Next Tuesday, on September 4th, the first volume of a new official history of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints will be released. Unlike the quiet publication of the Gospel Topics essays, the Church has invested in a major publicity effort for Saints: The Story of the Church of Jesus Christ in the Latter Days, Volume 1: The Standard of Truth 1815-1846, advertising to its members in church magazines and LDS media outlets. The first volume is being published in 14 languages[1], has its own website, and will be the subject of a worldwide young adult Face to Face event.
Background on Saints
This new four-volume comprehensive church history series was first announced last year by Elder Steven E. Snow, Church Historian and Recorder, at the Mormon History Association conference. As the Church News reported, “Elder Snow said the volumes will be ‘transparent, honest, and faithful,’ with controversial aspects of Church history covered in the context of the entire story.” Written at a 9th or 10th grade reading level, the narrative history would be accessible to the every day member. “We believe this will be valuable to Church members to greatly enhance their knowledge of Church history in an interesting way. In my view, this will have an impact on members of the Church for generations to come.”
The project is a natural outgrowth of the world-class research and publications by the Church History Department over the last couple decades. The department has worked hard to publish primary source documents, both in hard-copy and digital form. Projects such as the Joseph Smith Papers, Council of Fifty Minutes, The First Fifty Years of Relief Society, and journals of early church leaders like George Q. Cannon and Wilford Woodruff have yielded new insights into the Church’s history. Information from the Joseph Smith Papers, for example, led to “adjustments” in headings for 78 sections in the 2013 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants.
Besides these more academic endeavors, the department has worked to use their historical materials for more devotional purposes. Their 2013 Revelations in Context, a collection of narratives designed to provide background to D&C sections, was intended for use by regular members as a “study resource” to supplement the adult Sunday School curriculum. In a slightly different vein, the department published At the Pulpit, a collection of sermons by female leaders from the earliest days of the Church to the present. Throughout 2018, selections from this collection have been published alongside teachings of modern-day leaders in the Ensign.
Saints is not the first time Church historians have produced a comprehensive church history for regular members. Single-volume compilations include Our Heritage: A Brief History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (1996), used in the Sunday School curriculum, and The Story of the Latter-day Saints (1976), deemed too controversial by some church leaders to pass muster as an official church publication. Multi-volume attempts are much more rare, the most recent of which was B. H. Roberts’ 6-volume Comprehensive History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (1930).
“A different kind of history”
So what makes this new series “a different kind of history”? First, it benefits from the extensive research of the last few decades. More primary source records are accessible than ever before, correcting and clarifying previous misconceptions. (Or, at least, better illuminating what has better support and what doesn’t. History isn’t exactly clear-cut.) In the first seven chapters of Volume 1 released in church magazines (also in the Gospel Library app and on the Saints website) we see extensive footnotes linking to digital images of handwritten primary source documents. Footnotes also link to special topic sections on the Saints website that go more in depth, like explaining possible problems with contradictory personal accounts (for example, see the topic of Martin Harris meeting with Charles Anthon). Of course, Gospel Topics essays on subjects considered troublesome or controversial are also noted and linked.
Second, what makes this history different is the writing style. It’s much more engaging than typical church manuals or textbooks. There are smaller paragraphs, less focus on dates and names, and bite-size chapters. Even someone as disinterested in history as my husband could survive a few pages of this before his eyes glazed over. Elder Snow said the goal was a 9th-10th grade reading level, and advertisements suggest the targeted audience is youth and young adults. The managing historian on the project, Steve Harper, explained on a recent podcast that a team of creative writers were brought in to ensure the story would be exciting, in addition to being historically accurate. (Which is good, because the readers attention will need to be held for a long time. According to the product description on Amazon, this book clocks in at over a 1,000 pages. Update 9/4/18: the physical book is not nearly as long as the Amazon description, but the weight and almost 2-inch thickness could still be intimidating. There are over a hundred pages of endnotes, and the main story is still 586 pages long.)
Creating this series was incredibly challenging. To satisfy intellectual honesty, historians are compelled to point out ambiguity and nuance, primarily accomplished in this volume via the footnotes and special topics sections. To keep readers engaged, narratives had to remain simple and direct. However, inoculation against less faith-promoting narratives (a major goal of modern church education) required controversial and possibly faith-challenging details to be included and resolved as quickly as possible in the main body, not just hidden in footnotes. It remains to be seen how well this balance is maintained through the entirety of the volume (I’ve only seen the first seven chapters).
Publicity campaign
To me, the most exciting element of this new series is the publicity campaign. The Church honestly and truly WANTS members to know about Saints.
Let’s back up to when the Gospel Topics essays came out. The first two essays were released in November 2013. Do you know when the first Newsroom statement I can find talking about those essays was released? November 2014. Yep, A YEAR LATER. The first time church leaders kind of informed local leaders of the existence of the essays was in September 2014 via memorandum, but they didn’t even mention the essays specifically (just the Gospel Topics section). The Salt Lake Tribune reported at the time,
For about a year, the LDS Church has been posting on its website carefully worded, scholarly essays about touchy topics from the faith’s history and theology….
The articles simply appeared on the church’s site under the heading “Gospel Topics,” with no news releases and no fanfare. Many of them were reported in The Salt Lake Tribune and other news outlets, but they were not read over the pulpit in Mormon congregations, nor mentioned in the faith’s semiannual General Conferences.
Now the Utah-based Church of Jesus Christ of Later-day Saints is at least making its male leaders aware of the essays.
A memo dated Sept. 9 from the church’s “Priesthood Department” to “General Authorities; Area Seventies; Stake, Mission, and District Presidents; Bishops and Branch Presidents” explains the purpose of — and audience for — the controversial articles.
“The purpose of the Gospel Topics section is to provide accurate and transparent information on church history and doctrine within the framework of faith,” the memo said. “When church members have questions regarding [LDS] history and doctrine, possibly arising when detractors spread misinformation and doubt, you may want to direct their attention to these resources.”
