Sorting Through History, Conclusion

"If you can control people's ideas of the past, you control their ideas of the present and hence the future" (Nibley, Of All Things, p. 247).

I have not followed the advice of that visiting Seventy during the last decade.  It would have altered my gospel study dramatically, and I’m grateful it hasn’t.  While I have read, learned from, and enjoyed many of the articles, talks, and books written by leaders in the Church, I have found truth from others sources, too; truth that, in all likelihood, I would never have discovered had I limited my search to the brethren.  This is particularly true of my efforts to learn Church history.

Honest questions about history lead to real answers.  Those who are determined to find answers to their questions cannot be contented with non-answers.  They will very likely persist until they acquire the sources that will deliver the answers they seek.  Those who have earnestly sought an answer know how this feels.  That feeling could be expressed in words like these: “I know there’s got to be an answer to this question.  I know some person or some book or some place has the answer I’m seeking, and I’ll not rest until I find it.”  Fortunately for us, Joseph Smith felt that way in 1820 in his search for which church to join.  In his case, the answer was only to be found by prevailing upon heaven for answers.    

Assistant Church Historian John Jaques put it well:

Yes, say, what is truth? 'Tis the brightest prize
To which mortals or Gods can aspire;
Go search in the depths where it glittering lies
Or ascend in pursuit to the loftiest skies.
'Tis an aim for the noblest desire.

(Hymn 272, “Oh Say, What is Truth”)

David, in his Psalm expressed this eager sentiment:

“Teach me, O Lord, the way of thy statutes; and I shall keep it unto the end.

“Give me understanding, and I shall keep thy law; yea, I shall observe it with my whole heart.

“Make me to go in the path of thy commandments; for therein do I delight.

“Behold, I have longed after thy precepts: quicken me in thy righteousness” (Psalm 119:33-35, 40). 

The Lord does not expect his Church, or any of his children for that matter, to believe in fabrications about the past.  He has always desired from the beginning that we seek further light and knowledge.  This light and knowledge of the truth make a man like his God (D&C 93:36).

Many members have begun asking honest, tough questions, but been disappointed to discover that the answers they’ve been seeking are to be found outside of “approved” channels of dissemination.  In the recent interview done with Elder Marlin Jensen, he acknowledged this and explained the Church is trying to find solutions to this problem.  Some of the brethren are supportive of that effort and others are not. 

While men are trying to decide how much truth is too much, we are meanwhile faced with the challenge of finding true answers to honest inquiries.  But where do you go looking?  You look wherever you need to look to find your answers.  Truth is truth whether it is found here or there.

The historians who authored the recent book on Mountain Meadows provide a good example of diligently searching into history.  Where did they look for answers?  They looked wherever they needed to look to find their answers.  Their project was so comprehensive it really required them to look everywhere. 

But what about you?  Are you allowed to do that?  Are you allowed to seek out matters in that kind of depth?  What if the source is Jerald and Sandra Tanner, or Ogden Kraut?  They’re the bad folks, right?  If they present a true doctrine, or provide credible information about our history that cannot be found in Deseret Book publications, should it not be accepted?  Or must the facts provided by their research first be acknowledged by the brethren before you can accept them as truth?  What if the information they provided even helped somebody find faith in Christ, or find the determination to stay in the Church?  Would you be justified in judging a woman as "on the fringe" because she finally found a helpful, straight-forward answer but it happened to come from them?

Ogden Kraut was a fundamentalist and I’m not.  Though I don't agree with some of his views, much of his work is superb.  There are few authors I’ve read who seemed so bent on understanding and living what he believed the scriptures were teaching.  He and his research are respectable to me. 

From his writings I could give examples where history is presented in a more faithful manner by a fundamentalist than by our own church’s portrayals.  I could give examples that demonstrate a more clear understanding of and faithful devotion to Joseph Smith’s teachings than our own practices do.  I could show a man who studied, understood, and lived the doctrines in the scriptures better than many Mormons would ever contemplate trying.  I didn’t know the man, but I like what he wrote.  He seems to me to have cared very little about popularity, the praise of men, the lusts of the flesh, or Babylon.  I'm not suggesting you need to read his books though.  He's only a useful example in making a point.  There are others I could have chosen.            

