FAIR is a non-profit organization dedicated to providing well-documented answers to criticisms of the doctrine, practice, and history of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Difference between revisions of "Mormonism and history"
(→Other Church history topics: m) |
(→Other Church history topics: m) |
||
| Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
|subject=Hugh Nibley | |subject=Hugh Nibley | ||
|summary=Nibley was a pioneer in LDS scholarship and apologetics. | |summary=Nibley was a pioneer in LDS scholarship and apologetics. | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
}} | }} | ||
{{SummaryItem | {{SummaryItem | ||
Revision as of 12:44, 26 April 2014
- REDIRECTTemplate:Test3
Mormonism and history
Topics
Alleged whitewashing of Church history
Real history with real mortals is complex and messy. It is not uncommon to be troubled by an aspect of Church history. Critics of the Church often seek to make these concerns worse by claiming or implying that the Church hides troubling aspects of its history.
The History of the Church
Modern standards of history writing were not always observed in earlier time periods. For example, some are surprised to learn at the six-volume History of the Church has portions which were written as if Joseph Smith had written the words, when in fact the original documents were written by others.
Is this an attempt at dishonesty?
The common nineteenth-century format of writing was chosen by Joseph Smith, who directed his clerks to write a first person
Historian Dean Jessee described the differences between historical writing as practiced by a modern writer, and those practices in place in Joseph Smith's day:
Since none of the manuscript of the history is in Joseph Smith’s handwriting, and apparently not much of the text was actually dictated by him, why did those employed on the work write in first person, as though the Prophet himself were writing? That common nineteenth-century format was chosen by Joseph Smith, who directed his clerks to write a first person, daily narrative based upon diaries kept by himself and his clerks. In addition, since Joseph Smith’s diary did not provide an unbroken narrative of his life, the compilers of the history were to bridge gaps by using other sources (diaries, Church periodicals, minute and record books of Church and civic organizations, letters and documents kept on file, and news of current world happenings), changing indirect discourse to direct as if Joseph Smith had done the writing himself. Not uncommon according to the editorial practices of the day, this method of supplying missing detail had the effect of providing a smooth-flowing, connected narrative of events.
Many examples from other works of the period show that this was the historical standard of the time. Nineteenth-century American methods of historical writing and editing were very different from those of today. In 1837, for example, Jared Sparks—regarded as “the first great compiler of national records”—edited in twelve volumes the Writings of George Washington. When his work was later compared with original manuscripts, it was found that he had rewritten portions of letters, deleted or altered offensive passages, and changed irregularities in style and awkward modes of expression.
In his review of historical editing in the United States, Lyman E. Butterfield has noted that changing text and creating text faithful to the ideas of the writer were not uncommon in early years, and that seldom were original texts left to speak for themselves. [1] The History of the Church was written in the general literary and historical climate of its time.
New Testament parallels
Jessee noted that this 19th century approach to historiography matches more ancient practices, such as those used by some Biblical authors:
New Testament writers apparently used a similar method in writing the Gospels. One Bible commentary records that Matthew and Luke borrowed from Mark (Interpreter’s Bible, 7:235–36) and omitted or altered what seemed to be critical of the Apostles. For example, Mark records that James and John came to the Savior and asked that he give them whatsoever they desired; whereupon, the Savior heard their plea that each might sit by his side when he came in glory. (Mark 10:35–37.) When Matthew recorded the event, he said that it was the mother of James and John who desired this privilege for her sons (Matt. 20:20–21.) This difference in recording the circumstances, presumably to place the Apostles in a better light, does not destroy the credibility of the Savior’s mission, nor may we believe that there was dishonesty in making the change.
Challenges with direct citation
Jessee cautions:
One of the challenges facing those who compiled the history was that of presenting the Prophet’s sermons and teachings. Since none of Joseph’s clerks had mastered shorthand during his lifetime, reports of what he said were made longhand. Many of these were smooth-flowing, well-connected summaries and were copied into the history almost as recorded. In some instances, however, it was necessary to reconstruct an address from brief notes and disconnected ideas. George A. Smith’s editorial work was careful, and when he was finished, each discourse was read to members of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve, some of whom had also heard the original address. Their input proved invaluable. These measures no doubt guaranteed the doctrinal accuracy of such reporting of Joseph Smith’s discourses, but the result obviously would not reflect his personality and speaking style as accurately as a verbatim report would have done.
An analysis of the History reveals those portions obtained from material written personally by Joseph Smith. These clearly reflect his loving and warm spirit. For example, the following is an entry from the History stemming from a portion of Joseph Smith’s 1835 diary written by himself:
“September 23. I was at home writing blessings for my most beloved brethren, but was hindered by a multitude of visitors. The Lord has blessed our souls this day, and may God grant to continue His mercies unto my house this night, for Christ’s sake. This day my soul has desired the salvation of Brother Ezra Thayer. Also Brother Noah Packard came to my house and loaned the committee one thousand dollars to assist building the house of the Lord. Oh! may God bless him a hundred fold, even of the things of the earth, for this righteous act. My heart is full of desire today, to be blessed of the God of Abraham with prosperity, until I shall be able to pay all my debts, for it is the delight of my soul to be honest. O Lord, that thou knowest right well. Help me, and I will give to the poor.” [2]
| To learn more: | Editing practices for the History of the Church |
Altering the history
Others have been concerned that the recasting of history in the History of the Church included altering documents to conceal embarrassing facts.
