Church History

Although modern Mormonism deemphasizes the value of what Joseph Smith received from God in favor of what is taught by successors to Joseph Smith,¹ God considered Joseph’s revelations important enough to preserve that he routinely appointed scribes to record the revelations and history of the restoration.² We cannot live the doctrines of the restoration without knowing history. We cannot compare present teachings to what Joseph taught without knowing history. Our acceptance of Joseph’s teachings requires knowledge of church history.

Nevertheless, modern LDS leaders do not appreciate the importance of church history. Church leaders rose up in the ranks from lay positions. Like the body of normal members they were chosen from, church leaders do not know church history.³ Any expectation we may have for them to know more about church history than normal members do would come from some sense of obligation we would expect them to have in relation to their office. Yet, with frequent comments deprecating the value of church history,⁴ it is clear that, to today’s leaders, knowing church history is not a priority.

Church history ironically presents a record of not caring very much about the History of the Church. Joseph Fielding Smith, who served as church historian from 1921 to 1970, found that many important historical documents had not been collected and archived prior to his tenure, and built up an impressive collection that was donated to the church at the time of his death. Why didn’t any of his predecessors do so? Hyrum Andrus reported opening crates of church archive documents around 1965 that had been sealed since Nauvoo.⁵ Why did it take ten decades and the instigation of historians outside the church hierarchy to think that historic records from

Nauvoo might be worth reading, or at least uncrating? Leonard Arrington—the church’s first historian chosen for his professional talent rather than church rank—was the first and only church historian to open the church archives to the public, something that one would assume would have been done much earlier. The Joseph Smith Papers Project is a landmark attempt to collect and publish every document created by Joseph Smith. It is the first historic project undertaken by the LDS church with an unbiased approach in mind.⁶ Still, it is perplexing why a church which celebrates Joseph Smith as a prophet would have waited until 160 years after his death to undertake to collect and publish his writings and speeches. Even then, the impetus for the project came largely not from the church, but from a private member who contributed substantial funding for the project.⁷

In recent years, church leaders have taken an increased interest in church history in direct proportion to how much bad press has been garnered from omissions, alterations, and fabrications brought to light by ease of access due to the internet.⁸ Though the church has responded with a flood of historic materials, including essays on troubling topics, the persistence of omissions, alterations, and fabrications suggest that the new initiative is more about convincing members they need not investigate church history than it is about a clean, honest approach to the past.

Suppressing History

In recent years, the church has determined through extensive surveys that unfiltered church history available online is a driving force in the loss of members in the tithing-crucial first world, particularly among younger members, who tend to be tech savvy.⁹ In response, the church recently quickly built a sophisticated search engine optimization (SEO) program. Search engines are designed to show users the websites most likely to contain what they are searching for. SEO is a business strategy to manipulate the search engine results from what the user wants to see to what the business wants them to see. From the church’s point of view, a search on “LDS finances” should link to LDS-owned websites that offer only church-positive information, not to Wikipedia or other objective discussions. The church has exerted great effort on ensuring that the first few results of a Google search return church-owned websites that contain only a church-positive relation of events.³⁴⁴

SEO is only the most recent tool in a long-standing effort to withhold true history that challenges present traditions or suggests that church leaders past or present have made mistakes.

Elder Oaks has taught that facts that portray church leaders in a negative light should be omitted from church materials.¹⁰ He also taught:

My duty as a member of the Council of the Twelve is to protect what is most unique about the LDS church, namely the authority of priesthood, testimony regarding the restoration of the gospel, and the divine mission of the Savior. Everything may be sacrificed in order to maintain the integrity of those essential facts. Thus, if Mormon Enigma reveals information that is detrimental to the reputation of Joseph Smith, then it is necessary to try to limit its influence and that of its authors. (Dallin Oaks, footnote 28, Inside the Mind of Joseph Smith: Psychobiography and the Book of Mormon, Introduction p. xliii.)

On another occasion, Elder Oaks taught that:

Truth surely exists as an absolute, but our use of truth should be disciplined by other values....When truth is constrained by other virtues, the outcome is not falsehood but silence for a season. As the scriptures say, there is “a time to keep silence, and a time to speak.” (Apostle Dallin H. Oaks, “Criticism,” Ensign, Feb. 1987, page 68.)

Elder Oaks is not alone in his views. Elder Nelson has taught: “Indeed, in some instances, the merciful companion to truth is silence. Some truths are best left unsaid.”³⁴⁶ President Boyd K. Packer was an outspoken critic of objective history. He wrote,

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. (Apostle Boyd K. Packer, “The Mantle is Far,Far Greater Than the Intellect,” 1981 CES Talk.)