The Tanners are anti-Mormon and I’m pro-Mormon.  They have come to a very different conclusion about Mormonism than I have, but their research has sometimes been helpful to me.  To be clear, I’m not recommending their work to you either.  But, when I’ve needed to get to the bottom of a matter in the Joseph Smith History, for instance, they’ve been happy to oblige.  Their work is well documented.  I'll provide only one example: 

In what has become accepted as an official record we now read this:

“Dr. Richards was taken sick, when Joseph said, ‘Brother Markham,…go and get the doctor something he needs to settle his stomach,’ and Markham went out for medicine.  When he had got the remedies desired, and was returning to jail,…” (History of the Church, vol. 6, p. 614).

The Millennial Star, where the account was originally published, read like this:

“Dr. Richards was taken sick, when Joseph said, ‘Brother Markham,…go and get the Doctor a pipe and some tobacco to settle his stomach,’ and Markham went out for them.  When he had got the pipe and tobacco, and was returning to jail,…” (Millennial Star, vol. 24, p. 471).

Now, some might ask: So what?  What is the big deal that these changes have been made?  This really isn't a big deal.  These are just small things.  

The big deal is this: These aren’t the only changes that have been made.  These aren’t the only things that have been covered up.  There are more changes and cover-ups than any one of us could find or want to count.  Some of them seem harmless, as does the change just mentioned.  But when a man or woman who’s been raised in the Church finds one or two of these changes for the first time in their 30s or 40s, they begin to wonder what other changes have been made.  They wonder what other information has been withheld from them.  In rapid succession, they go uncover a heaping pile of history and teachings that smothers them.  They are unprepared and often too tender for the cruel manner in which much of the information has been portrayed by enemies to the Church.  They wonder whether the leaders knew about these things, and if so, why they have not been honest with the members.  They are deciding to leave the Church over these “small things.”  It's happened to people I know.

To me, these are all small things.  Probably no harm was intended when changes were made, but harm is being done.  Nobody who made decisions to edit the texts probably ever foresaw the kind of trouble it would get folks into years down the road.  These are unintended consequences of hiding the truth, but consequences nonetheless.  Folks are struggling because of this stuff.      

J. Reuben Clark, who was a councilor in the first presidency of the Church for 27 years said: 

"One of the reasons why the so-called 'Fundamentalists' had made such inroads among our young people was because we had failed to teach them the truth" (Elder Statesman: A Biography of J. Ruben Clark, p.249).

Where do you look for answers?  Look wherever you need to look to find your answers.  "Thy mind, o man, ..." et cetera; remember that quote from Joseph Smith?

At the root of all of this seeking, of course, is a personal attempt at coming unto Christ.  That is why you should be seeking answers.  That is ultimately what you should be seeking for.  

Piecing together the puzzle pieces to get an accurate view of Mormon history will help you understand the scriptures.  The reverse is also true.  You cannot properly understand Mormon history without first considering and believing in the prophecies in the scriptures.  Understanding and believing the warnings of the Book of Mormon will help you interpret our history more accurately.  In fact, it is impossible to accurately interpret the whole of our history independent of those prophecies and warnings.

Historians' Attempts at Sorting Through History

For about ten years, from 1972 to 1982, Leonard Arrington served faithfully as LDS Church Historian and Recorder.  During that time he was granted extensive access to Church archives and made an effort to make information available to Mormons and non-Mormons alike.  He was the first professional historian to be called to that position. 

In 1982 the History Division that Arrington oversaw was transferred to BYU, and liberal access to Church archives came to a halt.  Arrington was privately released from both his calling as Church Historian and head of the History Division, and in the April 1982 General Conference the standard public announcement of release and vote of thanks was absent.

In the minds of at least some of the leaders, the degree of transparency Arrington desired for Mormon history turned out to be too much for the Saints  and the world to handle. 