For example, some have claimed that Oliver Cowdery's blessing and promise to Orson Hyde contained a false prophecy, which was then altered before being printed in History of the Church.
Claims of "false prophecy" rest upon the most narrow, critical reading possible, and ignore important aspects of LDS thought and theology
It is claimed that the ordination blessing given to Orson Hyde is an example of false prophecy. It is also claimed that Hyde's blessing was altered in the History of the Church for propaganda reasons.[3]
Changes made to the text clarify but do not alter its meaning. Claims of "false prophecy" rest upon the most narrow, critical reading possible, and ignore important aspects of LDS thought and theology.
Text of the Orson Hyde blessing was edited in History of the Church?
The original of Hyde's blessing is in the Kirtland Council Minute book. It is compared here (left) with the version as it appears in the History of the Church (bold text indicates differences):
| Kirtland Council Minute Book | History of the Church |
|---|---|
|
Orson Hyde blessing. Oliver Cowdery proceeded and called upon the Lord to smile upon him and that his faith shall be perfect, and that the blessings promised shall be realized. He shall be made mighty and be endowed with power from on high, and go forth to the nations of the earth to proclaim the gospel. That he shall escape all the pollutions of the world. The Angels shall uphold him, and that he shall go forth according to the commandment, both to Jew & Gentile and shall go to all nations, kingdoms and tongues |
Oliver Cowdery called upon the Lord to smile upon him; that his faith be made perfect, and that the blessings pronounced may be realized; that he be made mighty, and be endued with powers from on high, and go forth to the nations of the earth to proclaim the Gospel, that he may escape all the pollutions of the world; that the angels shall uphold him; and that he shall go forth according to the commandment, both to Jew and Gentile, and to all nations, kingdoms and tongues; that all who hear his voice shall acknowledge him to be a servant of God; that he shall be equal with his brethren in holding the keys of the kingdom; that he may stand on the earth and bring souls till Christ comes. We know that he loves Thee, O, Lord, and may this Thy [p.190] servant be able to walk through pestilence and not be harmed; and the powers of darkness have no ascendency over him; may he have power to smite the earth with pestilence; to divide waters, and lead through the Saints; may he go from land to land and from sea to sea, and may he be like one of the three Nephites. |
The word "shall" was changed to "may"
The majority of the changes alter a phrase like "shall" to a phrase like "may." The critics presumably wish to mislead the unwary into concluding that the initial version gave unconditional promises or prophecies, while the History of the Church version adds a conditional aspect. Yet, the critics are simply ignorant of word usage in the early 1800s. Webster's 1828 dictionary noted of "shall":
In the second and third persons [i.e., when applied to another person], shall implies a promise, command or determination. "You shall receive your wages," "he shall receive his wages," imply that you or he ought to receive them; but usage gives these phrases the force of a promise in the person uttering them.[4]
Thus, "shall" indicates a promise or command—and, LDS theology (with its strong emphasis on moral agency) always holds that man is free to accept or reject the commandments or promises of God. The History of the Church makes this fact more unambiguous for the modern reader, perhaps, in its use of "may." But, this change in no way changes the content of the blessing.
In fact, the ordination given to Brigham Young on the same day includes similar promises, but usually uses "may" instead of "shall." Since Brigham's blessing was given by Martin Harris, while Orson's was given by Oliver Cowdery, this difference is probably best explained by the habits in language between the two men. (Compare Brigham Young ordination blessing.) Latter-day Saints do not believe that such blessings are generally word-for-word dictation from God, but instead are the speaker's best attempt to put into words the information communicated to them by the Holy Spirit (e.g., D&C 1꞉24). Those people who edited the History of the Church understood this.
Critics reading through their own theology and ideas
This is another excellent example of sectarian critics' tendency to read LDS scripture and language through their own lenses—the critics are often Calvinists, believing in God's absolute predestination of events and acts. But, LDS theology has never seen the matter that way. Instead, God gives promises or commands to mortals who may choose to participate or not. As the Lord said elsewhere:
- 49 Verily, verily, I say unto you, that when I give a commandment to any of the sons of men to do a work unto my name, and those sons of men go with all their might and with all they have to perform that work, and cease not their diligence, and their enemies come upon them and hinder them from performing that work, behold, it behooveth me to require that work no more at the hands of those sons of men, but to accept of their offerings....
51 Therefore, for this cause have I accepted the offerings of those whom I commanded to build up a city and a house unto my name, in Jackson county, Missouri, and were hindered by their enemies, saith the Lord your God. (D&C 124꞉49,51
This is simply not a false prophecy
Critics go further in claiming that the blessing which says that Hyde "shall stand on the earth and bring souls till Christ comes" proves that this is a false prophecy.
But, the blessing nowhere asserts that Hyde will be a mortal until the Second Coming. Unlike many Christian theologies, the doctrine of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not place the abode of the dead in another world or realm. Likewise, it does not cause the preaching of the gospel and the redeeming of souls to cease with death. Missionary work continues in the spirit world after death, and the "spirit world" to which the dead go is on earth. Brigham Young said:
- When you lay down this tabernacle [i.e., mortal body], where are you going? Into the spiritual world. Are you going into Abraham's bosom. No, not anywhere nigh there, but into the spirit world. Where is the spirit world? It is right here. Do the good and evil spirits go together? Yes, they do. Do they both inhabit one kingdom? Yes, they do. Do they go to the sun? No. Do they go beyond the boundaries of this organized earth? No, they do not. They are brought forth upon this earth, for the express purpose of inhabiting it to all eternity. Where else are you going? Nowhere else, only as you may be permitted....
