I released two interesting episodes last week. I finished up my interview with Jana Riess and Ben Knoll, and started a new interview with Elder Steven Snow of the 1st Quorum of Seventy, and Church Historian!
First, I asked Jana and Ben, what are the biggest takeaways leaders of the Mormon Church can take away from the largest public survey of Mormon attitudes?
GT: Let’s just pretend that the brethren are here, and you can tell them anything. What would you tell them?
Jana: You have to have equal representation of women. You cannot continue having meetings in which decisions are made that affect women’s lives directly without a woman in the room, at least one woman in the room. And not just a little token woman who like, in the leaked video that I was talking about, at the very end, like in the last two-minute Hail Mary pass of the meeting, someone asks for Sister Beck’s opinion. She gives it. The meeting breaks up, no one even responds to what she said. I mean, it’s entire tokenism to have her there, to ask her opinion and then totally disregard it. So yes, that’s hugely important. It’s important to women.
There are a couple of different narratives that I think we need to keep in mind. The narrative that the church wants us to believe, is what Gordon B Hinckley said, which is “Mormon women are happy, and they’re happy with their role.” Statistically, he’s right. Because most Mormon women who are still in the church don’t seem to have a problem. Younger women are a bit different. But the majority of Mormon women are fairly satisfied, apparently, with their roles in the church. The other part of the story, though, the other narrative that needs to also be told is that women’s roles ranked as the third most common reason for leaving for all women. So, for some women, this was an important enough issue that it was a catalyst to their departure, and we need to keep that in mind as well. We can’t just say that Mormon women are happy with the way things are, because if you weren’t happy, you’re gone. What would you say?
Benjamin: So I suppose in addition to that which I agree with, would be that all humans are subject to our cognitive biases and the way we see the world. We tend to take our experience as the norm and project it on to everyone else’s experience. Good faith people who are in leadership positions, of course, don’t intend to do that, but often times do it. And I’m just as guilty like everyone, that’s what we do, right? That’s what human beings do. One thing that this research offers is an opportunity to hear about what the experience is like from people who don’t match your own experience. And that’s really hard, and I like that some church leaders, like Patrick Mason wrote in his book Planted, he’s like, “I get it.” Right? From a leadership position, this worked for you your whole life. You’ve always felt happy here. Why could anyone possibly be upset? Or why would they not want to be here?
There’s just a lack of awareness on their part, not through anyone’s fault, but just simply because we all have different lived experiences. Could we take things from here and incorporate those kinds of messages, and carefully consider them non-defensively and think, “Okay, my experience might not be this, but this is experience that maybe not a majority, but that a critical mass of membership are experiencing. What could we do to create spaces where they feel like they’re fitting in better, even if that means that we perhaps need to change what we emphasize, or give greater room for those kinds of voices to be represented in both decision making, as well as scriptural interpretation? Or how we’re applying the stories about what it means to be a Mormon in today’s world or Latter-day Saints, etc.” Things like that, that would be one of the pieces of advice I could humbly and constructively offer.
Jana’s comments were more controversial than I thought (at least on my YouTube comment section.) Do you agree or disagree with her?
Then, I am excited to have our first LDS General Authority on the show! (Although we have had an apostle and Seventy from the Community of Christ, as well as member of First Presidency from the Remnant Church!) We’ll get more acquainted with Elder Steven Snow in this first episode, and I’ll ask him about his favorite stories in Church history.
Elder Snow: I will continue to be the Church Historian until August 1, and then I will be officially released at October conference, but my duties finish up August 1.
…
GT : One of the big questions that I get delving into Mormon history, and so I’d like to pose this to you is, how can you maintain a testimony and know all this church history?
Elder Snow: Well, that’s a very interesting question, and I hear it too. For me, the more I learned about our history, as a church, it actually strengthens my testimony. The more I learn, the more respect I have for those that went before and the hard things they did, that were driven by their faith, many of these accomplishments. I just find it very inspiring. Now, there are situations and experiences in the past that sometimes are sensationalized by others online. I really believe in studying things in the context of time and place and trying to understand what was going on. But at the same time, understanding the big picture. If you get too wrapped up with non-consequential issues, then it’s hard to progress, and so I just love church history. The more I learn, the more my testimony grows.