The policy of intentionally withholding history that contradicts church tradition has led to many examples of actively suppressed true history. For example, by the time correlation took over church curricula, plural marriage was something for which the church received only negative attention. You will not find mention of anything regarding Joseph Smith’s polygamy in church materials during the decades between correlation’s inception and the recent admissions in the church topics essays on LDS.org. In every location where you would expect some mention of topic, it is omitted. This blackout continued even into recent years. The D&C manual covers only verses 4-33 of D&C 132, conveniently skipping over the many verses that describe the polygamy of Abraham, David, Solomon, and Moses, Joseph’s authority to give women to other men, and the command for Joseph to practice polygamy. The manual never mentions Joseph’s polygamy, and only mentions plural marriage at all as a minor bullet point at the end of the lesson, with the instructions, “The following information is provided to help you if class members have questions about the practice of plural marriage. It should not be the focus of the lesson.” Similarly, the “Teachings of the Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith” manual’s introduction states:

This book also does not discuss plural marriage. The doctrines and principles relating to plural marriage were revealed to Joseph Smith as early as 1831. The Prophet taught the doctrine of plural marriage, and a number of such marriages were performed during his lifetime.

Surely, even if the manual does not include quotes on plural marriage, this disclosure should say “taught and practiced” plural marriage? The perpetual avoidance of this topic has led to a condition where a surprising number of fully active, lifelong members were broadsided by the recent LDS.org essays that discussed Joseph Smith’s polygamy. These are members who attended seminary, attended BYU, served a mission, and still had never been told that Joseph Smith practiced plural marriage.

Another example of hiding history is found in the suppression of research identifying changes to scripture. The open archives of the 1970s provided ample historical research material for graduate students at BYU. This period produced two works analyzing changes to the text of canonized scripture: “Study of Some Textual Variations in the Book of Mormon, Comparing the Original and Printer’s MSS., and Comparing the 1830, 1837, and 1840 Editions,” and “Historical Development of the Doctrine and Covenants.”¹¹ The church authorized both theses on condition that they remain unpublished and inaccessible to all except those cleared by church leadership. This policy was lifted after a threat to accreditation some years later over the access restrictions.¹² “Historical Development of the Doctrine and Covenants” was briefly available by purchase on CD-ROM, but continues today to be accessible only in person at the BYU library, where 2 copies of the set are available for public view. It includes thousands of modifications to the text of the D&C—enough to occupy 3 massive volumes. Among these changes were a modification to the wording of the baptismal prayer, which originally took the form found in the Book of Mormon.¹³ This is a significant change that might impact every baptized member of the church, yet there is no mention of this change in any official publication of the church.

As detailed elsewhere in this book, the LDS temple garment has been dramatically modified multiple times since it was revealed to Joseph. The church has had Hyrum Smith’s temple garment in possession since Joseph Fielding Smith was president, yet no access to or reports of the original pattern or symbols have been given. We know from accounts given that nearly everything about the garment has been changed, and any sort of access to the original would reveal that immediately. Likewise, the temple ceremony itself is vastly different from the 1877 transcript,¹⁴ purportedly the first time the ceremony was recorded. The original transcript survived an attempted purge in the 1920s by apostle George Richards, thanks to a defiant St. George Temple President. The church still has this copy, yet it is not accessible to any outside of top leadership.

The policy of withholding history is not just a part of traditions among the brethren. It is codified in the “Handbook of Instructions.” The handbook’s definition of apostasy means that anyone who teaches church history without withholding history that incriminates current church practices or past or present leaders is considered an apostate and will be excommunicated. This was illustrated recently when Denver Snuffer was excommunicated for refusing to remove “Passing the Heavenly Gift” from publication. The book contains scriptures and quotes from church leaders that suggest a version of history that differs from LDS claims. The stake president who charged Snuffer with apostasy did not attempt to outline or correct any errors in the book, but merely maintained that the history presented was “in direct conflict with church doctrine” and “placed the church in a negative light.”¹⁵ Denver Snuffer was not the first member to be excommunicated for publishing true history, and he will not be the last.

As George Orwell said, “The most powerful form of lie is the omission.” Withholding true information assists only the perpetuation of disinformation, not the cause of truth. As the church historian that oversaw the window of open church archives put it:

My own impression is that an intensive study of church history, while it will dispel certain myths or half-myths sometimes perpetuated in Sunday school (and other) classes, builds faith rather than weakens it.16

Only truth can lead us closer to Christ. Faith cannot be had on false principles. Therefore, as Joseph stated “we should waste and wear out our lives in bringing to light all the hidden things of darkness, wherein we know them;” (D&C 123:13.)

Misrepresenting History

The church has been intentionally misrepresenting history since the tenure of Brigham Young. One historian has written:

The official “History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints” was published in book form under the direction of the First Presidency in 1902. The introductory assurance that “no historical or doctrinal statement has been changed” is demonstrably wrong. Overshadowed by editorial censorship, hundreds of deletions, additions, and alterations, these seven volumes are not always reliable....Charles Wesley Wandell, an assistant church historian, was aghast at these emandations....Wandell noted in his diary: “I notice the interpolations because having been employed in the Historian’s office at Nauvoo by Doctor Richards, and employed, too, in 1845, in compiling this very autobiography, I know that after Joseph’s death his memoir was ‘doctored’ to suit the new order of things, and this, too, by the direct order of Brigham Young to Doctor Richards and systematically by Richards.” The Quorum of the Twelve, under Brigham Young’s leadership, began altering the historical record shortly after Smith’s death. (Richard S. Van Wagoner, “Sidney Rigdon: A Portrait of Religious Excess,” Signature Books (Salt Lake City, 1994), p. 322.)