Father Smith and Carlos and brother Partridge, yes, and every other good Saint, are just as busy in the spirit world as you and I are here. They can see us, but we cannot see them unless our eyes were opened. What are they doing there? They are preaching, preaching all the time, and preparing the way for us to hasten our work in building temples here and elsewhere, and to go back to Jackson County and build the great temple of the Lord. They are hurrying to get ready by the time that we are ready and we are all hurrying to get ready by the time our Elder Brother is ready (emphasis added).[5]
Thus, faithful apostles would continue their work among the wicked (either as a mortal or among the spirits) until Christ comes.</onlyinclude>
Critical sources |
|
Sidney Rigdon and the succession crisis of 1844
Joseph Smith's murder posed a dilemma for early members—who would lead the Church while he was gone. Sidney Rigdon offered himself as a leader; this was opposed by Brigham Young and the twelve apostles.
Sidney was not sustained by Church members, and the Twelve pointed out that Joseph himself had wanted to remove Sidney from his role as Joseph's counselors. Critics have again pointed to differences between the original source for his membership trial (the Church's newspaper Times and Seasons) and the version which appears in History of the Church.
There are some differences, which we will examine in detail below.
The history may have been modified by Joseph's successors for noble or base reasons, and they may have served or harmed historical accuracy in doing so
The basic story is essentially unchanged—Joseph wanted to get rid of Sidney, and did not fully trust him or have much confidence in him even when he continued in his role as counselor. Joseph held out some hope that Sidney would rise to his calling, and it is this that is omitted in the History of the Church's version.
The history may have been modified by Joseph's successors for noble or base reasons, and they may have served or harmed historical accuracy in doing so. It is difficult to determine which at this remove.
If those compiling the history did wrong, this simply demonstrates that fallible leaders are not without faults, flaws, or improper jealousies. Most members, however, would probably conclude that the History of the Church version removed the ambiguity in Joseph's initial response simply because Sidney had clearly failed to measure up—for the compilers, there was ambiguity no longer.
Needless to say, such a procedure does not meet modern historical standards, and ought not be undertaken today.
The two accounts are compared in the table below
The two accounts are compared in the table below (paragraphing has been slightly altered so the accounts will align better for comparison). Red italics have been added, the green text is italicized in the original History of the Church:
| Times and Seasons version[6] | History of the Church version[7] |
|---|---|
|
Friday, October 6th, 10 o'clock A. M. The weather proving unfavorable, the organization of the conference was postponed until the next day at 10 o'clock, A. M. Saturday, 10 'clock A. M. Conference assembled and proceeded to business. President Joseph Smith was called to the chair, and Gustavus Hills chosen clerk. Opened with singing by the choir, and prayer by elder Almon Babbitt. The president stated the items of business to be brought before the Conference, to be, 1st. The case and standing of elder Sidney Rigdon, counsellor to the First Presidency. 2d. The further progress of the Temple; after which, any miscellaneous business. Elder Sidney Rigdon addressed the conference on the subject of his situation and circumstances among the saints. President Joseph Smith addressed the conference, inviting an expression of any charges or complaints which the Conference had to make. He sated his dissatisfaction with elder Sidney Rigdon as a counsellor, not having received any material benefit from his labors or counsels since their escape from Missouri. Several complaints were then brought forward in reference to his management in the Post Office; a supposed correspondence in connection with John C. Bennett, with Ex-Governor Carlin, and with the Missourians, of a treacherous character: also his leaguing with dishonest persons in endeavoring to defraud the innocent. President Joseph Smith related to the Conference the detention of documents from J. Butterfield, Esq., which were designed for the benefit of himself, (President Smith,) but was not handed over for some three or four weeks, greatly to his disadvantage. Also, an indirect testimony from Missouri, through the mother of Orin P. Rockwell, that said Rigdon and others had given information, by letter, of President Smiths' visit to Dixon, advising them to proceed to that place and arrest him there. He stated that in consequence of those, and other circumstances, and his unprofitableness to him as a counsellor, he did not wish to retain him in that station, unless those difficulties could be removed; but desired his salvation, and expressed his willingness that he should retain a place among the saints. Elder Almon Babbitt suggested the propriety of limiting the complaints and proofs to circumstances that had transpired since the last Conference. President Joseph Smith replied, and showed the legality and propriety of a thorough investigation, without such limitation. Elder Sidney Rigdon plead, concerning the documents from J. Butterfield, Esq., that he received it in answer to some inquiries which he had transmitted to him that he received it at a time when he was sick, and unable to examine it—did not know that it was designed for the perusal and benefit of President Joseph Smith—that he had, consequently, ordered it to be laid aside, where it remained until inquired for by Joseph Smith. He had never written to Missouri concerning the visit of Joseph Smith to Dixon, and knew of no other person having done so. That, concerning certain rumors of belligerent operations under Governor Carlin's administration, he had related them, not to alarm or disturb any one, but that he had the rumors form good authorities, and supposed them well founded. That he had never received but one communication from John C. Bennett, and that of a business character, except one addressed