Okay, now let’s look at just SOME of the publicity for the new Saints series:
- June 2017 – Church News reports Elder Snow’s announcement of the new 4-volume series at the Mormon History Association conference.
- February 2018 – Introductory article and Chapter 1 is published in the February Ensign. Another six chapters are published in Ensign magazines throughout the year.
- April 2018 – Official news release at the Mormon Newsroom announces Saints.
- April 2018 – Church History Department changes profile pics and cover photos on social media to advertise the new series. (See old Twitter here, and current Twitter here.)
- May 2018 – Church News article highlights the monthly magazine installments.
- June 2018 – Full-page advertisement for Saints appears in the New Era, a magazine for youth. “Saints is a new four-volume history of the Church written with you in mind.”
- Early August 2018 – Mormon Channel begins airing podcasts about the project (so far, one for each chapter)
- August 2018 – Church News article calls the first volume of Saints an “honest look at early Church history.” A worldwide devotional Face to Face event for young adults in September and a related Institute-sponsored read-a-thon (#saintsathon) are advertised. The article also notes that the book will be incorporated into the seminary and institute curriculum.
Will young adults bite?
Research by Jana Reiss shows that one of the top reasons Millennials leave the Church is a “trust gap.” They do “not trust the church leadership to tell the truth surrounding controversial or historical issues.” More transparency and honesty is becoming not just desirable, but critical. At a 2017 Face to Face event, Elder Ballard pleaded with young single adults, “We’re as transparent as we know how to be in telling the truth.”
A complicating factor is that ecclesiastical leaders often aren’t equipped to deal with challenging historical issues. In spite of recent efforts like the Gospel Topics essays, Elder Ballard encouraged students at a BYU devotional last year to turn elsewhere for Church history questions.
I worry sometimes that members expect too much from Church leaders and teachers—expecting them to be experts in subjects well beyond their duties and responsibilities. The Lord called the apostles and prophets to invite others to come unto Christ—not to obtain advanced degrees in ancient history, biblical studies, and other fields that may be useful in answering all the questions we may have about scriptures, history, and the Church. Our primary duty is to build up the Church, teach the doctrine of Christ, and help those in need of help….
If you have a question that requires an expert, please take the time to find a thoughtful and qualified expert to help you. There are many on this campus and elsewhere who have the degrees and expertise to respond and give some insight to most of these types of questions.
Which brings us to the upcoming young adult Face to Face event with Elder Quentin L. Cook on September 9th. Based in Nauvoo, Illinois, the event is all about Church history, and the program will include actual Church history experts. Historians Kate Holbrook and Matt Grow are scheduled to speak alongside Elder Cook and will presumably assist in addressing user-submitted questions. Maybe this could work.[2]
Questions:
- Have you seen any of the publicity for this new Church history series, Saints?
- Have you read any of the first seven chapters that are publicly available? If so, what did you think?
- Do you think youth and young adults will read this new Church history? Do you think the book will have any long term effects?
[1] At the Church’s online store, you can pre-order a hard copy of the book in Cebuano, Chinese, English, French, German, Italian, Japanese, Korean, Portuguese, Russian, Samoan, Spanish, Tagalog, and Tongan. According to a Mormon Channel podcast on the series, those languages reach approximately 98% of Church members. The first seven chapters have been published in the Liahona magazine, making them available in 47 languages.
[2] Meetings where general authorities speak alongside Church historians to address controversial Church history issues are not unheard of in recent years, typically in response to group or personal disaffection. Two that Bloggernacle readers might remember are a 2010 fireside in Sweden (usually mentioned in association with the “Swedish Rescue”) and a 2015 area business weekend meeting in Boise (the “Boise Rescue”). I suspect the upcoming Face to Face event is meant to be more preventive than reparative, though.
Lead image from LDS Media Library.
Wheat & Tares 
I haven’t seen any of the advertisements and I no longer get the Ensign (paper clutter, yuck!) so I haven’t seen the opening chapters. I did know this was in the works though and I’m super happy about it. I’m glad that it is going to be publicized openly and hopeful that it will be used as part of the regular curriculum.
But… There is no chance under the sun that my teens will read this. Like none. In their free time, they have zero interest in picking up a book on church history. Best case scenario is that it is used as a text book for seminary (and i hope it is).
I will buy a copy though and when a difficult question arises (usually coming from someone saying something in a SS class and one of my kids asking, “Mom, that didn’t really happen that way did it?”) we can use it as a reference book
Hi Mary Ann. Thanks for this informative post. It sounds like you’re looking forward to the publication. I’ve seen some of the hype and read some of the chapters. I will say it’s a bit better and slightly less biased than I expected and I’m glad to see true, legitimate scholarly sources being used. That’s all good. However, there are a couple of issues that I don’t think any amount of change will take care of as long as the church is caught between faith and reason:
1. There’s a quote that I’m not surprised by but that demonstrates that this won’t be anything like a baldly factual volume: “The purpose of the Gospel Topics section is to provide accurate and transparent information on church history and doctrine within the framework of faith”. There simply cannot be even a modicum of objectivity regarding the church’s controversial and complex history if this project is begun by seeing things through the lens of faith. Even the language in your screenshot seems like it’s excusing Joseph Smith’s multiple and sometimes quite different versions of the First Vision: “drawing on scribes who could help him better express what defied all description.” That just seems like first-class excuse making to me. Did you see just God? Or God and Jesus? That’s a fundamental difference that can’t be finessed by the whole drawing on scribes and “he was overwhelmed and traumatized” idea.
2. I don’t think young adults will bite because most of them aren’t around much anymore in the first place and in the second place, most young adults I know (a limited sample, I admit) are pretty skeptical and so tired of being lied to that a new volume from the people they think lied to them isn’t going to help much. And though I myself am far from being a young adult, I’m frankly troubled by Elder Ballard’s “We’re as transparent as we know how to be.” That statement is, sadly, demonstrably false. The church hasn’t remotely been as transparent as it should have been all along. A charitable view of Elder Ballard’s statement is that he’s trying to establish the fact that the church will be more transparent from now on. An uncharitable view is that he’s lying. I suppose I’m somewhere in the middle on that one.