GT: Can you share with us, studying church history, what has been the most inspirational story that you’ve learned?
Elder Snow 5:30 It’s hard to identify just one, Rick, but I think the first volume of Saints is a good representation. I think of many stories, some of which members of the church will not know. I just think, how did they do it? How did they suffer all this persecution, and I’m sure it was a sifting process for many. But, boy, they had a lot of courage and a lot of faith, those that stayed true and came west and established Zion here in the Rocky Mountains. It’s just an inspiring story, I think, our history.
I also asked if there was anything that troubled him.
Elder Snow: No, there’s little surprises that come up every once in a while. But one thing I’ve done is I’ve really loved to study church history. So there’s not a lot of things new that have troubled me as we’ve studied and learned our history. I just think people that don’t study history enough, are the ones that tend to be a little bit surprised, and maybe rocked a little bit or are jarred by what they learned, so I encourage people to study history and to really learn the story, rather than just get hung up on a couple of little issues that may have been troubling. That’s why I like Saints, the new series, the first volume of the four-volume series that we have out. I enjoy that because you read some of these little episodes in the context of the whole story. They seem really what they are, rather insignificant to the whole narrative. So no, I really haven’t found much that’s troubled me, nothing really that’s troubled me. A few little surprises, but nothing too much.
Do you agree with Elder Snow?
Wheat & Tares 
No, I do not agree with Elder Snow. I think the gaslighting he did in putting the blame on people who don’t study history enough and that is why they get troubled by the “little surprises that come up”, is quite appalling. For one thing, they are not “little surprises”, they are huge surprises that caused harm and sadness and great discouragement to many. Why can’t our current leaders just own up to the mistakes and at times very harmful “doctrines”, that we’re executed and taught by very human and at times very misguided leaders of our past?!
So you ask for a specific inspiring story, none, just generally good stuff.
Agree with Stella.
I thought the first volume of Saints was again too faithfull, and not honest enough.
About women and representation: For a church cultural that looks at the FLDS and universally shakes their head, no one is discussing that the FLDS represents what the LDS church was 120 years ago. The culture of the two entities has not changed as much as we like to think. The LDS church dropped polygamy but they did not change the culture of how women were perceived or treated. Those roots remain. Of all the changes the LDS church has made over those 120 years, they have left out the biggest one of all.
Benjamin was very kind and diplomatic as he discussed life experiences and individual world views. Part of being a religious leader should include being able to see past ones personal biases and experiences. It is an interesting trend that church leaders are being found among those with a history of amazing business success rather than among those with careers focused on helping individual people. We should not be shocked when those same leaders put success of the organization over the needs of individual members.
Personally, I think leadership forgets that the church does not have an HR department for individual members. In business, one can fire an employee. Excommunication is not the same thing. Currently, they are treated the same way. Excommunicated? Fine. When you come back into the organization, all your benefits will be re-started at the same levels as before. I find that odd.
About Elder Snow: Many political, religious or historical entities have an official historian researching their past. Such a representative usually has significant academic credentials and training. The very core of their position is to share the history of that entity. Such historians usually have favorite stories and finds. They are comfortable sharing. They love sharing.
It is disconcerting to read an interview of someone in that position within the LDS faith who has no personal stories. He showed enthusiasm but only talked to promote the official historical story.
When I read these interviews together, it feels more like interviews of a political regime that has people disappearing in the middle of the night than it does of a religion.
re Elder Snow:
“they had a lot of courage and a lot of faith” — Stories of courage and faith are inspiring, but tell us nothing about the content of that faith or the truth of whatever it is the courageous and faithful have faith in. Shifting the subject in that way suggests an a priori commitment to his understanding of the content of the faith more than inspiration toward such faith as opposed to having courage of one’s convictions, whatever they are.
“If you get too wrapped up with non-consequential issues, then it’s hard to progress…” By labeling things that trouble others “non-consequential” Elder Snow is simply being dismissive. Consequential or not relative to what goal or conclusion? One must wonder what he means by the verb “progress.”
“So no, I really haven’t found much that’s troubled me, nothing really that’s troubled me.” This says more about Elder Snow than it does about the history.