One example of changes made to “suit the new order of things” was the revision of the excommunication of Thomas Marsh. Thomas Marsh was excommunicated for providing an affidavit that stated: A company of about eighty of the Mormons, commanded by a man fictitiously named Captain Fearnot [David W. Patten], marched to Gallatin. They returned and said they had run off from Gallatin twenty or thirty men and had taken Gallatin, had taken one prisoner and another had joined the company. I afterwards learned from the Mormons that they had burned Gallatin, and that it was done by the aforesaid company that marched there. The Mormons informed me that they had hauled away all the goods from the store in Gallatin, and deposited them at the Bishop’s storehouses at Adam-on-diahmon.

History supports the factual accuracy of this statement. As such, it is unclear why he was excommunicated. From other documents, it seems that Joseph Smith may not have been aware of the actions of or existence of Patten’s group (called Danites) at this time.

Most members will not recognize that Thomas B. Marsh was excommunicated for swearing out an affidavit correctly describing the pillaging conducted by the Missouri Mormons. Instead, they have been told that he was excommunicated over a dispute between his wife and another sister regarding milk strippings.

The first telling of the milk stripping story was in 1864 when George A. Smith. There is no contemporary evidence supporting this story. Furthermore, there is no mention of the issue in the Far West High Council minutes, despite Smith having said that Thomas Marsh “immediately took an appeal to the High Council, who investigated the question with much patience.”

Marsh requested rebaptism on September 6, 1857, addressing a large gathering in the Salt Lake City Bowery. The event was a critical one in the history of the succession of leaders in the LDS church. Prior to this time, in each case where an apostle had been excommunicated, they resumed their ranking at the time of reinstatement. At the time of his excommunication, Marsh was the president of the quorum. Following precedent, his reinstatement would make him the president of the church.¹⁷ In a public reply to Marsh’s request to be rebaptized, Brigham Young gave him a severe dressing down. Though rebaptized, he was not reinstated to the Quorum of the Twelve.¹⁸ The misrepresentation of Marsh’s excommunication has been perpetuated ever since, including by President Monson,¹⁹ and is even contained in the church’s history article on him.²⁰

Another perpetuated myth is that of Brigham Young appearing or sounding like Joseph Smith during his campaigning in the succession crisis.²¹ Like the milk strippings, there is no contemporary evidence that this event actually occurred. The first accounts occurred much after the fact in a time when there were significant reasons to justify Brigham’s succession claims. In both cases, the perpetuated accounts distract from a factual discussion of whether Brigham Young’s succession claims were justified.²²

Some quotes from Joseph Smith are published and republished despite the lack of any firsthand contemporary accounts. For example, the History of the Church states that Joseph said,

I will give you one of the Keys of the mysteries of the Kingdom. It is an eternal principle, that has existed with God from all eternity: That man who rises up to condemn others, finding fault with the Church, saying that they are out of the way, while he himself is righteous, then know assuredly, that that man is in the high road to apostasy; and if he does not repent, will apostatize, as God lives. (History of the Church 3:385.)

The doctrinal importance of this quote is significant, as it is the only source in Joseph’s words or in scripture of which I am aware that states that one who truthfully criticizes the church is committing or will soon commit apostasy. The History of the Church takes the quote from a discourse given by Joseph Smith on July 2, 1839, in Montrose, Iowa; reported by Wilford Woodruff and Willard Richards. The problem is that, although Wilford Woodruff was present at and recorded this sermon, his account does not contain this quote. Willard Richard’s Pocket Companion is the only source for this quote. Importantly, Richards was in England at the time, and therefore copied his account from somewhere else. There are many other examples of quotes attributed to Joseph Smith that have no contemporary support. For example, the church recently reprinted the following in a Priesthood/Relief Society manual:

Joseph the Prophet... said, 'Brethren, remember that the majority of this people will never go astray; and as long as you keep with the majority you are sure to enter the celestial kingdom.' (Orson Hyde, Deseret News: Semi-Weekly, June 21, 1870, p. 3.)

The problem is that there is no contemporary source for this quote. Orson Hyde’s was an extemporaneous recollection²³ at least 27 years after the fact. Various versions of this quote exist, all given decades after the fact, with no contemporary recording of the quote despite all or nearly all of Joseph’s Nauvoo sermons having been recorded.²⁴ Because the church has repeatedly engaged in citation obfuscation,²⁵ it is not easy to tell what quotes ascribed to Joseph were witnessed firsthand and recorded contemporarily, no quote from Joseph ought to be trusted unless it can be traced to the original source. The Joseph Smith papers, which has a free online portal, is the best resource at this point. Anything less than a firsthand contemporary account is not historical record, but uncorroborated hearsay from leaders proven to have engaged in intentional historical fabrication for church-promoting purposes.

In the case of another misrepresented historical topic—plural marriage—the driving factor seems to be a desire to avoid negative public opinion rather than strengthen otherwise weak authority claims.

From the first public teaching of plural marriage on August 29, 1852, until the so-called “Second Manifesto” in 1904 that marked the end of church-sanctioned polygamy, the doctrine occupied preeminence among the LDS faith.²⁶ It is important to understand that to Latter-day Saints between 1852 and 1904, plural marriage was just as central a tenant of the gospel as baptism.²⁷ The church's treatment of plural marriage is an example of how any central tenant could be handled in the future.