Arrington felt that our “authenticity” as Latter-day Saints depended on members confronting history with complete honesty.  He apparently felt we hadn’t done a stand-up job with that.  As Church Historian and Recorder he was motivated by a desire to see a change in the way we handled and presented our history.  Quoting a Jewish novelist, Arrington makes this point:    

“In his autobiographical recollections and reflections, Little Did I Know, the great Jewish novelist and Zionist Maurice Samuel asserts that the ‘authentic Jew’ is ‘the one who understands and is faithful to his own personal and social identity.  One who, in short, accepts his history.’  May we not make an analogous definition of the Latter-day Saint?  Are we authentic Latter-day Saints (i.e., real Mormons) unless we receive messages from our collective past? …Our individual and collective authenticity as Latter-day Saints depends on the historians telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth about our past.  This includes the failures as well as the achievements, the weaknesses as well as the strengths, the individual derelictions as well as the heroism and self-sacrifice” (Arrington, “The Search for Truth and Meaning in Mormon History,” Dialogue 3:56-66).

Though some members share Arrington’s approach to history, as a people we tend to be oddly touchy about controversial issues from our past.  This leaves us in no real good position to help others who are struggling to understand our faith.  In Arrington's view we are, to some degree, not "authentic" Mormons.  We are often uncomfortable subjecting our own history to critical analysis.  

Polly Aird, Jeff Nichols, and Will Bagley pointed this out in the preface of a book they recently coauthored: 

"An odd defensiveness still characterizes the “faithful” version of Mormon history, which occasionally borders on paranoia: the mildest critical analysis is often condemned as yet another example of the faith’s long-sanctified history of persecution. To this day, the religion’s protectors paint the motives of those who do not subscribe to their faith-promoting version of history as suspect. …At times it seems that any scholar not thumping a tub for the restored Gospel is untrustworthy and relegated to an enemies’ list dating all the way back to the 1830’s" (quoted in Snuffer's recent paper on Brigham Young).

You don't have to like, agree with, or have a testimony of everything that has transpired in Mormon history.  Not everything is beautiful, not everything is praiseworthy, and not everything is true.  Arrington's Assistant Church Historian Davis Bitton said as much (see his article, "I Don't Have a Testimony of the History of the Church").  In that article, he expressed the view that it was not the truth of history that is ever the problem that troubles members, but their own expectations being conflicted that can tear them apart:

"What's potentially damaging or challenging to faith depends entirely, I think, on one's expectations, and not necessarily history. Any kind of experience can be shattering to faith if the expectation is such that one is not prepared for the experience. . . . A person can be converted to the Church in a distant part of the globe and have great pictures of Salt Lake City, the temple looming large in the center of the city. Here we have our home teaching in nice little blocks and we all go to church on Sunday, they believe. It won't take very many hours or days before the reality of experiencing Salt Lake City can be devastating to a person with those expectations. The problem is not the religion; the problem is the incongruity between the expectation and the reality.

"History is similar. One moves into the land of history, so to speak, and finds shattering incongruities which can be devastating to faith. But the problem is with the expectation, not with the history. One of the jobs of the historians and of educators in the Church, who teach people growing up in the Church and people coming into the Church, is to try to see to it that expectations are realistic. The Lord does not expect us to believe lies. We believe in being honest and true, as well as chaste and benevolent. My experience, like that of Leonard, has not been one of having my faith destroyed. I think my faith has changed and deepened and become richer and more consistent with the complexities of human experience. . . . Perhaps the only answer to a question about faith and history is to say that we are examples of people who know a fair amount about Mormon history and still have strong testimonies of the gospel" (Bitton, ibid.). 

The Church encourages its members to seek individual “spiritual confirmation” of the things they are taught (see Newsroom).  Would it be unacceptable, given that invitation, to decide at some point that there is some idea with which you disagree, because the Spirit of the Lord is not in it?  Or because you've done a little bit of research and discovered an alternative view of part of our history?  If the invitation is extended in the hope that members will take it seriously, then the outcome of some members choosing to act upon it should be pleasing to those who lead the Church, even if it results in some members coming to alternative views about a matter.