to him conjointly with Elder Orson Pratt, which he handed over to President Smith—that he had never written any letters to John C. Bennett. The weather becoming inclement, Conference adjourned until Sunday 10 o'clock A. M. Sunday, 8th inst., 10 o'clock, A. M. Conference assembled agreeably to the adjournment and opened with singing by the choir, and prayer by Elder William W. Phelps. Elder Sidney Rigdon resumed his plea of defence. He related the circumstances of his reception in the city of Quincy, after his escape from Missouri the cause of his delay in not going to the city of Washington, on an express to which he had been appointed—and closed with a moving appeal to President Joseph Smith concerning their former friendship, associations and sufferings, and expressed his willingness to resign his place, though with sorrowful and indescribable feelings. During this address, the sympathies of the congregation were highly excited. Elder Almon Babbitt related a conversation he had had with Esq. Johnson, in which he exonerated elder Sidney Rigdon from the charge or suspicion of having had treacherous correspondence with Ex-Governor Carlin. President Joseph Smith arose and satisfactorily explained to the congregation the supposed treacherous correspondence with Ex-Governor Carlin, which wholly removed suspicion from elder Sidney Rigdon, and from every other person. He expressed entire willingness to have elder Sidney Rigdon retain his station, provided he would magnify his office, and walk and conduct himself in all honesty, righteousness, and integrity; but signified his lack of confidence in his integrity and steadfastness, judging from their past intercourse. President Hyrum Smith followed with appropriate and expressive remarks on the attribute of mercy in God, as that by which He influences, controls, and conquers—and the propriety and importance of the saint's exercising the same attribute towards their fellows; and especially towards their aged companion and fellow servant in the cause of truth and righteousness. Elder Almon Babbitt and pres't. Wm. Law followed with remarks in defence of elder Sidney Rigdon. On motion by President William Marks, and seconded by President Hyrum Smith, Conference voted that elder Sidney Rigdon be permitted to retain his station as Counsellor to the First Presidency. Singing by the choir prayer by pres't. Wm. Law. Conference adjourned for one hour. |
MINUTES OF A SPECIAL CONFERENCE. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, in Special Conference, held in the City of Nauvoo, commencing on the 6th of October, 1843.
Friday, October 6, ten o'clock, a.m. The weather proving unfavorable, the organization of the Conference was postponed until the next day at ten o'clock, a.m. Saturday, ten o'clock, a.m. Conference assembled and proceeded to business. President Joseph Smith was called to the chair, and Gustavus Hills was chosen clerk. Singing by the choir, and prayer by Elder Almon W. Babbitt. The president stated the items of business to be brought before the conference to be— 1st. The case and standing of Elder Sidney Rigdon, Counselor in the First Presidency. 2nd. The further progress of the Temple; after which, any miscellaneous business. Elder Sidney Rigdon addressed the conference on the subject of his situation and circumstances among the Saints. President Joseph Smith addressed the conference, inviting an expression of any charges or complaints which the conference had to make. He stated his dissatisfaction with Elder Sidney Rigdon as a Counselor, not having received any material benefit from his labors or counsels since their escape from Missouri. Several complaints were then brought forward in reference to his management in the post office; a supposed corespondence and connection with John C. Bennett, with Ex-Governor Carlin, and with the Missourians, of a treacherous character; also his leaguing with dishonest persons in endeavoring to defraud the innocent. President Joseph Smith related to the conference the detention of a document from Justin Butterfield, Esq., which was designed for the benefit of himself, (President Smith,) but was not handed over for some three or four weeks, greatly to his disadvantage; also, an indirect testimony from Missouri, through the mother of Orrin P. Rockwell, that said Rigdon and others had given information, by letter, of President Smith's visit to Dixon, advising them to proceed to that place [p.48] and arrest him there. He stated that, in consequence of these and other circumstances, and Elder Rigdon's unprofitableness to him as a Counselor, he did not wish to retain him in that station, unless those difficulties could be removed; but desired his salvation, and expressed his willingness that he should retain a place among the Saints. Elder Almon W. Babbitt suggested the propriety of limiting the complaints and proofs to circumstances that had transpired since the last conference. President Joseph Smith replied, and showed the legality and propriety of a thorough investigation, without such limitation. Elder Sidney Rigdon pleaded, concerning the document from Justin Butterfield, Esq., that he received it in answer to some inquiries which he [Rigdon] had transmitted to him [Butterfield]; that he [Rigdon] received it at a time when he was sick, and unable to examine it; did not know that it was designed for the perusal and benefit of President Joseph Smith; that he had, consequently, ordered it to be laid aside, where it remained until inquired for by Joseph Smith. He had never written to Missouri concerning the visit of Joseph Smith to Dixon, and knew of no other person having done so. That, concerning certain rumors of belligerent operations under Governor Carlin's administration, he had related them, not to alarm or disturb any one; but that he had the rumors from good authorities, and supposed them well founded. That he had never received but one communication from John C. Bennett, and that of a business character, except one addressed to him conjointly with Elder Orson Pratt, which he handed over to President Smith. That he had never written any letters to John C. Bennett. The weather becoming inclement, conference adjourned until Sunday, ten o'clock, a.m. Sunday, 8th, ten o'clock, a.m. Conference assembled agreeably to adjournment.