The official position has been and continues to be that the church did not sanction plural marriages after 1890 or that the only sanctioned ones took place in Mexico where it was legal. Both statements are untrue. Hundreds of plural marriages occurred with the sanction of the First Presidency in the United States and Mexico after 1890, with some even occurring after 1904.²⁸

Leaders from 1890-1904 and beyond had personal knowledge of hundreds of post-manifesto plural marriages, having been personally involved in many. Faced with significant public opinion ramifications,²⁹ the church misrepresented plural marriage for generations after the 1890 manifesto, at first continuing plural marriages in secret despite public denials, then (after 1904) misrepresenting plural marriage as having ended in 1890 so as to vindicate leaders who said one thing and practiced another. For example, President Joseph F. Smith—a strong proponent of post-manifesto plural marriages—stated under oath in the Reed Smoot hearings, “There never has been a plural marriage by the consent or sanction or knowledge or approval of the church since the manifesto.” Apostle John Widstoe wrote in 1936: “Since that day [6 October 1890] no plural marriage has been performed with the sanction or authority of the Church.”³⁰ After these first-hand witnesses of post-manifesto plural marriage had been replaced by the next generation, it is unclear to what degree leaders were aware that their statements were incorrect. BYU Historian Gustive O. Larson taught in 1958: “While Presidents Woodruff, Snow, and Smith maintained monogamous integrity of the Church, plural marriages were being performed secretly by two members of the Apostles' Quorum.”³⁰ Stephen L Richards (First Presidency counselor) stated in 1961: “Since that time ¹⁸⁹⁰, entering into plural marriage has been construed to be an offense against the laws of the Church.”³⁰ Apostle Gordon B. Hinckley stated in 1969: “Since that time [September 1890] the Church has neither practiced nor sanctioned such marriage.”³⁰ Apostle Mark E. Petersen wrote in 1974 that “the Manifesto put an end to all legal plural marriages.”³⁰ Whether leaders after 1905 were aware of the falsehood of their statements or not, whatever ignorance church leaders had should have ended with the publication of Quinn’s 1985 report on the topic. This report was hand delivered to President Gordon B. Hinckley, who gave the author his permission to publish the document.³¹ Yet, years later, Hinckley made the following statement:

I condemn it [polygamy], yes, as a practice, because I think it is not doctrinal. It is not legal. And this church takes the position that we will abide by the law. We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, magistrates in honoring, obeying and sustaining the law. (Gordon B. Hinckley, Interview with Larry King, September 1998.)

This statement is misleading at best, given the evidence that church leaders have not only openly broken the law with regards to plural marriage, but also committed perjury in denying having done so while under oath.³²

Church leaders have not corrected the facts regarding plural marriage in statements since then. The recent essay “The Manifesto and the end of Plural Marriage”³³ continues many of the falsehoods, among them that the manifesto ended plural marriage, that the manifesto was a revelation,³⁴ that only a “smaller number of new plural marriages” were performed between 1890 and 1904, and that these did not have church sanction. The church has published many articles stating that the 1890 manifesto ended plural marriage.³⁵ The statement is made in at least four current church manuals.³⁶

President Gordon B. Hinckley, on national television, stated “In 1890, that practice was discontinued.”³⁷ He made a similar statement in conference that same year.³⁸ Even the timeline in the Presidents of the Church: Joseph F. Smith manual, which includes an entry stating Smith issued a “second manifesto on plural marriage (without describing what it was) states that Woodruff’s manifesto ended plural marriage.³⁹

What does it mean that church leaders were willing to abandon what they believed was a commandment from God essential for salvation in order to gain worldly power? If modern Mormons can call a commandment of God considered essential to salvation⁴⁰ in 1890 “not doctrinal” 100 years later, are there any doctrines that are protected from modern sensibilities? Furthermore, none of the information in the essay is new. Why did it take over 100 years for the church to change its position on polygamy? Even without any effort on the part of the church, Quinn published his searching report of post-manifesto sanctioned polygamy in 1985. Why did it take 30 years for the church to make a statement on the topic, and then only making some half-truth concessions towards the truth?⁴¹

Another example of historical misrepresentation is found in the publicly expressed reasons for substituting water for wine in the sacrament. In modern Mormonism, water is used exclusively for the sacrament instead of wine. D&C 27 is usually cited for this change. The heading for D&C 27 says:

In preparation for a religious service at which the sacrament of bread and wine was to be administered, Joseph set out to procure wine. He was met by a heavenly messenger and received this revelation, a portion of which was written at the time and the remainder in the September following. Water is now used instead of wine in the sacramental services of the Church.

Although the last line in the heading gives the impression that this section is the reason water is used instead of wine in the sacrament, this is simply not true. The church continued to exclusively use wine for the sacrament for over fifty years after this section was received. Sometimes the Word of Wisdom is cited as the reason for the change from wine to water. Yet, the change was not made until long after the Word of Wisdom revelation was received. The Word of Wisdom actually explicitly states that wine is acceptable to drink for the sacrament.⁴² The change came not because of D&C 27, or because of the Word of Wisdom, but in deference to the personal opinions of certain leading brethren, fans of the increasingly popular prohibition movement.⁴³

In this case, the misappropriation of the change to revelation shields church leaders from the charge that they changed a revealed ordinance to accord with social pressure.