I hope this volume will indeed help those who read it and if it can give some people peace or help them to repair their fractured faith, then it’s a noble and noteworthy project. For my part, I can say that this wouldn’t help me if I were struggling or if I had already walked away because of the issues I mentioned, but if it can bring a few people closer to Christ, then the project is worth it.
Elder Ballard said, “We’re as transparent as we know how to be in telling the truth.” That’s a howler. Over the last sixty years, the Church strictly limited access to the documents in its archives, excommunicated and otherwise disciplined LDS scholars who published LDS history that was too transparent for the tastes of the leadership, regularly misrepresented past historical episodes, and so forth. He might have said, “For a long time, the Church wasn’t very transparent at all in telling the truth about its history, but as of a couple of years ago we are trying much harder to be straightforward and transparent.” But that’s not what he said.
To put it bluntly: Elder Ballard can’t even express a new commitment to being transparent about LDS history without misrepresenting how the LDS Church has approached its own history and how it has presented its own history to the membership for oh so many years. So the leadership has a long way to go to reestablish its credibility.
I think this is a wonderful endeavor and I tip my hat to the LDS Church for approving it, providing the resources (e.g., funding, personnel, access) for it, sticking with it, and advertising the heck out of it. It is laudable and progress should be recognized for the positive it is.
However, I remain wary of not so much the withholding of raw facts, but the spinning of them in ways that do not hold open the possibility that someone could, in good faith, arrive at “unfaithful” conclusions. It’s one thing to admit to facts, but another thing altogether to allow the space and respect for alternative conclusions drawn from those facts. I still don’t see the space where those who conclude differently aren’t treated as somehow broken.
Lastly, is the intention that a 1,000+ page book is going to compete with something like the CES Letter? Or is that the place of the essays?
I’ve already written a post on that line by Elder Ballard and the resulting commotion, so I’ll just refer people there: https://wheatandtares.org/2017/11/29/ballard-mormonleaks-church-history/
Brother Sky, yes, I am looking forward to the publication. Just as I was thrilled when I found out about the Gospel Topics essays. I don’t have to agree with the presentation in order to be excited that the essays exist. I purposefully did a screenshot of the book talking about the multiple accounts of the First Vision. I get that a lot of people will have a hard time with the apologetics (excusing and justifying the various accounts). But what makes me excited is that the Church has just written in 47 different languages that there are various accounts of the First Vision, and that those accounts have differences. I can click on a link there and see Joseph’s original handwritten 1832 account. I can click on a link there and see all nine accounts (4 by Joseph, 5 by others). I can see for myself the similarities and differences between them.
But the best thing about this new Church history project? I can talk about it with wardmembers at Church, or at visiting teaching, or at activities. I can’t do that with the Gospel Topics essays. In the last two weeks I’ve been in conversations with older folks where I’ve been totally comfortable bringing up the fact that people my age and younger often struggle with Church history issues, because I can immediately follow it up with, “And isn’t it cool that the Church is changing the way they are presenting their history to prevent the same types of issues in the future?”
Cody, I suspect a good number of those pages are going to be footnotes. I don’t know that the volume was intended to be that long. They had already decided ahead of time which periods each volume would cover. I’m not sure if the other volumes will be the same length.
The way I see it, the book is supposed to provide inoculation – get the kids exposed to difficult topics in small quantities mixed into a larger history. Then when they get hit with something like the CES Letter, the shock isn’t as intense – there is some familiarity with the crazy stuff. If stuff in the CES Letter bugs them, then they’d likely start digging more into the footnotes of that book and discover resources like the Gospel Topics essays.
I have seen this publicized. I have read several of the chapters. For those who have not already researched and started down the church history rabbit hole, this should provide a lot of new info. If you didn’t know, there is a new institute course that uses this book as the student manual. In our stake we have elected to use that institute course/curriculum for our adult religion class. Other resources the students will use and that we have advertised for the course are some of the Gospel Topics Essays, certain parts of the Joseph Smith Papers, certain of the revelations in context, and other resources at history.lds.org. We will see how the book/course is received. I know many already are signed up and looking forward to something different.
“The way I see it, the book is supposed to provide inoculation – get the kids exposed to difficult topics in small quantities mixed into a larger history. Then when they get hit with something like the CES Letter, the shock isn’t as intense…”
Do you mean they’ll be able to go directly to “oh, we always knew that”? Because I don’t see how it can change any of the basic problems that the CES Letter merely lists. The CES Letter didn’t invent them and I don’t see how Saints: The Story of the Church of Jesus Christ in the Latter Days, Volume 1: The Standard of Truth 1815-1846 can resolve them or make them go away.
In this era, church members who struggle with ambiguity are going to have a hard time maintaining faith. A few months ago, I spend an a couple of hours talking with someone who decided to stop attending church because they feel church leaders have not been forthright about many things. I agreed with him. That surprised him. I asked him if he understood why they weren’t forthright. He said, because their liars.
I ask him if he ever thought about what to do when gospel principles are in conflict? Which principle does one choose? He wasn’t sure what I meant. The scripture teach, not to lie. However, there are times when it is best to avoid the truth or lie, if necessary. One example is found in the scriptures,
23 Therefore it shall come to pass, when the Egyptians shall see her, they will say—She is his wife; and they will kill you, but they will save her alive; therefore see that ye do on this wise:
24 Let her say unto the Egyptians, she is thy sister, and thy soul shall live.
25 And it came to pass that I, Abraham, told Sarai, my wife, all that the Lord had said unto me—Therefore say unto them, I pray thee, thou art my sister, that it may be well with me for thy sake, and my soul shall live because of thee. (Pearl of Great Price | Abraham 2:23 – 25)
The higher principle illustrated here is to tell an untruth to preserve life rather than be perfectly honest.