I wonder what he would say to an individual who is troubled, e.g., by the stories Fanny Alger, Zina Diantha Huntington Jacobs Smith Young, and Helen Mar Kimball and promises of salvation for her entire family if she were married to JS, etc. While there is more than one way of looking at these things, I fail to see how plural marriage based on promises of salvation for others is “non-consequential.” It was certainly consequential enough for Kimball to get her to agree to JS’ proposal. I wonder what he would say to an individual troubled by numerous patriarchal blessings including apparently false prophecies (at least apparently understood by both patriarch and recipient in a way that proved false). Perhaps promises of the second coming of Christ during one’s own lifetime are “non-consequential.”
Perhaps Elder Snow expands on these matters in the rest of the interview.
I agree with Jana.
And perhaps because I am a woman and I agree with Jana, I disagree with Elder Snow. Polygamy was not a small issue for many of the women who had to live it. The more I learn about its messy history, the more horrified I am.
Elder Snow seems disingenuous to me. Perhaps he feels compelled by his public persona to always be smiling and to constantly reaffirm that he is not troubled by church history. That may well indeed be the case for him but it seems like a canned answer. He doesn’t even acknowledge that it can be troubling for some unless you approach it superficially without understanding things in context. Again, the fault lies with the person studying the history.
Elder Snow, isn’t it possible that someone can look at church history and approach it with as little bias as possible, try to understand things in context, and still be deeply disturbed by what sometimes transpired, by what was said by leaders of the church at various times, by deceptions or lies that Joseph Smith sometimes employed that seemed at times to manipulate his followers?
If a church historian can’t acknowledge this possibility without throwing that person under the bus and blaming them for seeing things this way, then I don’t trust them to be telling us how they really feel. I am not doubting Elder Snow’s faith – just that he seems to be saying that if you understand church history the right way then it’s all rosy. That seems disingenuous to me and more of what he feels obligated to say.
In part two of my conversation with Elder Snow, we talk about Helen Mar Kimball, polygamy, the race and priesthood essay, and the Gospel topics essays. I think you will find it interesting.
“How did they do it? How did they suffer all this persecution, and I’m sure it was a sifting process for many. But boy they had a lot of courage and a lot of faith, those that stayed true and went West and established Zion in the Rocky Mountains.”
I’m dumbfounded and fatigued at the constant refusal to acknowledge that polygamy, treasure digging, owing money from the anti-banking society, etc. was a good part of why they had “persecution.” Why can’t we grant that the persecutors probably had valid reasons for their anger? I’d be a little perturbed if I was owed money. I’d be irate if my daughter, sister, cousin were caught up in a polygamy scheme.
Courage to move west? That courage caused my ancestors a TON of trials and hardships as a direct result choices made by the prophet Joseph Smith. When can we stop pointing fingers and essentially saying, “It’s not my fault! I was just sitting here and he hit me for no reason?”
As for a sifting… that verbiage bothers me so much. I don’t sift my kids and cast some aside as unworthy. The thought is so horribly damaging. “Annie couldn’t handle polygamy? SIFTED.”
In fairness, we should acknowledge the excellent work done by the Church Historical Department on the JSPP, the Revelations in Context materials that supported the D&C/Church History year in Sunday School, and now the Saints series. And the recent Church Historians (Elder Jensen and Elder Snow) certainly deserve some credit for this.
Saints is not Rough Stone Rolling. The next volume won’t be John Turner’s Brigham Young: Pioneer Prophet. But just like there’s a difference between the historical Jesus and the Christ of faith, there is a difference between academic history, warts and all, and devotional history, the kind you get in church and in the curriculum. I’m not defending the prior incarnations of LDS devotional history, because devotional history can be done well or done poorly. It doesn’t get a free pass just because you hear it in church. But in practical terms, Saints is a big improvement and about as candid a history as one could or should expect from the Church.
About snorted my coffee when Elder Snow stated “I just think people that don’t study history enough, are the ones that tend to be a little bit surprised”
I’ve had over 50 years of church instruction. Three hours each Sunday, another hour during the week (that included primary for me as well), eight years of seminary and CES courses, and 20 hours of conference each year. You’d think somewhere in all that time the church had my attention, they might have seen fit to present “enough” church history. Out of over 11,000 hours of instruction the only controversial things I learned were:
– Joseph Smith used a seer stone in a hat
– Emma burned her copy of section 132
– There were multiple accounts of the first vision.