Joseph’s use of a seer stone to translate the Book of Mormon has long been an accusation against the official story. Images in church materials show Joseph reading directly from the uncovered plates. In response to the allegations, Joseph Fielding Smith wrote:

...there is no authentic statement in the History of the Church which states that the use of such a stone was made in that translation. The information is all hearsay, and personally, I do not believe that this stone was used for this purpose. (Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation 3:225-226.)

Joseph Fielding Smith dismissed this as anti-Mormon propaganda. Yet, the modern church has changed the narrative, admitting that the “anti” materials were actually correct:

In fact, historical evidence shows that in addition to the two seer stones known as ‘interpreters,’ Joseph Smith used at least one other seer stone in translating the Book of Mormon, often placing it into a hat in order to block out light. (Ensign, Oct 2015.)

Joseph Fielding Smith, as the church historian for decades, had full access to church archives. There is nothing that modern church historians have access to that Joseph Fielding Smith didn’t have access to, if he was willing to look. How is it that this information was only admitted recently?

The telling of the history of the Nauvoo temple is another example of how history in modern Mormonism is warped to avoid negative implications. The original Nauvoo temple has a rich history.⁴⁴ At the time of the martyrdom, the temple was far from complete, with walls only about halfway to their final height and most interior construction not yet started. It took almost another year to finish the walls, with the attic still not framed and the roof not yet shingled. The Saints used the incomplete temple for Oct. 1845 general conference, despite the need for temporary floors to be installed in order to do so. At this time, the first dedication of the incomplete temple took place. In Nov. 1845, the unfurnished attic level was dedicated and repurposed for endowments until February 1846, when no more ordinances were performed in the temple. At this time, the Saints began moving west, with members of the 12 praying in the temple that the Lord would “bless their move to the west and asked Him to enable them to complete the temple and have it formally dedicated” as it was not yet “formally dedicated.” The day after this, the roof caught fire. Later, the floor suddenly cracked so dramatically that some smashed windows to make it out of the building. In April 1846, a general conference was held in the basement of the temple, as the other floors were still under construction. Mob persecution was so great that a secret dedication was held. After holding a public dedication (with $1 cover charge), Orson Hyde and Wilford Woodruff, the last apostles in Nauvoo, headed west. Unable to sell the temple as intended, they abandon it to the mob, who destroyed the interior the following month (June 1846). In Sept. 1846, the steeple was struck by lightning. In Oct. of 1848, much of the temple was destroyed by fire. Finally, the church was able to sell the temple in March 1849. Ten years later it was knocked to the ground by a cyclone. The stones of the building were used to build other buildings, resulting in not one stone being left upon another.

While the temple was dedicated many times, it is a stretch to say that it was ever completed. The temple was indeed used for ordinances long before the building was completed, but even these required the rigging of canvas to repurpose the attic, which had not been designed for endowments. Lack of sufficient donations for construction, settling floors, fires, and general lags in construction created a constant block to completion of the temple until it was finally “formally dedicated” long after the Saints had left Nauvoo. Still, the impression given in modern mentions is quite different from reality. Elder Cook’s recent account is typical, giving no mention of the delays or complications of building the temple, and featuring an ordering that gives the false impression that the temple was completed prior to the endowments being given:

After the Prophet’s martyrdom, the Saints completed the Nauvoo Temple, and the sealing power was used to bless thousands of faithful members before the exodus to the Mountain West. (Elder Quentin Cook, “Roots and Branches,” April 2014 General Conference.)

President Monson glosses over the delays and gives the impression that the temple was in fact finished before they left. In reality, they were driven from their homes before the temple was anything close to completed.

Persecutions raged, however, and with the Nauvoo Temple barely completed, they were driven from their homes once again, seeking refuge in a desert. (President Thomas Monson, “The Holy Temple—a Beacon to the World,” April 2011 General Conference.)

Why aren’t leaders more straightforward in their accounts of the Nauvoo temple? As with many other examples of misrepresented church history, plain recitation of the facts raises undesired negative implications. The Lord gave specific promises to accompany the completion of the Nauvoo temple, and curses to accompany the lack of completing it by the appointed time.⁴⁵ The leaders of the time knew this well. Orson Hyde stated:

If we moved forward and finished this house we should be received and accepted as a church with our dead, but if not we should be rejected with our dead. These things have inspired and stimulated us to action in the finishing of it which through the blessing of God we have been enabled to accomplish and prepared it for dedication. In doing this we have only been saved as it were by the skin of our teeth. (Wilford Woodruff’s Journal, 3:46-47; May 8, 1846.)