In years past, a few church leaders decided to hide or obscure aspects of church history that weren’t faith promoting. Why did they do that? Because they followed the same principle that is portrayed in the verses above.
Jared – While you were telling your friend that did he look around for the hidden camera?
For me there is a theme emerging from recent posts and comments over the last week or two and it is this – in the past I was taught that the Church was literally led by Jesus Christ, through revelation to his prophets. And this revelation was special, direct (the Lord speaks to his prophets „face to face“ – remember the old testament seminary scripture?). And this makes our Church special – the one true church.
And now we realize, on our own and through descriptions like in the new seminary manual, that there is no special, direct revelation. The prophets aren‘t talking with Jesus. Their revelatory process is just like ours …thoughts, feelings and impressions we can ascribe to God if we want to, but a process, as someone pointed out, like what an average person goes through when deciding what type of minivan to buy.
But the church always led us to believe otherwise, that it’s top leaders has special access. That is the issue – TRUST/CREDIBILITY. Ballard‘s comment on church history is a further example. I am only generation x, but trust is also my no.1 reason for mentally leaving the church.
But there‘s also this … if JS didn‘t really see God the Father and/or Jesus, and if nobody since then has either, and if the Holy Scriptures are mostly fictional/allegorical, how do we know God exists?
Well, we don‘t know, comes the answer, we just believe/have faith – which is confirmed by our thoughts and feelings, which come from God, we are taught by the credibility constrained. Or we just believe because a world without God is unacceptable or senseless.
It‘s all about trust.
Alice, “Do you mean they’ll be able to go directly to “oh, we always knew that”?” Not exactly. Even if there is weird apologetics, as long as the kid has been exposed and has easy personal access to the historical data, a lot of the *emotional* impact of the CES Letter’s coverage of Church history stuff is muted. If kids grow up learning about seer stones and see images of Joseph looking into a hat, then reading about Runnells’ shock in finding out that Joseph translated using a ROCK in a HAT doesn’t quite have the same emotional effect. It doesn’t change the fact that Joseph used the seer stone to translate, but the problem is less “The Church deceived me!” and more just a normal “yeah, rock in a hat is really weird when you think about it.”
Btw, for anyone who wants to see a general authority make an argument in the same vein as Jared’s comment, I recommend “Gospel Teachings About Lying” by Dallin H. Oaks in the Spring 1994 Clark Memorandum. https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/clarkmemorandum/15/
Fun stuff.
Jared is pleased that he can cope with “ambiguity,” but he neglects to mention a weak point of his faith: his inability to cope with leaders’ mistakes. His argument that lying about history can be a “higher principle” to “preserve life” is a half-baked hot take that no one should really take seriously.
Now, I know that criticizing a blog comment for being a hot take is like criticizing a firefly for flitting around at a swamp. Hot takes are most of what we do. Even so, we ought to remind ourselves every so often how flimsy an argument like Jared’s really is. Much of the time, I think we’re like a bunch of old gas bag high priests congratulating each other for being self-appointed “scriptorians.” The good stuff is mostly in permabloggers’ posts, and the rest of us are just a ragged gaggle of hangers-on.
I’m making these crotchety remarks partly because it’s late and I’m tired, but also because Mary Ann convinced me to look at Elder Oaks’s talk. You’re right, Mary Ann, that it’s an interesting read, and thank you for suggesting it. Elder Oaks is, of course, far more sophisticated than any blog commenter in making his argument. But I was struck that he is not more successful than Jared at articulating a general principle of justified lying (or, as Elder Oaks might have it, withholding truth). He has useful things to say about the esoteric ethics of what lawyers do (he was speaking at a law school), but his attempt to generalize those ideas to religious obligations is unconvincing.
So here’s my last hot take for the evening: tread very carefully when you start to justify things like lying. You can find yourself in quicksand before you know it.
Loursat for the partial win! Maybe we’re like those old gasbag Church Ladies (Relief Society sisters?) congratulating each other for being self-appointed know-it-alls of right and wrong. I’m making these crotchety remarks partly because it’s early and I’m tired, but also because Mary Ann convinced me to look at Elder Oaks’ talk.
So here’s my latest hot take for this morning: it seems to me that Elder Oaks did not “attempt to generalize esoteric ethics of what lawyers do to religious obligations.” Instead, he directed thought to the question he does not answer as to when there is a duty to tell the whole truth {as if any of us could ever say everything at once or as if any of us actually knew the whole truth] and raised the possibility of conflicting duties.
He explicitly rejects “lying for the Lord” and concludes: “We must not lie. I know of no category of justified lies. The difficult question is whether we are morally responsible to tell the whole truth. When we have a duty to disclose, we are morally responsible to do so. Where there is no duty to disclose, we have two alternatives. We may be free to disclose if we choose to do so, but there will be circumstances where commandments, covenants, or professional obligations require us to remain silent. … It requires a sophisticated analysis of the circumstances and a finely tuned conscience to distinguish between the situation where you are obliged by duty to speak and the situation where you are obliged by duty, commandment, or covenant to remain silent.”
What he doesn’t do is perform that analysis for us (or the Church or any Church leader or missionary or other member) as to who has a duty to disclose to whom and when her knowledge of Seer Stones, Danites & Polygamy, etc. There is, however, a potentially useful principle of Anglo-American law that might well apply. That is, there may be a duty to disclose when when knows information material to someone’s decisions and that someone is expected to rely to her detriment on a contemplated or possible omission. I say “may be” because the legal question is also tied up with such matters as special relationships such as fiduciary relationships (consider parental or religious leader or missionary relationships here) and with questions of attorney/client privilege and contemplated future crimes (possibly not a lot of application to seer stones, but possibly to Danites and polygamy 🙂 ).