Elder Sidney Rigdon resumed his plea of defense. He related the circumstances of his reception in the city of Quincy, after his escape from Missouri,—the cause of his delay in not going to the city of Washington, on an express to which he had been appointed: and closed with a moving appeal to President Joseph Smith, concerning their former friendship, associations, and sufferings; and expressed his willingness to resign his place, though with sorrowful and indescribable feelings. During this address, the sympathies of the congregation were highly excited. Elder Almon W. Babbitt related a conversation he had had with Esquire Johnson, in which he exonerated Elder Sidney Rigdon from the [p.49] charge or suspicion of having had a treacherous correspondence with ex-Governor Carlin. President Joseph Smith arose and explained to the congregation the supposed treacherous correspondence with ex-Governor Carlin, and expressed entire lack of confidence in his integrity and steadfastness, judging from their past intercourse.
Patriarch Hyrum Smith followed with appropriate and impressive remarks on the attributes of mercy in God, as that by which He influences. controls and conquers; and the propriety and importance of the Saints exercising the same attribute towards their fellows, and especially towards their aged companion and fellow-servant in the cause of truth and righteousness. Elder Almon W. Babbitt and President William Law followed with remarks in defense of Elder Sidney Rigdon. On motion by President William Marks, and seconded by Patriarch Hyrum Smith, conference voted that Elder Sidney Rigdon be permitted to retain his station as Counselor in the First Presidency. President Joseph Smith arose and said, "I have thrown him off my shoulders, and you have again put him on me. "You may carry him, but I will not." [Fn 2:This paragraph in Italics appears as footnote in the Ms. History.] Singing. Prayer by Elder William Law. Conference adjourned for one hour. |
There are only two significant differences between the accounts
Thus, there are only two significant differences:
| Times and Seasons version | History of the Church version |
|---|---|
|
President Joseph Smith arose and satisfactorily explained to the congregation the supposed treacherous correspondence with Ex-Governor Carlin, which wholly removed suspicion from elder Sidney Rigdon, and from every other person. He expressed entire willingness to have elder Sidney Rigdon retain his station, provided he would magnify his office, and walk and conduct himself in all honesty, righteousness, and integrity; but signified his lack of confidence in his integrity and steadfastness, judging from their past intercourse. (Material in bold was removed from the History of the Church account.) |
President Joseph Smith arose and explained to the congregation the supposed treacherous correspondence with ex-Governor Carlin, and expressed entire lack of confidence in his integrity and steadfastness, judging from their past intercourse. (Material in bold was added to the History of the Church account.) |
|
No corresponding text |
President Joseph Smith arose and said, "I have thrown him off my shoulders, and you have again put him on me. "You may carry him, but I will not." [Fn 2:This paragraph in Italics appears as footnote in the Ms. History.] |
A modern historian, of course, cringes at this modification of the original text
In both cases, it is clear that Joseph still does not trust Sidney, even after he has been cleared of the issue with Gov. Carlin's letters. In the contemporaneous text, however, Joseph does express willingness to keep Sidney as councilor if he will conduct himself properly (though he still expresses doubt that he will).
Since Sidney was kept on as councilor, for him to have any chance of success or influence, Joseph could not simply "cut him off at the knees"—that would guarantee Sidney's failure. Thus, the contemporary account allowed for the possibility of Sidney's proper functioning, though Joseph remained publicly dubious, and privately even more so.
By the time the History of the Church was printed, Sidney had nearly torn the Church apart. He had challenged the right of Brigham Young and the Twelve to lead after Joseph's death. Thus, those compiling the history were firmly convinced that Sidney had failed his chance. Those who compiled it may also have not wanted to portray Joseph as at all 'wrong' about Sidney—they may have known (or believed) that Joseph considered his conciliatory remarks to be of little hope. Or, on a more cynical interpretation, they may have wished to undermine Sidney's claims to leadership after Joseph's death.
It should be noted too that this account is not a verbatim transcript—it is an author's summary of what they heard. Some who compiled the history were doubtless present at the same meeting. They may have remembered the matter quite differently, especially with the passage of time and subsequent events which made them more hostile to Sidney. They may well have seen the Times and Seasons report as too biased in Sidney's favor, or (as discussed above) bending over backward to soft-peddle what Joseph had actually said. They may, then, have seen themselves as restoring accuracy which had been compromised.
The note about the Manuscript History is clearly marked as an addition, and was not included in the original account. It may represent:
- (a) a properly-remembered public remark of Joseph's that was not inserted into the record at that time to spare Sidney's effectiveness;
- (b) a properly-remembered remark of Joseph's to the Twelve or others; or
- (c) a mis-remembered or deliberately fabricated remark inserted after Joseph's death to weaken Sidney's claims to the succession.
One's attitude to Joseph, Sidney, the Twelve, and the Church's truth claims will probably determine which explanation seems most plausible to each reader.</onlyinclude>
Critical sources |
|
A more modern example
In an effort to portray this type of supposed 'deception' as a routine Church tactic, critics will often point to the decision to have Elder Ronald L. Poelman's 1984 conference talk re-recorded with a "cough track"
This decision is then portrayed as an effort to hide the fact that changes had been made to his talk before its publication. As we might expect, the reality is more complicated and far less sinister.