Leaders today know that an admission that the Saints fled Nauvoo prior to the completion of the temple would draw attention to the possibility that the martyrdom marked something other than a routine succession of church leadership. The fulfillment of the curses promised in D&C 124⁴⁶ for failure to heed God’s commandments regarding the Nauvoo temple are not simply a historical chastisement—there are contemporary implications, and they are significant.⁴⁷

A modest number of honest mistakes are reasonable in a church composed of lay local membership. However, when General Authorities have stated that their duty is to purposefully manipulate history⁴⁸ to preserve the reputation of leaders⁴⁹ and make the story of the restoration more palatable to the public, all while maintaining the accuracy⁵⁰ and transparency⁵¹ of church-produced history, the fine line between presentation and dishonesty is crossed.

Deference to Biased Professionals

Church leaders rely on church historians for their history.⁵² Church historians have been continually warned to only present church-positive narratives and evidences at penalty of their jobs.

That historian or scholar who delights in pointing out the weaknesses and frailties of present or past leaders destroys faith. A destroyer of faith—particularly one within the Church, and more particularly one who is employed specifically to build faith—places himself in great spiritual jeopardy. He is serving the wrong master, and unless he repents, he will not be among the faithful in the eternities....Do not spread disease germs! (President Boyd K. Packer, “The Mantle is Far, Far Greater Than the Intellect”, 1981, BYU Studies, Vol. 21, No. 3, pp. 259-271.)

And again,

Any who are tempted to rake through the annals of history, to use truth unrighteously, or to dig up facts with the intent to defame or destroy, should hearken to this warning of scripture: ‘The wrath of God is...against all...who hold the truth in unrighteousness.’ To anyone who, because of truth, may be tempted to become a dissenter against the Lord and his anointed, weigh carefully your action... (Elder Russell M. Nelson, “Truth—and More,” Ensign, Jan. 1986, p. 69.)

Two public examples of the enforcement of this long-standing policy are that of Leonard Arrington and Randy Bott. Arrington was called as the church historian in the early 1970s. He presided over a decade of unprecedented open access to church records and objectivity in church history. He was rewarded with a non-public release and replacement. More recently, Bott, an award winning religion professor at BYU, was pressured to retire after providing a quote accurately representing the church’s historical view on the priesthood ban during a time when the church was going to great measures to distance themselves from that history.

The reticence of church historians to provide correct information to church leaders is apparent in official teachings. For example, in the October 2014 General Conference, Elder Nelson stated, “No Prophet has ever been elected.” Brigham Young himself said, “I was unanimously elected President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.” (Winter Quarters, Dec 27, 1847, Complete Discourses of Brigham Young, Signature Books, 2009, page 267.) Every church historian should know the basic details of the succession crisis in order to know that Brigham Young was elected president of the church, let alone that the practice of voting on candidates for leadership began before Brigham Young and continued long after him.⁵³ Yet, no one on the correlation committee corrected Elder Nelson.⁵⁴ This is not an isolated occurrence. Historical errors riddle general conference talks and church manuals.

Church leaders perpetuate falsehoods in ignorance and will continue to do so until they view objective church history as valuable⁵⁵ or until they reverse the precedent of disciplining church employees who publicize true history that happens to contradict the official actions and policies of the modern church. A first step is to realize and admit the errors they have made.⁵⁶ Until active members value church history and stop relying upon church employees for their history,⁵⁷ they will be blind to perpetuated historical falsehoods and historically contraindicated contemporary church policies.

The Word of Wisdom: A Case Study in Fabricated Doctrine

The evolution of the word of wisdom is a wonderful case study in how doctrines can be created through historical ignorance. Abstinence from coffee, tea, tobacco, and alcohol is considered a hallmark of modern Mormons. The Bible dictionary defines peculiar as carrying “the meaning of the saints’ being the Lord’s own special people or treasure.”

Leaders have indicated that these restrictions are what makes modern Mormons peculiar. Abstinence from these materials has come to be understood as “the maintenance of an identity for the church separate from the world” (Edwin B. Firmage, “The Word of Wisdom: Mark of a Peculiar People,” Oct 1972), the thing that makes Mormons more like God than the rest of the world. In other words, church leaders teach that abstinence from coffee, tea, tobacco, and alcohol makes the subject more special to God, or more holy. For example, President Joseph Fielding Smith explained:

When we join the Church and receive the priesthood, we are expected to forsake many of the ways of the world and live as becometh saints....Many in the world use tea, coffee, tobacco, and liquor, and are involved in the use of drugs. Many profane and are vulgar and indecent, immoral and unclean in their lives, but all these things should be foreign to us. We are the saints of the Most High. We hold the holy priesthood. To ancient Israel, by the mouth of Moses, the Lord said: “... if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine: And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation.” (Ex. 19:5–6.) This promise is ours also. If we will walk in paths of virtue and holiness, the Lord will pour out his blessings upon us to a degree we have never supposed possible. We shall be in very deed, as Peter expressed it, “a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people.” (1 Pet. 2:9.) And we will be peculiar because we will not be like other people who do not live up to these standards. (Joseph Fielding Smith, “Our responsibilities as priesthood holders,” April 1971 General Conference.)

President Smith implies that use of these materials is just as effectual in preventing one from becoming part of a holy nation as immoral and unclean behavior. This belief is a part of the traditions of modern Mormonism.