Gosh, this sounds sort of like a defense of Elder Oaks. I have not recently expected that of myself. Oh well, its just a hot take anyway.
Being wise as serpents, and harmless as doves is what the Savior expects. Matthew 10:16
Is there anyone here who would stand at the door of their grandparents house in prewar Nazis Germany and tell the SS officer inquiring about Jews the truth about her grandparents protecting a Jewish family in their home?
Jared – I don’t think there is anyone here that would disagree that lying to protect Jews from the Nazi’s is the greater good. I also think many of them would still be appalled at lying to cover-up church history or even at the thought “There is a temptation for the writer or the teacher of Church history to want to tell everything, whether it is worthy or faith promoting or not. Some things that are true are not very useful.” (Elder Packer)
I know an LDS pilot who “estimated” the number of refugees on his aircraft during the Vietnam airlift in order to get around the regulation that limited the number of people on the aircraft. It saved lives. He told me, however, that when you violate a regulation you need to have a very good reason and be prepared for the consequences.
The church’s deceit into its own history fails the “good reason” test. In consequence, the church has suffered a great loss of trust.
I appreciate Loursat and JR’s comments. That talk by Oaks was published in 1994, but it was given in September 1993, the same month as the infamous crackdown on Mormon scholars and critics. It is a very useful window into the mindset of leaders both then and now, when it comes to things like transparency. It pairs well with Oaks’ 1985 CES address, “Reading Church History,” where Oaks infamously said it is inappropriate to criticize Church leaders, even if the criticism is accurate. Similar idea of covenantal obligations dictating how much truth we are morally responsible to reveal (or withhold, as the case may be). http://www.scottwoodward.org/Talks/html/Oaks,%20Dallin%20H/OaksDH_ReadingChurchHistory.html
Legally speaking, Elder Oaks is basically importing seditious libel into the LDS disciplinary framework. That 18th century doctrine gave English kings the right to punish anyone who spoke against the Crown or the government, as determined by judges sympathetic to the Crown. Truth was no defense. Lack of intent to incite sedition was no defense. So you can see how the application of the law was open to abuse. It was abolished in the United States after the Revolution, along with other legal relics like blasphemy, in favor of First Amendment rights like free speech. Now strictly speaking, yes, the Church can excommunicate someone for publishing or publicizing truthful facts that make the Church look bad. It’s just a really dumb thing to do and, when inevitably reported in the media, it makes the Church look like something out of the Middle Ages. Yet they keep on doing it.
Yes, Mary Ann, but I am less inclined than some to think that any view of the “mindset of leaders…when it comes to things like transparency” applies to all of them. Just thinking of Elder Oaks’ reported [in]famous remark about Elder Packer that “you can’t stage manage a grizzly bear” and the very significant difference between Marlin Jensen’s approach and Elder Packer’s approach, for example. BTW, I re-read your linked post on Elder Ballard’s comments. Thanks for the reminder and your analysis and insights.
Mary Ann, as you correctly note, these new volumes are not scholarly history; they are apologetics. But it is a significant improvement over the church’s past handling of historical issues.
In sum, I consider this a baby step. And given the church’s past track record in this area, I will continue to follow the mantra espoused by Ronald Reagan when he negotiated nuclear arms reduction treaties: “Trust—but verify.”
“Church can excommunicate someone for publishing or publicizing truthful facts that make the Church look bad. It’s just a really dumb thing to do”
And related to that, Sam Young received an invitation to his excommunication hearing. Although in fairness to the church, the reason was that he was influencing other people to disobey the church (or something like that) not that he was embarrassing the church.
Steve Harper gave a presentation about “Saints” at the recent FairMormon conference. I just checked their website, and it appears that the Harper presentation is not yet available as either a video or a transcript. It’s probably similar, though, to other presentations he’s given about the new history. It should also be mentioned that Steve has been named the new editor in chief of BYU Studies.
Two comments:
First, on the question of whether this new volume of so called church history will blunt the negative effects of the CES Letter? Short answer: no. The CES Letter is like a legal argument based on circumstantial evidence: its power lies not with one smoking gun, but rather with the fact that there are all these potential issues. This new volume will try to put each potential issue into context, but it won’t be able to resolve the facts that there are so many potential issues.
Second, regarding ReTx’s comment about Sam Young receiving an invitation to “a court of love”. No successful church history revision can compensate for leadership failure in the present.
David C
I agree, the church suffered a loss of trust among some church members by using “is it faith promoting” approach to history. Church members have a choice to make. Were church leaders decisions based on benevolence or malevolence? That is the test, the choice is up to the individual member. Those who know the scriptures and use them will see church leaders decisions in a different way than those who are scriptural neophyte.
Jared –
I think you are presenting the wrong test. I absolutely believe that the decisions of the church leaders are almost always benevolent (and I only say ‘almost always’ because I don’t believe in infallibility).
The true test for me is: Can I trust someone on current issues who I know from past behavior will (benevolently) withhold/distort information.
I’d be careful using the descriptor “benevolent”. I’m extremely mistrustful of someone who is choosing to not tell me the whole truth because “it’s for my own good.” Concealing the truth of a lot of problematic history and doctrine and practice in order to just keep people in the church so as not to lose face is not in any way benevolent. It’s blatantly self-serving, patronizing and, I would argue, malevolent. In essence, it’s lying (by omission) in order to protect a reputation that isn’t deserved in the first place if important issues have been lied about.
Also, for folks who have commented, I haven’t yet seen a lot on Elder Ballard’s quote about seeking experts. If I seek an egyptologist’s opinion on the Book of Abraham facsimile and she tells me Joseph Smith got it all wrong, then am I free to write about that publicly and call out Joseph Smith as a false prophet without suffering any church discipline? I kind of doubt that that’s the case, but it seems to me that that’s the door that Ballard’s advice opens. Any thoughts on that, anyone?