Elder Poelman voluntarily edited his talk when he learned that some "fundamentalist" Mormons were using his address as justification for their beliefs
Elder Ronald L. Poelman's 1984 conference talk was edited after delivery and re-recorded with a cough track. Some have claimed that this was an effort to hide the fact that changes had been made. Other have claimed Elder Poelman was ordered to make the changes to his talk. [8]
Elder Poelman voluntarily edited his talk when he learned that some "fundamentalist" Mormons were using his address as justification for their beliefs. The re-recording was intended for distribution to the world-wide Church, and was not an effort to hide the fact that changes had been made.[9]
Elder Poelman was not in any way forced to make changes to his talk
Elder Poelman was not in any way forced to make changes to his talk. In fact, the substance of what he said in 1984 is extremely similar to the things that Elder Uchtdorf said in one of his recent conferences addresses. However, after the conference, members and leaders raised issues about how his talk might be received and used by some who sought reasons to discount the counsel of leaders to justify practices such as polygamy. Because of the questions raised, Elder Poelman was desirous to clarify his remarks so that it could not be used as a license by others to disregard modern revelation or counsel.
Because it is common practice for talks to be edited for publication, it was thought that the "official" record should reflect the clarified intent of the talk
Because it is common practice for talks to be edited for publication, it was thought that the "official" record should reflect the clarified intent of the talk. As such, Elder Poelman himself made modifications to his own remarks for the official record that would be published in the Ensign.
Clearly, producing an "updated" version of a talk that had already been recorded posed some problems
In 1984, producing video records of the conference for home use was relatively new. Clearly, producing an "updated" version of a talk that had already been recorded posed some problems. For one, a recording with no background noise would stand out in contrast to all the other talks with no modifications. In addition, there was likely a desire not to deceive but to give authenticity to the presentation so as to not distract from its actual message.
While perhaps a unwise decision in hindsight, the intent was simply to let the core of the message be the focus, not the distractions of the delivery because of the changes
While perhaps a unwise decision in hindsight, the intent was simply to let the core of the message be the focus, not the distractions of the delivery because of the changes. For these reasons, background noises were allowed to be introduced or were intentionally added. (It is not clear whether the background noise--sometimes termed a "cough track" was intentionally added, or whether those in the tabernacle during the retaping were simply were allowed to behave as they would have during the original presentation, resulting in a low level of ambient noise similar to other talks.)
In the end, the intent and purpose was to make the excellent remarks of Elder Poelman the focus of the video, and to allow him to make changes he himself desired to have made, which were made without any compulsion whatsoever from any other church leader.
Unfortunately, critics have shifted the focus from his beautiful message to a misleading discussion of a "cover up," and attempted even in retrospect to impute meaning to his original talk that he did not intend. If anything, this demonstrates the wisdom of making the clarifications he did, if not the technical means used to circulate the changes.
The most telling comment made by the sources available to FairMormon volunteers was that the late Elder Poelman would be horrified to know people today were using his talk to attack the Church. The intent of his talk, including the changes, were intended to foster faith, not doubt in the Church.
In retrospect, this talk was a beautiful one in its original form, and had it been left as it was originally delivered it would have have never become the focus of criticism for secular and "intellectual" critics, though some "fundamentalist" groups might have embraced and misused its ideas.
Ironically, the changes Elder Poelman introduced promoted the very criticism and fault-finding with the Church that he had hoped to forestall, but one cannot fault a faithful servant for trying to make his offering more effective, or fault those who sought to make the new technological distribution of his talk as congruent with the rest of conference as possible as they prepared the official record for dissemination.
I personally do not consider his talk, the changes, or the potentially misguided efforts to make the video version authentic as anything deceitful. Given that all knew that the original recording existed, with press and others present for the original delivery, it defies reason that there was an attempt at a cover up or deceive. Rather, there was an effort only to allow him to amend his official remarks in both the written and video record, and allow it to be as authentic as all the other recorded talks.
Conclusion
These types of attacks, then, rely on the reader misunderstanding the nature of historical writing in the past, and ascribing nefarious motives to understandable decisions.
| Main article: | Alleged whitewashing of polygamy in Church history |
Critical sources |
|
Notes
- ↑ L. H. Butterfield and Julian Boyd, Historical Editing in the United States (Worcester, Mass.: American Antiquarian Society, 1963), 19, 24–25.
- ↑ History of the Church, 2:281. Volume 2 link
- ↑ Jerald and Sandra Tanner, Mormonism—Shadow or Reality?, 5th edition, (Salt Lake City: Utah Lighthouse Ministry, 1987), 188.
- ↑ Noah Webster, An American Dictionary of the English Language (New York: S. Converse, 1828), s.v. "shall."
- ↑ Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 3:370.
- ↑ Times and Seasons 4:330.
- ↑ History of the Church, 6:47–48. Volume 6 link
- ↑ Lavina Fielding Anderson, "The LDS Intellectual Community and Church Leadership: A Contemporary Chronology," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 26 no. 1 (1993), 23. https://dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V26N01_23.pdf; L. Jackson Newell, "An Echo from the Foothills: To Marshal the Forces of Reason," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 19 no. 1 (1986), 27. https://dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V19N01_28.pdf
- ↑ FairMormon editors and volunteers have discussed this matter with reliable witnesses to Elder Poelman's actions and thoughts regarding the unwarranted controversy which accompanied his conference talk.
- REDIRECT Approaching history
Mormonism and history
Ironically, those who criticize Mormon histories as being unreliable and incomplete use Church-produced documents as their source material
The author of the critical book One Nation Under Gods claims that "Mormon leaders, especially since the 1970s, have repeatedly called for LDS historians to 'tell only that part of the truth that is inspiring and uplifting.'" and that "some of the least reliable reports on Mormon history, especially with regard to its earliest years, are those that have been produced by the LDS church."