From where do these perceptions stem? In the context of history, the current understanding of the word of wisdom did not come into place until 1930, when the word of wisdom as a temple requirement was added to the General Handbook of Instructions.⁵⁸ Though pressures to make the word of wisdom a commandment existed even during Joseph Smith's life, these pressures were resisted over several successors to the presidency. For example, Joseph Smith continued to drink coffee, tea, beer, and wine at times (including wine for the sacrament) throughout his life. He had a stocked bar in the Nauvoo house, and drank wine on the day he died.⁵⁹

After Joseph's death, Brigham Young refused to endorse the idea of making the word of wisdom into a commandment. In 1861 he said,

Some of the brethren are very strenuous upon the “Word of Wisdom”, and would like to have me preach upon it, and urge it upon the brethren, and make it a test of fellowship. I do not think I shall do so. I have never done so. (Brigham Young, JD 9:35.)

In 1870 he said,

The observance of the Word of Wisdom, or interpretation of God's requirements on this subject, must be left, partially, with the people. We cannot make laws like the Medes and Persians. We cannot say you shall never drink a cup of tea, or you shall never taste of this, or you shall never taste of that... (Brigham Young, JD 14:20.)

Brigham's successor John Taylor reiterated that the word of wisdom was not necessary for a temple recommend, but differed from his predecessors in suggesting that those who do not observe it ought to be ashamed of themselves.⁶⁰ President Woodruff said

...he regarded the Word of Wisdom in its entirety as given of the Lord for the Latter-day Saints to observe, but he did not think that Bishops should withhold recommends from persons who did not adhere strictly to it.61

In 1901, Apostles Brigham Young, Jr. and John Henry Smith argued that beer was not prohibited.⁶²

The transition from advice to commandment essentially began during the administration of Joseph F. Smith. In 1902, Joseph F. Smith suggested that drunkards be denied recommends, but that older or more subtle users should not be penalized.⁶² In making this change, President Smith did not cite any revelation. In fact, under oath to the U.S. Congress in 1904, President Smith indicated that he had never received a revelation as president of the church (see Reed Smoot hearings transcripts). In other words, President Smith elevated the word of wisdom from an unenforced, vague principle to a commandment required for entrance into the temple. The next year, the commandment was expanded to prevent any man from holding a leadership position if he did not obey the word of wisdom.⁶² Again, this change did not come via revelation, if we are to take President Smith at his word under oath to Congress. On 5 July 1906, the First Presidency and Council of the Twelve began using water instead of wine for their sacrament meetings.⁶³ President Smith speculated that

...the reason undoubtedly why the Word of Wisdom was given as not by 'commandment or restraint' was that at that time, at least, if it had been given as a commandment it would have brought every man, addicted to the use of these noxious things, under condemnation; so the Lord was merciful and gave them a chance to overcome, before He brought them under the law.64

Two years later, he made compliance with the word of wisdom a requirement for ordination to the priesthood,⁶² notwithstanding the fact that the brethren had used wine for the sacrament every Sunday in the temple until just 7 years prior.

It is clear from history that the word of wisdom was not a commandment until President Joseph F. Smith made it so without revelation. However, has the meaning of the word of wisdom always been the same? As previously cited, Joseph Smith's understanding did not seem to preclude the consumption of tea, wine, beer, or tobacco. He used all of these products from time to time from when the revelation was received until his death. In fact, the list of leaders just who consumed alcohol post-word of wisdom include (at a minimum) Joseph Smith (President of Church), Brigham Young (President of Church), John Taylor (President of Church), Brigham Young, Jr. (Apostle), John Henry Smith (Apostle), BH Roberts (President of 70), Anthon H. Lund (1st Presidency), Matthias F. Cowley (Apostle), Charles W. Penrose (1st Presidency), and George Albert Smith (President of Church). As already noted, wine was used for the sacrament until 1906, meaning that all leaders who participated in the temple sacrament (at a minimum the 15) would be included in this list. The names listed are all documented as using alcohol outside of the sacrament.

It is clear that leaders prior to President Joseph F. Smith's change did not believe abstinence from alcohol was a commandment from God. What about tobacco, coffee, tea, or otherwise? It turns out that the interpretation of several elements of the word of wisdom was highly disputed from the start. From the start, many were willing to put forth their diverse opinions on the matter. Early on, Hyrum Smith indicated that “‘hot drinks are not for the body, or belly;’ there are many who wonder what this can mean; whether it refers to tea, or coffee, or not. I say it does refer to tea, and coffee.”⁶⁵ Here, he both admits to the confusion about the meaning of the imprecise parts of the word of wisdom, and gives his opinion of the same. Although our modern day traditions blind us to the ambiguity of the original revelation, Hyrum Smith’s documentation of the confusion surrounding the meaning of the revelation is understandable in a historical context. For example, when the revelation was given, the meaning of “hot drinks” was not necessarily a question of their temperature. The 1828 Webster’s dictionary indicates that this phrase was regularly used as a synonym for liquor, as liquor burns the drinker’s throat. In other words, it is completely possible that God did not refer to tea or coffee at all in the word of wisdom. As another example, the most likely definition of the “mild drinks” made from barley⁶⁶ in the word of wisdom was beer, meaning that far from banning alcohol, the word of wisdom might actually endorse it!