Brother Sky: You can have the data but your conclusion must match the predetermined one you were given. 😉
Jared you stated “Church members have a choice to make. Were church leader’s decisions based on benevolence or malevolence?”
From my experience and from members and former members I’ve observed, if questioning comes up, the primary question is a form of: “Is the church what it claims?”
The next question is “What else have I been told that isn’t correct?”
They may get around to church leader motives but the answers they obtain for those first two questions go a long way to inform them of whether they think leaders were benevolent or malevolent (hint: they generally don’t think leadership has been doing them a favor).
A stake president, who was very sympathetic to my wife and her questions, told her his solution was to just decide to not “go there”. That’s the position I see most active members take. To your credit, you have keep yourself informed of such questioning.
I think the church’s move to more transparency is good. I also think it is a tacit admission that their past approach was problematic.
At a cursory glance all I can say right now is that this looks like an early to mid-twentieth response to a late-twentieth and twenty-first century dilemma. As we’ll, it feels like most of the recent things coming out of SLC. Smug, back-patting actions that, yet again, don’t address real concerns. Now all those who can’t understand why others have difficulty in the church and church history can again congratulate themselves and the church for their stalwart stances and and, again, be perplexed why someone struggles with church history.
I’ve really appreciated all the comments, thanks!
Brother Sky, I agree that Ballard’s wording would *seem* to allow a broad spectrum of experts to consult. Given the context (a BYU devotional), I suspect he assumed “thoughtful and qualified” experts would be taken as scholars who are able to reconcile any issues with an intact testimony. That was the impression I got when I first heard it, anyway.
The Face to Face with Oaks happened shortly after the devotional. Ballard did not give the same advice to that audience, though he did lament that people don’t study enough and cited an old relatively inaccessible article by a BYU scholar in a church magazine.
The Church has effectively embraced a certain brand of apologetics (FairMormon, Book of Mormon Central, etc.). I think the only scholars considered “thoughtful and qualified” are those who can come up with reasoning to support institutionally-approved conclusions.
“Will Young Adults Embrace Honest Church History in Saints Volume 1?”
My prediction: Some will, some won’t.
“The Church honestly and truly WANTS members to know about Saints.”
And I first learned of it right here on Wheat and Tares!
Jared writes “The higher principle illustrated here is to tell an untruth to preserve life rather than be perfectly honest.”
Jesus was artful in dodging some of the questions put to him; one of which produced the famous “render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s”.
One of my hobbies is exploring the margins of the applicability of a law. Laws can be brought into conflict, sometimes deliberately so. Knowing which is the higher law, or when to ignore both of them and spring a surprise on your detractors is part of wisdom in my opinion. Very nearly all of the ten commandments have situational exceptions; the only one I have not see excepted is not putting any other gods before God.
An obvious example is Nephi: He killed Laban, pretended to be Laban, and took scriptures that presumably belonged to Laban but were certainly in Laban’s possession. I have little doubt that good reasons existed; but there you have it; situational ethics sure to confuse someone expecting hard-and-fast rules that can always be obeyed with very little thought process.
I prefer history to be accurate and complete, not “honest”.
It is not possible, in my opinion, to accurately consider a religious history other than through eyes of faith or the lens of religion. A professor of religion at a college that tries to compare or evaluate religions, without believing in any of their principles, is merely looking at the wrapper.
“I think the only scholars considered ‘thoughtful and qualified’ are those who can come up with reasoning to support institutionally-approved conclusions.” You’ve perfectly captured the essence what Ballard was getting at, Mary Ann. Apologetics seek to defend a pre-determined conclusion; they do not pursue truth or entertain, even for an instant, that the institutionally-approved conclusion just might be wrong.
I like it. It’s like the First Discussion but with a lot more context.
“Suddenly, an unseen power seized him. He tried to speak again, but his tongue was still bound. A thick darkness closed in around him until he could no longer see the sunlight.”
Been there done that.
“If I have told you things which no man knoweth have you not received a witness?”
Been there, done that, too.
Mary Ann writes “I think the only scholars considered thoughtful and qualified are those who can come up with reasoning to support institutionally-approved conclusions.”
Global warming science seems to have exactly the same parameters. In fact, it may be that the work product of any institution is so structured.
What do you suggest is a solution to this problem? It is unrealistic to suppose any institution will be its own opponent or enemy. What will happen is what must happen; advocates for and advocates against any proposition, and the jury (everyone else) will weigh the arguments and decide each for self.
Brian writes “be perplexed why someone struggles with church history.”
A few people struggle with the appointment of the Bald Eagle as symbol of the United States. After all, the eagle is a scavenger.
It is a conflict arising from the juxtaposition of the symbolic meaning or weight of a thing and the mundane reality of it (eagle is impressive until he raises his tail and shoots liquid poop fifteen feet behind him). It can be a bit of a letdown, maybe even a shock, to realize or think that Jesus might not want you to be a sunbeam and popcorn is not popping on the apricot tree.
The whole story of Mormonism already offends most Christian sects; the idea you can get your very own revelation or that Jesus is the SON of God (says so right in the Bible!).
Doubting and struggle is okay; the apostle Thomas doubted. He was still an apostle and chosen by Jesus. The opposite is believing everything that anyone claims and that does not seem wise.
Michael 2, comparing people struggling with very nasty aspects of church history to a few people perplexed about the bald eagle tells me everything I need to know about you in relation to this discussion. As is your truly remarkable but incorrect insight into other Christians. I get you think you have an answer to everyone here. The only problem is that you seem more interested in that than understanding. Quick to be ‘right,’ slower to be good. Like me in this response. Helpful, huh?
I thought I’d seen it all. But the justification of lying by Jared when the context of the entire gospel – including the temple recommend questions -says that it is not ok..?? This is the style of his previous comments that got us all into hot water last time. Get real mate. Even the church now is pitching this new endeavour as “honest”. Code for “we haven’t been honest”. And I get (and appreciate) the nuanace of lying to protect a Jewish family from the nazis. But concocting a church narrative that is demonstratively deceptive, lying about it when the real facts are then widely known and then blaming members for not realising the truth in the first place is not the same. Not only is it lying, it is institutional deception, manipulation, gaslighting, faith destroying,fraudulent and unchristlike. I’m pretty sure Jesus wouldn’t have done that.