After decades of extensive digging into Mormon history, Leonard Arrington observed that not all theological and organizational changes were made in response to "explicit instructions from on High."  Many times, he continued, these changes were introduced "by people - by learned scripturists, talented organizers, and energetic innovators.  They may have operated individually or in groups; they may have been motivated by ambition, prestige, or the good of the Church" (Arrington, ibid., emphasis mine).

Discovering that a faithful Church Historian came to those conclusions, I feel at liberty to come to what I consider to be honest conclusions about issues from our past.  I am grateful for the work of honest historians like Leonard Arrington.  

Contentions in Sorting Through History

In the last post we looked at the importance of being able to discern between what is true and false in our history.  By looking at historical context, by comparing and exhausting various available sources, and by considering scriptural prophecies we can build the most accurate view. 

Most members of the Church do not do this well at all.  The small (but growing) body of members who do, though their conclusions may be varied, typically develop views that are not welcome by the larger body of Latter-day Saints.  Why is this true?  Why can’t we have open dialogue with each other about these things?  Is it fear?  Who planted that fear in our hearts (2 Tim 1:7; Moro 8:16)?

So now, there’s a growing disparity among the body of those claiming a belief in the restoration.  There is a gap that has grown larger now than it has ever been before in the history of Mormonism.  This gap gives rise to contentions, and neither side is innocent of fueling them.  If it were for no other reason but this, we are far from being Zion (4 Ne. 1:15).  

There are those who choose to maintain a casual disinterest in our history, and those who have undertaken an aggressive mining effort to dig up every last detail.  Within both of these groups you will find faithful members of the Church.  Within both of these groups you have folks trying to follow the counsel of the leaders, and trying to serve God and his children.  In both of these groups you will find those who are kind, as well as those who are unpleasant.     

Members of the Church have varied interests, motives, and comfort levels.  You should recognize this and be slow to pass judgment upon others, regardless of the path you’ve personally chosen to pursue. 

If you’ve chosen, say, in the past two years to become interested in Church history, your views about most things Mormon have almost definitely developed into something they were not before your undertaking.  You will, at some point in this discovery, find that it is easy to look at others in your ward, family, or work place as uninformed, and uninterested.  It will be easy for you to pass judgment.  Your discoveries in Mormon history, though a blessing to you, will also put you on trial.  Your tendency may be to revert to the same wretched, impatient, non-charitable fool you used to be before you worked on overcoming those natural tendencies the first time around, years ago.  Your new understanding has made you proud (2 Ne. 9:28-29, 42).  Like all trials past, you must learn to become more like Christ.  Serve others and teach them with patience.  Teach those who will hear your testimony (Mosiah 18:3).     

On the other hand are those who have no interest in studying Mormon history.  If you’re not interested in Church history, realize that there are other people who study it and know it better than you do. 

You may consider how foolish it is that your Christian friend from work insists upon defending his ill-founded claims and creeds with an appeal to the Bible he’s hardly read.  You should choose to be different than him.  What you’ve learned about Church history in Sunday school manuals is often times only part of the story, and is certainly not as thorough a treatment as can be received through diligent personal study.  Don’t proudly and angrily defend something you know nothing about.  If you think you understand an issue, share your understanding. Help others come to a true understanding through persuasion, and long-suffering.  You may choose to believe as you do, but there’s no need to fuel contentions.  There’s no need to pass unwise judgment upon others, or to harbor ill feelings toward them.        

Don’t judge harshly those who are interested in what you are not.  Don’t view them as faithless because they temporarily entertain doubts about some of the difficult issues they have chosen to confront in their honest search for the truth of a matter, and because you find those certain aspects of history easy to believe.  If you knew what they knew, you may be worse off than them – and you may find them coming to your rescue.  Be kind, and seek to understand.

