that much, but then again the chapter that mentions it downplays the practice and it certainly didn’t discuss his relationship with Fanny Alger. Having read much more on the subject, I’m dismayed that the Church has attempted to obfuscate so much of our history.
Thanks for this posting and the discussion, which I just had time to read today.
Not knowing was as much a choice as an imposition in Utah where I was raised. I will turn 70 in just over a month. My folks raised me and I attended school in Davis County, Utah in the ’50s and’ 60s. I was a member of a family with a non-member father (his mother had converted in Holland and come with her sister to Utah) and an always-inactive LDS mother. Both of my extended families were more or less antagonistic toward Mormonism, with enough tolerance of it to just get by. Yet I served a foreign mission to Germany, married in the SLC temple, and I still attend my meetings and serve in callings. After my mission, which ended in 1968, I went back to college at Weber State, and I ended up reading in the 1970s the book *No Man Knows My History* by Fawn Brodie and I also acquired *Mormonism – Shadow or Reality* by the Tanners. And others. I tried to make all my readings balanced, reading those types (by such as Brodie and the Tanners) of works as well as their opposites, which were written by the authorities and educators of the Church .
There’s no question whatsoever that the Church hid and attempted to hide so much history. It’s doing better now, of necessity I suppose, but to my way of thinking, it’s not doing as well as I think is necessary. The patriarchal structure has never seemed conducive to being fully forthright and accountable. On the other hand, I have my own flaws and sins and people still tolerate me, as I do it.
I don’t know how much this plays into it, but I grew up way outside of Utah in the US and I am in my 50’s. I don’t know I ever even heard much about BY polygamy let alone JS. It wasn’t until I went on my mission that I heard about the Godmakers. It seems a bit odd that as a fully active member in the US that I never heard about JS polygamy until the last decade (and I heard it from outside the church). I have no problem believing Hans had never heard about it.
Happy Hubby, this may be idle curiosity or may help me deal with a friend newly concerned about JS’ polygamy, but what did you suppose (prior to the last decade) that Section 132:51-55 meant? Or was reading the D&C just not a thing?
If you want to taste Mexican food, don’t go to a Chinese restaurant. I learned about polygamy from…a polygamist daughter I dated in graduate school about 40 years ago. Things sort of went south when she wanted me to marry her and her younger sister, to make their childhood dreams come true. (Young husband and being wives #1 and #2.)
She knew her church history and she could pray like it was straight out of the Old Testament. Who is to say who distorts history more? Them or us? We know they are liars from birth but they point out many of our lies. Lies upon lies, on all sides. Doesn’t it remind you of contemporary serial adultery?
When the DC 132 mentions hundreds they don’t count to 30 something and stop. They say there were many more Mrs Joseph Smiths. It didn’t stop in 1890, nor in 1907 with the manifesto and second manifesto or a secret third one. It stopped for us only after “the great hypocrite” Heber J Grant died. HJG had pre 1890 wives, post 1890 wives, later pretended the later ones didn’t exist and when all the pre-1890 ones died except one, pretended to be a monogamist. Apostle Richard Lyman was married secretly in the Logan temple in 1925 to a second wife by one of the First Presidency and excommunicated in 1943 for adultery. There were others who remain secret except for rumors that spring from their descendants. The Sister Lymans Two were not excommunicated, one of them was serving as the 8th church president of the relief society (Amy Lyman) and her picture might be hanging in your building.
The church has hidden in its vault a handwritten copy of a description by President John Taylor of his 1886 revelation (which we claim never happened) when Jesus and Joseph appeared to him and instructed him to organize secret polygamy from which many current groups trace their authority. If that is true, they are right and we are the ones who are in apostasy. Else Taylor was a false prophet and the chain is broken. Their authority claims are no weaker than ours. I think that a pdf of that document has been published on the bloggernacle. (Maybe even here, I can’t remember.)
Modern groups try to duplicate what Joseph Smith was doing. Perhaps the one most dedicated to the original vision, and the second largest group is the FLDS and leader Warren Jeffs is seen by them as liken unto Joseph. He is about the most despicable person I can think of at this time. In a Texas prison for 99+ yrs for bedding 12 year olds in a FLDS temple. The largest group, the AUB has tried to keep but modify polygamy and today it is effectively legal in Utah.
The biggest source of growth of polygamy is conversion of right wing nut jobs from mainstream Mormonism. Our leaders could shut that down by repudiating all of polygamy including DC 132 and involvement by Joseph, Briggy, Taylor et.al. But they never had the gonads for it. Mormon Polygamy is here to stay with over 40 groups and growing, eradication is now impossible. Praying it away isn’t going to work. Say hello and embrace your bastard siblings.
Ah, polygamy the rottenest and perhaps oldest skeleton in the Mormon closet. It never fails to deliver a gut punch below the belt. Covering up the history is not as important as socially isolating ourselves from the 50,000+ of those living polygamy among us. Important enough to warrant a question in the temple recommend interview.
Mike: “Apostle Richard Lyman was married secretly in the Logan temple in 1925 to a second wife by one of the First Presidency…”
I wonder where there is any record of Lyman’s exchange of vows with his second “wife” taking place in the temple or under the direction of a member of the First Presidency. This sounds like one of those stories made up, passed along, and embellished to bolster a particular view.
On the other hand, some records like the record of Amasa Lyman’s posthumous reinstatement with all his blessings remained buried in the First Presidency office for decades until dug out by Leonard Arrington at my instigation. The family had long known about that reinstatement, but the Church historian did not and Arrington found no record of it except in the First Presidency’s office.
Mike, care to share sources on Heber J. Grant getting married to other women after 1890? I’m aware of only three marriages, Lucy Stringham in 1877, and August Winters and Emily Wells in 1884. Unless you meant that he stayed married to them post-1890?
Not A Cougar:
You don’t get it. There are NO reliable sources. What if I say a girl I knew in college had a grandmother who claimed to be HJG plural wife married in 1910? What if it was my grandmother who knew a girl in college who married him?.
Both sides have told lies upon lies upon lies for over a century. Original sources are deceitful. Who would trust a diary kept by Warren Jeff’s grandmother? Silence is another form of dishonesty.
I think I remember my polyggie girlfriend mentioning it and I wouldn’t have believed it back then. I vaguely remember it being mentioned in one of the books about post-manifesto polygamy that I read. I might be mixing it up with someone else but one of those memorable leaders got arrested for it and plead no contest and court records do exist.But even, then look at what the defenders of the church have done with Joseph’s role in the Missouri War, his surrender on a battle field, arrest for obvious treason, escape from jail. I am of an age that when I first started getting interested in this sort of controversy and reading and actually remembering it, that even mentioning post-manifesto polygamy would generate a talk with your bishop. Back in the day, answering your question could get me axed.Seriously.
Realize I was told for most of my life that Fanny Algers was an anti-Mormon hoax. But then later she is sealed to Joseph Smith in the ancestral file and now what is the current version? So I leave it to you to take comfort or be curious until someone ELSE shatters your bubble. If you want to argue with me, then I concede, you win the citation game. Never happened. Go in peace.