And that brings me to another point. Does anyone else see philosophical tension between the three concepts of honesty, transparency and faithfullness. What if, as some have mentioned above, a fully honest account is less than faith promoting?
I for one wish that the whole history had been made available long ago. Learning of the “warts” as they came out all too often by those who had an axe to grind against the church and who controlled the narrative did not afect my testimony because it was not and is not based on church history. But I also do not believe that having all of that history available would have had much innoculation effect. I really believe that the reason that melennials are becoming inactive in droves is part of a larger movement away from organized religion. Religion that takes up a lot of preciosu time that people had rather spend doing things that are pleasant to the senses and entertaining.
Also, I believe that this younger generation is falling into inactivity because a generation of parents have become increasingly less committed to investing as much of their time in church activities. Over the years I have seen home teaching and visitng teaching levels drop to almost negligible levels and have watched a corresponding decline in general church attendance. I have watched as varied social activities where I was able to interact with other members in varying situations have declined to the point that I only see other members of the church on Sundays and when I go out ministering as it is now called.
I could be wrong, but I feel those elements have as much or more to do with declining church attendance than does surprising information about church history.
Glenn
My kids have now aged out of the youth programs, but what worries me about the upcoming youth is that the teachers called seem very much to be the ‘when the prophet speaks the thinking is done’ types. In fact I have heard them say that very thing over the pulpit (I have wondered if so doing automatically puts you on a list of possible candidates for youth teacher). Not exactly nuanced. So unless the book is specifically a part of new curriculum material, I’m not too confident it will get any use.
I have no idea who knows about the upcoming book, though I first heard about it on the blogs some time ago. Given there are only 7 chapters on the app so far, I was very surprised to read in your post that the first volume is published next week. Not yet on AmazonUK.
I think I would be likely to purchase a paper copy, if and when it reaches our shores (and given we’re still waiting for the new women’s garments, which I really could have done with during our o so humid heatwave earlier this summer, I’m not holding my breath), if only because talking with him about it yesterday, it is the first time my husband has expressed any interest whatsoever in learning more, or indeed anything, about church history.
Temple recommend interview:
Bishop: are you honest in you’re dealings with your fellow men?
Jared: Oh yes. Except when the times when I haven’t been honest but let me share a scripture with you…..
Or another one
Bishop: Have there been any sins or misdeeds in your life that should have been resolved with priesthood leaders but have not
Whoever: Oh no. Except that one time I killed a bunch of kids, but let me share a scripture from 1 Samuel with you…
LDS_Aussie, that’s enough.
As to your tension comment, yes. Anytime someone’s faith is dependent on a certain version of history being true, it will be challenged if there is any contradictory evidence. In Mormonism, I think we run into this problem a lot because we have the idea that revelation trumps everything secular, and we apply it to history. Take, for example, a 1992 article over at the BYU Religious Studies Center, talking about the BofM ancestry of pacific islanders. After quoting Joseph F. Smith saying that the Maori are descendants of Hagoth, someone states, “This is the word of a prophet of God, and we need go no further to look for proof of the origin of the Maori.” ( https://rsc.byu.edu/archived/book-mormon-alma-testimony-word/15-hagoth-and-polynesians-0 ) For someone like this, any scientific evidence that points to a different origin of the Maori is clearly mistaken and should be dismissed, otherwise you are calling into question the prophetic mantle.
Separate from faith, though, there will always be tension between accuracy/transparency and simplicity. Accuracy involves acknowledging conflicting data. History is rarely clear-cut. Creating a simplified narrative requires some sort of winnowing of material, and inevitably reflects someone’s particular bias.
Glenn Thigpen writes “I for one wish that the whole history had been made available long ago. “
Whole history does not exist although that’s no reason not to make more complete such history as exists. Shall my own history be more complete if I include my pooping in the narrative? How about the time I cheated my younger brother when we were small children? The time I stole the last slice of blackberry pie my mother intended for my father to eat? Sure, why not; it adds a bit of color but does not reveal much about what I am *now* although it helps paint the picture of the path from then to now; and the path, while not “history”, is important to understand the nature of the people walking on that path.
I visited the Mountain Meadows massacre site. I wanted to go to that place, to see it, feel it, and create some context for that situation. I drove slowly on a very bad road eastward to Cedar City, presumably the route taken by the travelers while they herded their animals.
My stepson had a history fair assignment and he chose to do a work on the Japanese internment camps of World War 2. His idea of primary source was Google. No, says I, we are going to GO THERE and see it, feel it, experience it. So we went to Topaz. It’s a nasty place filled with scorpions; alkaline clay that grows only a few tumbleweeds. The foundations of the barracks are still there. This is your new home. Here you will live and here you will probably die.
History isn’t this thing that you can put on a shelf and there it is for everyone to see in the same way. The very act of reading a history changes the reader in some way, makes the reader part of that story. I find myself sympathizing with one side or the other, sometimes I see both sides and the tragedy of a conflict that did not need to exist. I ask, “was there no other way?” and it doesn’t matter if there was; the story has already played the way it played. But the NEXT story can be played differently if you know history and wish it had gone some other way.
Have you ever wished for a “do over”? Take back a foolish move and do something different? I sure do; usually in the realm of failed opportunity. History helps teach stories and allows a person to “do over” before even having done it the first time.
Brian writes “I get you think you have an answer to everyone here.”
Not exactly. I probably have an answer to each person here, depending on that person’s question, and sometimes (rather often) the answer is going to be “I don’t know”, or I know some bits but not enough to pass judgment.