How does one define "least reliable?" The assertion that "some of the least reliable reports on Mormon history" are those "produced by the LDS church" does not acknowledge that some of the source documents used by the author in his book include the Journal of Discourses, the Messenger and Advocate, the Millennial Star, the Evening and Morning Star, the Ensign, Conference Reports, and the Encyclopedia of Mormonism, to name a few.
Each of these sources is viewed by members and non-members alike as being "produced by the Church. If they are so unreliable, why does the author cite them? If there is a disagreement between two sources—one from the Church and the other from someone viewed as an enemy of the Church—how does the author know which one is more reliable? And why if he is relying on Church sources, why does he so often misrepresent the Church?
Elder Boyd K. Packer's comment: "Some things that are true are not very useful"
Elder Packer gave an address to religious educators called "The Mantle is Far, Far Greater Than the Intellect."[1] The quote "Some things that are true are not very useful" has become a favorite of critics to demonstrate that the Church suppresses truth or intellectual thought.
Elder Packer said nothing about stopping historians or insisting that they not aim for objectivity
As is often the case, there is more to the story that we can only learn by examining the original quotation in context.
There are two aspects to this criticism:
First criticism
The first is the claim that Church officials have "routinely" insisted LDS-authored historical materials be "faith promoting" at the expense of being historically accurate. To prove this assertion, the author provides the example of a talk by Boyd K. Packer that was published in BYU Studies. Elder Packer stressed four main points:
- There is no such thing as an accurate, objective history of the Church without consideration of the spiritual powers that attend this work.
- 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.
- In an effort to be objective, impartial, and scholarly, a writer or a teacher may unwittingly be giving equal time to the adversary.
- The final caution concerns the idea that so long as something is already in print, so long as it is available from another source, there is nothing out of order in using it in writing or speaking or teaching.
The only mention of "objectivity" in the talk was in relation to the first and third points, and Elder Packer said nothing about stopping historians or insisting that they not be objective. He simply said that no treatment of Church history could hope to be objective without consideration of the spiritual powers that attend the work.
The intellectual context
Some historians insist that they are being objective—but objectivity is impossible. We can strive to be fair, honest, and balanced, but no one can achieve objectivity. Claims of being "objective" have often, it turns out, been a shield historians who wish to hide their biases or advance their own agendas while claiming to be simply neural purveyors of fact. Very often, such historians insist that because spiritual matters cannont be "proven," they are therefore not obliged to mention them or consider them. It is this dynamic—which was a hotly debated and contested matter at the time—that his remarks refer to.
For example, one author wrote:
Can secular historians claim that their interests and questions reflect a higher order of significance? Can they demonstrate that their approach to history is truly objective? Can they legitimately refer to their own brand of history as mature, accurate, and insightful as opposed to the inevitably "naive, narrow- minded, pollyannish" histories written by Mormon historians who take their own religious categories as a theme for the understanding of the Mormon past?
Such questions must be answered because if the ideal of neutrality and objectivity cannot be approximated, then the historian’s distinction between "good history" and "bad history" evaporates and the secular historian’s claim that somehow his account is of a higher order can no longer hold. ... Such arguments are based on two assumptions: (1) that the historian can somehow be objective and neutral and (2) that the historical record is an independent and objective ground over against which historical explanations can be verified. It is exceedingly doubtful either assumption can stand up to careful and logical scrutiny.[2]
This debate was not a new one for the history profession generally—but historians of Mormon matters were philosophically and intellectually behind the times.[3] They were still attempting to lay claim to a superior "objective" history that the mainstream historical profession had conceded was impossible, and usually a cover for either unrecognized or unacknowledged biases and ideology.[4] This was not a case where only "conservative believers" held this position—even some non-LDS historians argued that the conservative argument was far better grounded in the current philosophy of history than the supposed "objective" faction.[5]
Even in the twenty-first century, there are some who persist in claims about objectivity that do not withstand philosophical or logical scrutiny.[6]
One author at the independent Sunstone magazine noted how the supposedly "objective" secular scholars went out of their way to prevent this type of criticism of their efforts from being published:
At that time, SUNSTONE had just published an article challenging some of the assumptions of those intellectual heroes known in the Church as "New Mormon Historians." What startled—and disillusioned—me was the discovery that a number of historians had gone to great lengths to discourage the publication of this manuscript. For them, open discussion and disagreement was insufficient; they sought to prevent distribution of ideas contrary to their own. Those who had fought against intellectual suppression had suddenly embraced it.[7]
In addition to this intellectual current, Elder Packer was telling LDS teachers and historians employed by the Church that to leave out consideration of God's Spirit was to leave out an important component of why and how things were done in the Church. Omitting spiritual ideas and claims is no more "objective" than including such things. But, in the intellectual environment of the time, secularist approaches were attempting to claim the high ground of being "real" history, while everything else was biased, "non-objective" writing.
Second criticism
The second is the claim that the Church historical department staff were required to "sign a form" regarding the Church's right to censor anything the staff might publish. Apparently the author hopes we will believe this is a means for the Church to suppress scholarly work.
The author never confronts the issue of whether the Church has a right to control (a) access to their own historical records, and (b) how those records are used by employees.