With the onslaught of information becoming available on the internet and elsewhere, you must realize that you are going to be confronted with issues that have heretofore been unknown to you.  Others will face this challenge too.  Your parents, children, and ward members are currently having this experience.  The First Presidency and Quorum of Twelve are aware there are many people presently leaving the Church over matters of history (see Marlin K. Jensen interview).  They are struggling to find a way to help present history in a more forthright manner.  It shouldn't be from enemies to the Church that we get some of our most accurate retellings of events from our past.  

Everybody reacts differently to the discovery of events that challenge their present assumptions, traditions, and beliefs.  Some will fold and retreat into a private, lonely recess.  Others will become highly critical, and vocal, and even mean spirited in their efforts to expose their discovery.  Your acceptance of the truth will put you in a position to support the hands that hang down.  You will be capable of providing comfort to those who stand in need of comfort (Mosiah 18:9).  You’ve covenanted to do so.

As you see these things going on around you, remember that "we believe" God is going to continue to reveal "many great and important things," and you have an obligation to discover the truth of these matters (AofF1:9).  The gospel of Jesus Christ welcomes ALL truth.  Some truths will hurt your heart, and initially confuse you, because they will come into conflict with your present assertions, and expectations.  People you love and respect will reject the truth, and will attempt to persuade you of their own views.  Take the Spirit as your guide.  Choose to not be destroyed by the truth, but to welcome it in humility. 

Sorting Through History

“And truth is knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come.”

“And whatsoever is more or less than this is the spirit of that wicked one who was a liar from the beginning” (D&C 93:24).

Honest students of history have the dilemma of sorting through what is true and what is false.  This is true of the history of any subject, but becomes particularly important in matters of religion.

At times, this is easy to do.  Blatant lies are often easy to detect, especially when not substantiated by other contemporaneous accounts.  But when the perpetrator of an historical event is himself misinformed, or wittingly or unwittingly exaggerates or leaves out important details, it becomes rather difficult for the reader to sort through the data and develop an accurate picture.

Latter-day Saint history is filled with the miraculous, and with accounts of God’s dealings with men in our own day.  Many of the accounts are both faithful and faith-promoting.  These recorded events, like ancient scripture, invite you to improve upon your time and to obtain from God what others have received.  It is appropriate for us to be excited about and delight in the retelling of these accounts.

Some events in our history are ugly and alarming.  Plenty of Mormons refuse to acknowledge this.  Other folks, however, may be constituted so as to acknowledge nothing but the ugly.  Some go to great lengths to point out discrepancies, errors, failings, and lies.  Various authors may or may not choose to confront certain events from our past.  Both sides are inevitably criticized by the others who disagree with the approach they’ve taken to the study of the faith.

Much of the time, reaching a sound conclusion about a matter requires you to exhaust the resources available to you.  Adding up the details, while considering the pertinent context, paints the true picture.  At times you will be forced to choose between sources, as one may present a different view of the events than another.  You may choose to believe one man’s witness as credible and honest, for instance, while putting off ten other witnesses who all agree with one another, but who propound a contrary view to the one.  That is every man’s prerogative.  You may not know about the ten other witnesses at all.  Perhaps you will choose to suspend judgment on a matter for now.  Whatever the case, these things take work. 

We need context to truly understand people and events.  Ignoring some aspects of the overall context could cause us to miss out on some truth.  Without understanding the cultural context surrounding the massacre at Mountain Meadows, for example, it is impossible to begin to understand the event.  The culture of violent rhetoric that preceded the massacre helps you not only understand how such an event could have transpired, but provides a lens through which to discern varying contemporaneous accounts that were given of it.    

Historians only offer their opinions about what really happened in the past.  They pick and choose their sources according to their motive, and present the data they've gathered.  Some are more honest than others; some more intelligent.  Usually, an eager student of the gospel will find his opinion may change a number of times about a doctrine or historical event depending on which sources he encounters, when, and to which sources he gives credence.  