Mormons struggling with Mormon history is hardly unique; for Catholics it is (among other things) embarrassment over earlier sales of indulgences, the Spanish Inquisition and so on. But suppose someone joins the Catholic church; do they, should they, feel guilt and shame over something over which they had no control and are not even required to defend? As you study it, you realize that the Catholics considered “grace” a substance and it can be dispensed, and if it can be dispensed it can be sold; and the price of it is part of your penance. That you can penance in advance of the sin is a bit of an unusual concept, but why not? What difference does it make? Jesus has already paid the price!
But you probably sense an injustice; you too could freely sin if only you had money for indulgences.
Since I am a convert, church history is interesting to me but it does not have the cultural baggage that it has for others.
I am sometimes accosted with demands to explain the Mountain Meadows massacre, or Kinderhook Plates, or seer stones. It seems weak to say I had nothing to do with any of that, go ask someone with a dog in the fight, skin in the game. But joining this church means I have skin in the game whether I like it or not and there are people that will judge me for the company I keep, even if that company died 150 years ago.
I’ve traveled to Kinderhook, and Hill Cumorah, and even the site of the Mountain Meadows massacre hoping to put myself as close into someone else’s shoes as is reasonably possible. There is no do-over, there is no undoing it; the best anyone can hope for is understanding how it happened, and could it happen again, and if it does, what will I do about it?
That’s a tough question and I don’t know what I would have done. Had I survived the Hauns Mill massacre, or had lost family and friend there, and then along comes a band of travelers boasting of having the very gun that killed Joseph Smith, and having the natives riled up because someone poisoned the water at Beaver and killed some cattle, would I take a rifle and shoot someone I felt was guilty of all that? I really don’t know and don’t be too sure that you know. You might be amazed at how quickly a pacifist turns into a hawk when her family is threatened.
Will these things turn you away from the Church? Only you can say. For me it is merely a caution; as the scripture says, “do not trust in the arm of flesh” (which, by the way, is recursive since it was an arm of flesh that wrote not to trust the arm of flesh).
LDS_Aussie asks “Does anyone else see philosophical tension between the three concepts of honesty, transparency and faithfullness.”
Absolutely. but my answers turned out to be rather voluminous so I’ll give y’all a break.
Excellent analysis by Mary Ann. Wrong prophetic leadership again.
Q1. What publicity? Beyond the bloggernacle. Like here.
Q2, There was a time when I would have earnestly dived into this book. But now? meh.
Nobody gives a mouse’s fart about what Martin Luther taught at his worst. Nobody cares (other than as a historical atrocity, not incriminating to any congregation today) that early New England Protestants believed in witches and brutally killed women on the most flimsy evidence And a thousand other examples. Because their followers moved beyond that within one generation. So most religions have no moral blame for their past because IT DOESN’T MATTER TO THEM!
My wife’s family history is a perfect example. She is descended from the major perpetrators of the little “unpleasantness” at Mountain Meadows in 1857. She is also descended from New England witches and multi-generational ax murders. She is further descended very remotely from English and Norwegian royalty and thence from the Norse gods. So which history do they exaggerate and laugh about? And about which history do they keep silent and feel guilty?
We make our church history matter and then we lie about it. Exhibit A is President Hinckley and his Faith in Every Footstep movement. This ridiculous practice of going on Trek every summer is another example.. We are obsessed with our past and it keeps biting us in the ass. This latest effort of publishing yet another version of our history is like a new set of dentures for an old man (designed to do the least amount of damage), whose final thrill in this life is biting himself.
Does anyone have broad evidence, more than antidotes, that inoculation even works? It seems to make sense but I suspect there are many factors going into widespread loss of trust and membership. History might not be the big one.
***
I don’t know exactly why we are stuck in this cycle of insanity. I can render a guess, probably wrong. The church wants to make the early leaders (definitely JS and maybe BY) into heroes. Then they want to inherit their hero status. They justify it as a way to keep Mormons close to the church and by extension the faith. It also helps that it enriches the church financially.
But it becomes a distraction from the core- faith in Jesus Christ, repentance….Thus we see the prophet worshiping sub-cult abundantly flourishing among the Mormon people. And ironies of all ironies we are instructed to only use the name of Christ when referring to ourselves and force all others to do the same. This in a vain attempt to hide the fact that we really are centered on celebrity prophets and not on Christ (with some exceptions and a little progress).
My recommendations to leadership:
1. Give our history a rest.
2, Stop acting like holy celebrities.
3. Instead of replacing names for the church, replace every reference to Joseph Smith or any of his successors including yourselves or anything y’all said or did in our meetings- with that of Christ.
Q3. As for the youth-most of the ones I know don’t give a damn. Perhaps that is reason for hope.
Using the First Vision accounts as an example, will it be socially acceptable for a kid to say that he/she believes JS’ handwritten account and none of the others? My guess is no. My guess is that there are going to be LOTS more facts in these volumes, but the same FEW conclusions to draw from them.
For those interested, W&T blogger Morgan Deane just published a book review of Saints. https://wheatandtares.org/2018/09/01/book-review-saints-volume-one/
Michael2, I really am pretty much agreement with you. And in all actuality, the advent of the technology that has made all of the ‘warts” available for public viewing is also the vehicle for the publication of all of the material previously unavailable. The effort could maybe have been undertaken earlier, but I really believe that church history is mostly a conduit through which a lot of other doubts are funneled and focused. I really do not think that chuch history is the underlying cause for melennials dropping out of church activity. I believe that it is a part of a general religious malaise affecting the younger generation of all Christian religious denominations. I also believe that the General Authorities are aware of those issues. The best innoculation that I know of is the spirit that converst in the first place.
Glenn
@Ruth
It really is not a matter of anything being socially acceptable. For me, reading those accounts is of historical interest, but it is the official account, which I believe is the inspired account, that moves me spiritually. I believe it is fine if a person receives a spititual confirmation of the prophetic calling of Joseph Smith through reading any of the accounts of the first vision.