If we considered a business, there would be no question that businesses have the right to do control access to their records and insist that their employees' use of those records not actively undermine the company's goals.
Does The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (or any church, for that matter) have the right to control its own records and how they are used? If businesses and governments do, why not churches? And, why should the Church be required to pay employees to undermine it?
This stipulation of employment is thus unsurprising, and not a sign of sinister goings-on. Most organizations have similar policies and standards.
Notes
- ↑ Boyd K. Packer, "The Mantle is Far, Far Greater Than the Intellect," Address to the Fifth Annual CES Religious Educators' Symposium, 1981; see also Let Not Your Heart Be Troubled (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1991), 101-122; see also Boyd K. Packer, "'The Mantle is Far, Far Greater than the Intellect.'," Brigham Young University Studies 21 no. 3 (Summer 1981), 259–278. PDF link Later references to this address refer to the BYU Studies reprint, since the PDF is available on-line. It starts on page 1.
- ↑ David Earl Bohn, "No Higher Ground: Objective History is an Elusive Chimera," Sunstone (May–June 1983). off-site
- ↑ Gary Novak, That Noble Dream: The 'Objectivity Question' and the American Historical Profession (Cambridge University Press, 1988).
- ↑ For examples of the debate, see: Martin E. Marty, "Two Integrities: An Address to the Crisis in Mormon Historiography," in Faithful History: Essays on Writing Mormon History, ed. George D. Smith (Salt Lake City, Utah: Signature Books, 1992), 169–87 and David Earle Bohn, "Unfounded Claims and Impossible Expectations: A Critique of New Mormon History," in the same volume, 227–56. Louis C. Midgley was a major player in the debate, such as in "The Acids of Modernity and the Crisis in Mormon Historiography," in Faithful History, 189–215. See also: "The Challenge of Historical Consciousness: Mormon History and the Encounter with Secular Modernity," in By Study and Also by Faith: Essays in Honor of Hugh W. Nibley, ed. John M. Lundquist and Stephen D. Ricks, 2 vols. (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book and FARMS, 1990), 2:502–51; Louis Midgley, "The Current Battle over the Book of Mormon: Review of The Word of God Is Enough: The Book of Mormon as Nineteenth-Century Scripture by Anthony A. Hutchinson," Review of Books on the Book of Mormon 6/1 (1994). [200–254] link; Louis Midgley, "'Atheists and Cultural Mormons Promote a Naturalistic Humanism (Review of Religion, Feminism, and Freedom of Conscience: A Mormon/Humanist Dialogue by George D. Smith'," FARMS Review 7/1 (1995). [229–297] link; Louis Midgley, "Directions That Diverge (Review of The Ancient State: The Rulers and the Ruled)," FARMS Review 11/1 (1999). [27–87] link; Louis Midgley, "Comments on Critical Exchanges (Review of 'A Hard Day for Professor Midgley: An Essay for Fawn McKay Brodie')," FARMS Review 13/1 (2001). [91–126] link; Louis Midgley, "'A Mormon Neo-Orthodoxy Challenges Cultural Mormon Neglect of the Book of Mormon: Some Reflections on the 'Impact of Modernity' (Review of Mormon Neo-Orthodoxy: A Crisis Theology by O. Kendall White, Jr.'," Review of Books on the Book of Mormon 6/2 (1994). [283–334] link; Louis Midgley, "Editor's Introduction: Debating Evangelicals," FARMS Review 20/2 (2008). [xi–xlvii] link; Thomas G. Alexaner, "Historiography and the New Mormon History: A Historian's Perspective," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 19 no. 3 (Fall 1986), 25&ndash49. link; John-Charles Duffy, "Can Deconstructionism Save the Day? "Faithful Scholarship" and the uses of Postmodernism," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 41 no. 1 (Spring 2008), 1–33. link
- ↑ Massimo Introvigne, "The Book of Mormon Wars: A Non-Mormon Perspective," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 5/2 (1996). [1–25] link
- ↑ Alan Goff, "The Inevitability of Epistemology in Historiography: Theory, History, and Zombie Mormon History," Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 9/4 (28 March 2014). [111–208] link
- ↑ Scott C. Dunn, "So Dangerous it Couldn't be Talked About," Sunstone no. (Issue #42) (November–December 1983). off-site
Other Church history topics
Did David B. Haight use astrological ideas about the moon, only to be censored later?
Summary: It is claimed that Elder David B. Haight "reinvoked the astrological principle that people should 'do nothing without the assistance of the moon'" in a talk that he gave during General Conference in 1998. One critic takes this a step further by claiming that the phrase "do nothing without the assistance of the moon" was deleted from the transcribed version of Elder Haight's talk. This claim has evolved over time due to successive misinterpretation of the original sources."Magic" in Mormon history
Hugh Nibley
Summary: Nibley was a pioneer in LDS scholarship and apologetics.Name of the Church
Summary: Why did the Church change its name twice during its history? Shouldn't the name have been given by revelation?Reports of Drunken Behavior at the Kirtland Temple Dedication
Summary: Were there really spiritual manifestations attending the dedication of the Kirtland temple? I have heard allegations that it was in fact a drunken orgy.The Seer (periodical by Orson Pratt)
Summary: Some critics of the Church quote from a newspaper called The Seer. Was this newspaper published by the Church? Are its contents considered official Church doctrine?
== Notes ==
Footer