And I wouldn’t have learned the above if I hadn’t taken a church history course at BYU from an instructor who went off script.
Over the course of my life, everything found in the current church essays today would have been considered anti-mormon propaganda. We were told as much. As late as 2000 I had a Stake President tell my ward to stop reading the Journal of Discourses. Not only did the church avoid presenting its history in the 11,000 hours of instruction it gave members over the past fifty years, it actively discouraged members from seeking history outside church authorized sources. Elder Cook, do you know that the timeline in the Brigham Young manual – used for Priesthood and RS instruction in the late 90s, fails to mention any of his wives except his first one? It’s not like anyone didn’t know he had plural wives, but even then the church couldn’t even acknowledge the warts in its open history.
To be fair, if the church had been more transparent and open, I might have left earlier. But what got me going through the exit door wasn’t the history. It was my loss of trust and confidence in its leaders.
“how can you maintain a testimony and know all this church history?”
He can’t afford not to at least pose that he has a testimony. By not just repudiating the LDS church’s official narrative, but even by adopting ahistorical ideas about the BOM that are common on this blog or by even calling past leaders racists and philanderers (which overwhelming evidence strongly suggests that they were), he risks losing his entire social network and status therein. He would be completely shunned. Given that that is a strong likelihood, I take his words about church history with a grain of salt. He thinks it strength to persist in a perpetual state of cognitive dissonance and denial and refuses to try to apply Occam’s Razor to difficult questions and seeks comfort in convoluted, implausible explanations. He completely minimizes the gravity of the evidence that indicts Joseph Smith and other past church leaders on a whole range of issues.
“Now, there are situations and experiences in the past that sometimes are sensationalized by others online. I really believe in studying things in the context of time and place and trying to understand what was going on.”
“Joseph told associates that an angel appeared to him three times between 1834 and 1842 and commanded him to proceed with plural marriage when he hesitated to move forward. During the third and final appearance, the angel came with a drawn sword, threatening Joseph with destruction unless he went forward and obeyed the commandment fully.”
Try and reconcile these two quotes. I cannot.
The first, from Elder Snow, appears above. The second is from the church’s essay on polygamy. It’s on the internet, yes, but I can say it is sensationalized, if certainly sensational. The church actually promotes the notion that an angel with a sword was going to destroy the prophet of the restoration because he didn’t want to practice polygamy. I find that truly outrageous, and Elder Snow cannot dismiss it away as random people on the internet with an axe to grind.
I’m shocked to find that the Church’s official historian, chosen by the Q12, feels the need to toe the line.
Dave B. is exactly right. For a history from one side of things, Saints is as good as it gets. Look for that level of scholarship (such as it is) from the *real* anti-Mormon community, and you’ll be even more disappointed.
Surprised by Elder Snow’s comments. Seemed like 1999 answers, not 2019 answers, which is out of step with the great strides the Church History Department has made.
Elder Snow has played a major role in the great strides the Church History Department has made
“Jana’s comments were more controversial than I thought (at least on my YouTube comment section.) Do you agree or disagree with her?”
If one approaches the topic from a point of view that the church should be trying to make everyone happy, she is probably correct.
What some people want is fundamental change in the church. But if you fundamentally change the thing that I have chosen, then very likely *I* will be the one looking for another church less wishy-washy but more likely no church at all. If the restored church cannot stay on its foundations, what does that leave? But I am not the declarer of what those foundations are.
“Do you agree with Elder Snow?”
Absolutely. Learning about the actual lives and experiences of the pioneers of Utah, and of the nation, and of western civilization creates much greater understanding of the things those people wrote and the lives they lived at the time they wrote.
As to testimony, mine is of God. When men or women do is their business until and unless it intersects with me or my interests. I appreciate the labors and sacrifices made by my ancestors and those who bring science and society into my life so that I have it easier than 6 billion other people right now and more than that through the history of mankind.
About the only thing I want from an apostle or president of the church is “what do you believe and why do you believe it.” Don’t quote dead men or dead women. Don’t quote other living people. Quote yourself. So far about the only modern prophet that has done that is Spencer W. Kimball in his biography. But then, that’s also the only biography I’ve actually read.
