Criticism of Mormonism/Books/One Nation Under Gods/Use of sources/Historical Suppression in the Church

Author's Preface, About Mormon History: Historical Suppression in the Church

The Quotes

One Nation under Gods, page xv (hardback)

The history of Mormonism—The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS)—can only be pieced together using a wide variety of historical sources. It is a complex tale that takes many surprising turns, has numerous divergent paths, and often becomes intertwined with other historical events of the same time period. Unfortunately, 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.2

One Nation under Gods, page ix (paperback)

The history of Mormonism—The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS)—can only be pieced together using a wide variety of historical sources. It is a complex tale that takes many surprising turns, has numerous divergent paths, and often becomes intertwined with other historical events of the same time period. Unfortunately, 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. 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."2

The References

Endnote 2, page 477 (hardback)

2. Mormon church officials have routinely insisted that any materials written on LDS history by Mormons must be "faith promoting," which means they must support Mormon beliefs and official teachings, even at the risk of being historically inaccurate. In 1981, for instances, LDS apostle Boyd K. Packer warned Mormon historians against publishing objective history, even in professional journals because such works destroy and weaken the faith of Mormons (Boyd K. Packer, "The Mantle is Far, Far Greater Than the Intellect," BYU Studies [Summer 1981], vol. 21, 264-265). Eventually, in June 1986, the staff of the LDS church's historical department were made to "sign a form which Elder Packer declared gave the right of pre-publication censorship for any archival research completed before signing the form" (Smith, 109, footnote #52; quoted in Tanner and Tanner, 3, http://www.utlm.org/newsletters/no85.htm).

Endnote 2, page 475 (paperback)

2. Boyd K. Packer, interview with D. Michael Quinn, 1976. Quoted in Smith, 105, endnote #22. In recent years LDS church officials have stipulated that LDS-written history must be "faith promoting," which means supportive of LDS beliefs and teachings, even if historically incomplete. In 1981, for example, LDS apostle Packer warned Mormon historians against publishing overly objective history, even in professional journals, because it could destroy and weaken the faith of Mormons (Boyd K. Packer, "The Mantle is Far, Far Greater Than the Intellect," BYU Studies [Summer 1981], vol. 21, 264-265). In June 1986 members of the LDS church's historical department were made to "sign a form which Elder Packer declared gave the right of pre-publication censorship for any archival research completed before signing the form" (Smith, 109, footnote #52; quoted in Tanner and Tanner, 3, http://www.utlm.org/newsletters/no85.htm).

The Problems

The assertion by the author that "some of the least reliable reports on Mormon history" are those "produced by the LDS church" is very interesting in light of the fact 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 is viewed by member and non-member as "produced by the LDS church." If they are so unreliable, why does the author cite from 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?

To bring the example closer to home, if I wanted information about the author's business dealings, should I believe the author's own statements or those of someone who has a grudge against him? To a large degree, the answer to that question depends on my experiences with the author and my predisposition toward him or his family. If my experiences were bad, and I had a bad feeling about him already, I would probably believe the person with a grudge rather than the author himself.

The author, unfortunately, is in the same position when it comes to the history of the Church. He castigates any sources produced by the LDS Church, but then uses many of those sources in his historical treatment. When it suits his predisposition (remember, from the Overview that the author had his introduction to the Church through the works of the Tanners), he falls back and cites as sources those who have a grudge against the Church. Quite a quandry, indeed, as a careful examination of the sources which the author chooses and the references he provides the reader illuminate his predisposition more than his ability to recount history.

The quandry exists because by writing to meet his predisposition, the author places himself in the same ethical dilemma in which he tries to place the Church. The Church, which views itself as the Kingdom of God on Earth, is predisposed to create materials that put the events of history in the best possible light. The author, who does not view the Church in such light and who was tutored by the works of career-apostates Jerald and Sandra Tanner, is predisposed to create materials which put the events of history in the worst possible light. If the Church's predisposition means that it becomes a "least reliable" source, then doesn't the author's predisposition make him a "least reliable" source, as well? If not, then why not?

As an example of the author's quandry, let's examine the reference provided above. There are two main parts to this reference. First, is the assertion 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. In reading this talk, Elder Packer stressed four main points, as follow:

1. There is no such thing as an accurate, objective history of the Church without consideration of the spiritual powers that attend this work.
2. 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.
3. In an effort to be objective, impartial, and scholarly, a writer or a teacher may unwittingly be giving equal time to the adversary.
4. 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 point, and Elder Packer said nothing about stopping historians or insisting that they not be objective. He simply said that no treatment of history could hope to be objective without consideration of the spiritual powers that attend the work. In other words, he was telling LDS historians 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.

A careful reading of Elder Packer's talk reveals that it does not say what the author represents it as saying. Since it does not, the author has no "for instance" for his opening assertion in his reference, and it cannot stand on its own, except as his own impression of what happens in the Church—an impression that illuminates his predisposition and attendant lack of objectivity.

The second main part of the author's reference is the claim that Church historical department staff were required to "sign a form" regarding the Church's right to censor anything the staff might publish. It appears that the author feels such a form is an example of ways in which the LDS Church suppresses scholarly work. To be fair, the author is not the only one who feels this way, as the article he cites (by George D. Smith) and the Web site he cites (at the Tanners' Utah Lighthouse Ministry) focus on "repression" and "control" of Church history presentations by LDS Church leaders.

The author never addresses the issue, however, of whether the Church has a right to control (a) access to their own historical records, and (b) how those records are used. If this were a discussion about business corporations, there would be no question that the businesses have the right to do both—control access and use of past business records. The assertions of the author and others in this area are reminiscent of paranoid theorists who see nothing but shadowy characters and conspiracies when it comes to the government requesting secrecy and discretion from its employees, or requiring censorship of sensitive documents.

Any responsible person recognizes that both businesses and governments must establish a certain amount of secrecy and exercise a certain amount of control in order to fend off the advances of those it views as adversaries. In this instance, Church staff members are the employees, and the adversary is Satan and those who would inappropriately use information, outside its original context and devoid of its spiritual component, to pass earthly judgment on a divine organization.

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? If the Church has no right, then what rights in this area would anyone have? How about the author? Would others have the right to examine his family's history, rifle through his personal records, examine his business dealings, and then write anything they wanted based on what they supposedly discovered? Of course they wouldn't.

I would propose that there is no "conspiracy of suppression" at work in the Church, only the rightful exercise of control over records owned by the Church. It would be nice to know why the author doesn't feel the Church has such a right, but that detail is lacking in his indictment. What is not lacking, however, is ample proof of the author's predisposition concerning the claims of the Church and that, unfortunately, makes One Nation under Gods one of the "least reliable reports on Mormon history."