Having done these things, you also must consider prophetic descriptions of our day - as found in the scriptures - to inform your reading of history.  Without the context of prophecy, events in our history can bend to fit the desired outcome of any historian; or any student.  When we take the prophecies seriously, we begin to see that our traditional telling of some aspects of Mormon history may be off.  We've sorely neglected the prophecies of the Book of Mormon in this regard.    

You should desire to work these things out.  The truth will empower you.  It will make you free, and enable you to forsake the enemy of your soul (John 8:32; D&C 93:37). 

Confronting Truth

"Wo unto them that call evil good, and good evil, that put darkness for light, and light for darkness" (2 Ne. 15:20). 


For those who are not used to confronting the truth of difficult issues within Mormon history, it may be easy to pass quick judgment upon those who have decided to do so with candor.  Because something seems contrary to your assumptions does not mean it is unimportant, or untrue.  Be humble enough to at least consider whether or not these things are important.  If you decide they're unimportant, fine.      


The truth is not always kind in its confrontation with error (2 Ne. 9:40).  My intent is not to be critical of the Church or its leaders.  I sustain the leaders.  But there remains things to which you must draw your attention.  I'm not the only one singing out about these things.  It's really unfortunate that we cannot candidly discuss our own history in an attempt to better understand our faith, without being considered suspect by those who share our faith.  It's really a shame.  I accept that's the way it is and will remain for now.         


It is important to bring up these issues.  It is important because in order to grow in truth, you at some point need to begin shedding error. You cannot gain further light and knowledge building upon a false foundation.


It is important to consider these things, because it allows you to step outside of your present world, and view the history that has created the Mormonism you've inherited.  What you have inherited is not what Joseph Smith intended to create.

We read, memorize, and parrot many gospel precepts that we do not understand correctly.  It's easy to use the words of scripture and have no idea what the prophet-author had in mind when he penned the words.  Words written by the power of the Spirit of God can only be fully understood by that same Spirit.  We are blind.  We are gone into captivity, because we have no knowledge (2 Ne. 15:13).  Our honorable men are famished, and the multitude dried up with thirst (Ibid.).  


This terrible dilemma we find ourselves in is not completely our fault.  We've inherited many ideas about the gospel.  Some are correct and have their roots in the restoration the Prophet was trying to accomplish.  Others are innovations from more recent history.  But you shouldn't be surprised you didn't know that.  How could you?  When a man walks into a room that is painted blue, he does not naturally begin wondering what color the room used to be painted.  Not until the paint begins to peel away does he entertain questions about the original.  


When we are born into a culture that teaches reliance upon the arm of flesh, it's easy to adopt unbelief, and to persist in spreading the disease.  We do so without malice, and even good intention.  It's so difficult to break the cycle.  It's too comfortable to pursue our present course and think all is well.     

There are many people looking for answers. People are beginning to ask important questions. Not everybody, however, is interested right now in shedding their biases, and traditions.  Not everybody is willing to be burdened with correction.  All things must be done in wisdom.  God wants to save his children, not harm them.   


It is easy to allow yourself to become a critic of the Church, or an "accuser" of the brethren, when you've seen enough of the weakness and failings of men.  It's unfortunate that some decide to become critics and to indulge in the spirit of the evil one.  The critic attempts to destroy faith and unity.  


Criticism is addictive.  This is a new challenge that folks face when they begin to wake up from that awful slumber, and shake off the dust that covers them.  The natural man would have you point a finger of scorn and condemnation at a brother.  Christ would have us cover another in the cloak of charity.


"I do not dwell upon your faults, and you shall not upon mine.  Charity, which is love, covereth a multitude of sins, and I have often covered up all the faults among you...We should cultivate a meek, quiet and peaceable spirit" (Joseph Smith, TPJS, Section Six 1843-1844, p. 316)


I see a day coming in which many people will lose their faith.  Those who have placed their faith in men will lose it, while those who have developed faith in Christ will save it.  My effort is to reach out to those who desire to come unto Christ.  Inasmuch as the Spirit of the Lord will guide me, I will continue the effort.


Here's something to remember: sometimes wicked people are very nice; and very good people, deceived.