John W writes “I take his words about church history with a grain of salt.”
Well of course you do! Question is, what came first? The words or the salt? I take him at his word since to do otherwise is accuse him of lying, in which case there’s no point interviewing him. If the church really is one big vast conspiracy, long may it continue! Until I’m dead anyway.
Brent Metcalfe is a non-believing Mormon historian of note. (He has written several books on Mormon history, is well-respected in the historians community, and was a friend of Mark Hofmann back in the 1980s.) He gave me permission to add this comment, which I think adds a bit of balance to the discussion.
” I first met Steve Snow following the 2013 JWHA multimedia presentation Erin and I gave identifying the handwriting on the “Caractors” document (it’s almost certainly Christian Whitmer’s, BTW). I addressed him as “Elder Snow”; without missing a beat he said “Brent, call me Steve.” He strikes me as an affable, genuine soul.
I concur there is no surprise in Steve’s unwavering conviction of gospel truth despite messy history. I know several bright, gifted LDS historians with an encyclopedic grasp of LDS history; yet, like Steve, they retain belief. We’ve come to mutual understanding and respect because they understand why I believe the way I do and I understand why they believe the way they do. Here’s a snapshot:
▪ What I Believe
I’m a humanist who had a failure of faith in my quest for God; Mormon history is distantly ancillary to my unbelief.
▪ What My Historian Friends Believe
They see God in the world and in the LDS church; Mormon history for them can be convoluted, disruptive, and, for some, at times disturbing; but rather than jettison faith, and because they have an *experiential* faith, they use history to inform faith on fundamental questions (e.g., “What is the nature of revelation?”).
On the final point about my friends’ belief, that’s essentially what I did as a believing Mormon and I suspect it’s what Steve Snow has done. I see no inherent dishonesty in this approach.”
“I take him at his word since to do otherwise is to accuse him of lying”
I wouldn’t accuse someone who is in a state of denial and possible self-delusion of lying. But alas, why should we expect anyone who is paid by an organization that insists on its purity since its history to deliver any objective answers.
But of course the mantra of so many believers is when the prophet speaks the thinking is done. And you seem to have forfeitedany independent thinking about the church to the church leadership long ago, as has Elder Snow.
Snow either does not think or he does not tell the truth.
To the commenters above who take Elder Snow to task for not being candid enough: Are his responses as direct as you’d like? No. Does he share your same interpretation about historical problems? No. (I certainly have some different takes than he.) But please, please put his interview in perspective. For one, he gains almost nothing for giving this interview. By contrast, he risks the askance looks of his own Church peers for doing so. I say, give him some credit. As one commenter said at the YouTube site, if the Elder Snows of the world are harshly treated for giving such an interview, others in leadership positions will be less likely to do these kinds of interviews in the future. Second, inherent in Elder Snow’s comment (that those who end up leaving over Church history problems haven’t studied enough) is the principle that rather than putting everything on the shelf, Church members need to study, and study some more. I hear echoes of Richard Bushman in that comment (i.e., head right into the issue, study it deeply), as well as Bruce and Marie Hafen’s book (i.e., work through complexity until you arrive at the simplicity “on the other side of complexity”). I don’t hear him promoting a philosophy of burying one’s head in the sand, as other past leaders may have promoted.
I’m not advocating an uncritical review of Elder Snow’s comments. I am suggesting that a General Authority who comes to a non-correlated Internet site for an interview, and while there actually encourages studying Church history, warts and all, should be given the same grace you would want if you were in his shoes.
John W writes “refuses to try to apply Occam’s Razor to difficult questions”
Good for him!
Occam’s Razor is not a Truth Detector. It pertains to probabilities. That’s okay, many decisions in life rely on probabilities. But seeking joyful eternal life, when there’s no physical evidence for it, will always fail Occam’s Razor. Eternal life is improbable. God is improbable. Human life is improbable. Any kind of life whatsoever is improbable.
And yet, here I am, despite the improbability.
“If Joseph Smith had sex with a 14 year old young woman, I’m envious”
“And yet, here I am, despite the improbability.”
““when the prophet speaks the thinking is done.”
I suppose so. ”
Did you just admit to being a blindly obedient, closed-minded person with pedophilic inclinations? You never cease to amaze me Michael 2. You’re a complete clown. Your comments are post-worthy on the ex-Mormon subreddit. I will post them there. They should have some fun with them.
“If Joseph Smith had sex with a 14 year old young woman, I’m envious. Put that in your pipe and smoke it ”
Thank you Michael2 for this comment, you, like so many other Mormons have done more than I ever could every hope to do in portraying your church in a frightening light for my children. You like so many other believing and most importantly posting members of your church have truly convinced my kids that the church is populated by adults who are wanton, and cruel. I appreciate your posts for the negative emotional impact they have on my kids and their friends and the lasting repulsion they have for you church and it’s missionaries as a result.
Michael2: What a creep you are. And so proud of it! Disgusting.
Admin note: I deleted the comment from Michael 2 about sexual relations with a 14-yr-old.
Thank you, Mary Ann. I’m a big fan of freedom of expression, but that one was over the line for me.
John W asks “Did you just admit to being a blindly obedient, closed-minded person with pedophilic inclinations?”
No; but I appreciate that is your judgement of me. It is what I expected. I rely on you to be quick to judge others that have different beliefs. Seems a bit similar to those who you condemn.
“You never cease to amaze me Michael 2.”
I really wish I could say the same of you. How many questions have I asked you, or anyone, with no answer? What exactly is the connection with Occam’s Razor and religious belief? You aren’t going to say; you know there is none. It is just something you tossed out there to ridicule the church historian.
“Your comments are post-worthy on the ex-Mormon subreddit. I will post them there.”
Perhaps they will address the points you make but do not defend. I spend little time there; its a playground for kicking against the pricks.
I find W&T valuable and many interesting stories and different ways of looking at things. But not Reddit.
I feel bad about my negativity and apologize to the group. I am what I am; that’s not an excuse but there’s no honor in contention. I shall take a break for a while.
Get lost Michael 2. You’re only here to troll. No one likes you here.
In Michael 2’s defense, while his comments did go a little too far this time around, I’ve found myself both occasionally irritated and occasionally enlightened by his very literal point of view. It takes a lot of different colored threads to make a tapestry. Contrasting thought is a good thing.
Thanks to Rick B. and to Elder Snow for the enlightening interview. I have comments on three points:
1. It disturbed me that general authorities must sign a legal agreement that their journals belong to the Church. Imagine what that kind of control and filter would have done to our knowledge of early Church history had that policy been in place from the start.
2. Elder Snow revealed that the criteria for redaction or suppression of church history records are anything that is private, sacred, or confidential. I am a lawyer who has done much public records disclosure and redaction in my career. With those three criteria, one could hold back just about anything, at least if the three terms are not publicly defined and arbitrated by a neutral party. Even then. Having said that, the trajectory of the Church’s disclosure efforts are toward more transparency. But with “private, sacred, or confidential” always hovering over the redaction room, we may never trust that we even know what we don’t know. — Aside from express descriptions of Temple ceremony, I can’t imagine anything in William Clayton’s journals that ought to be held back from tithe-paying members, the world at large, and the sunlight of truth.
3. Kudos to Elder Snow for his service, willingness to be interviewed, and for his candor. He seems to be an influence for transparency.
Opaqueness and obscurity do the Church long term damage. There is no guarantee that transparency will shore up the Church; many past surprises have had the opposite effect. But opaqueness and obscurity, in my view, will do it harm, perhaps at some point existentially. This goes for more than Church history: GA salaries, finances, and tithing, too. Also, there’s this odd practice of holding back a new bishop’s name until a split second before the members are asked to sustain him. How about a week’s notice so members have time to fully ponder and exercise agency to sustain? Jesus said know the truth, and the truth will make you free. The Church should accelerate in that direction, hard, and right now.
thechair
thechair, thanks for your thoughts. As I mentioned in the interview, I know some historians question whether some of the redactions are really necessary, but I agree that under Elder Snow’s tenure, the openness and transparency has really improved with source documents (like the Council of 50 minutes are available now.) I think he has been a huge help with transparency. I wonder if he would open up more if he could. I hope Elder Curtis continues the openness of his predecessors (Snow and Jensen.)