The meaning of the word of wisdom was never canonized by vote of the church, or even cemented by proclamation of the 15. In fact, disputes about what it prohibited were common until the era of correlation. For example, President Lorenzo Snow emphasized that not eating meat was central to the Word of Wisdom in 1900. In 1930, Apostle John A. Widtsoe claimed that refined flour was contrary to the word of wisdom.⁶² Caffeine became another item that some said was against the word of wisdom, while others said it was not. Joseph Smith never received (and doesn’t appear to have asked for) a clarifying revelation on the word of wisdom. None of his successors recorded a revelation on the subject.

With knowledge of history, these changes could have been avoided. Instead, we have a worthiness test that has nothing to do with morality that excludes countless numbers of people from baptism and the temple simply for drinking tea and coffee, when early leaders did both without any loss of spiritual blessings. Jesus clearly taught that “Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth the man.” (Matthew 15:10, Inspired Version.) The modern version of the word of wisdom is not only not God’s word, but teaches the opposite of God’s word: that somehow tea, coffee, tobacco, and alcohol spiritually defile you.

The Second Comforter: A Case Study in Removed Doctrine

Historical knowledge prevents the loss of true doctrine. The doctrines of “calling and election” and “Second Comforter” are taught plainly in scripture and in the teachings of Joseph Smith, as detailed in the chapter “The Gospel of Christ.” Joseph called obtaining your calling and election “among the first principles of the gospel” (Words of Joseph Smith, 27 June 1839) and frequently preached it among public crowds.

Seeking these experiences is not optional for a disciple of Christ. We are commanded to seek the face of the Lord:

And seek the face of the Lord always, that in patience ye may possess your souls, and ye shall have eternal life. (D&C 101:38.)

To know Christ is required for eternal life. “And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.” (John 17:3.) How can you know someone you have never met? Jesus said we must actually receive him in order to know him.

But if ye receive me in the world, then shall ye know me, and shall receive your exaltation; that where I am ye shall be also. This is eternal lives—to know the only wise and true God, and Jesus Christ, whom he hath sent. I am he. Receive ye, therefore, my law. (D&C 132:23-24.)

Because one cannot have eternal life without obtaining these experiences, true messengers from God always commend others to seek Jesus:

And now, I would commend you to seek this Jesus of whom the prophets and apostles have written, that the grace of God the Father, and also the Lord Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost, which beareth record of them, may be and abide in you forever. Amen. (Ether 12:41.)

You will not find mention of either of these doctrines in the teachings of modern Mormonism. When was the last time you heard a General Authority bear their witness of having their calling and election made sure or having received the Second Comforter? When was the last time you heard a General Conference talk that even referenced either of these topics? When have you seen them mentioned in church manuals? The “Gospel Topics” page on LDS.org does not list “Calling and Election” or “Second Comforter.” Nevertheless, General Authorities used to bear their witness of having their calling and election made sure and having received the Second Comforter.⁶⁷ There used to be General Conference talks and Ensign articles on these topics⁶⁸ They used to be described in church manuals.

What changed? Harold B. Lee’s correlation program formalized doctrinal creation, modification, and deletion via an outline of permissible gospel topics. It is probable that “Second Comforter” and “calling and election” were not on the original list. As the brethren who had begun leadership callings pre-correlation passed away, so did these topics.

In contrast to God’s word in the scriptures and through Joseph Smith, modern LDS leaders have not only neglected to teach the doctrines of the Second Comforter and calling and election made sure, but have actually preached against them.⁶⁹

Conclusion

The church persists in omissions, alterations, and fabrications for several reasons. First, the leaders are ignorant of objective church history. Second, they rely on church employees, who have a vested interest in hiding and misrepresenting church history to present the church and its leaders in a positive light. When church leaders believe that the Holy Ghost testifies of all truth but only church-promoting truth,⁷⁰ it is not surprising that their policies of purposefully omitting, misrepresenting, and fabricating history to create a church-positive narrative continue.

These problems have no simple solution. To reverse the system now and interpret modern Mormonism within the context of true history would contraindicate many traditions in the church.

We should not fear true history. We must resist the pernicious tradition in the church that there is such a thing as non-faith-promoting history. All church history is faith promoting, no matter how disturbing, because the only thing it can displace is something that isn't true. Falsehoods can never save you. False traditions damn us. They prevent us from progressing towards God. You cannot have real faith in something that is false. Alma wrote, “If ye have faith ye hope for things which are not seen, which are true.” (Alma 32:21.) Even when it is painful, true church history will bring you closer to Christ through freeing you from false tradition. The efficacy of truth is not dependent on its source or how it is presented. Truth “is knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come;” (D&C 93:24). It is not things as we wish they had been. The heading in a chapter from the Joseph Smith priesthood manual says, “The gospel of Jesus Christ embraces all truth; the faithful accept the truths God has revealed and put aside false traditions.” Joseph taught “To become a joint heir of the heirship of the Son, one must put away all his false traditions.” (Joseph Smith, History of the Church 5:554.) It is not false tradition, but knowledge that leads us to eternal life. Saul was probably very disappointed to find out that all his pre-theophany Phariseeism was actually leading him away from God, despite his contemporary beliefs to the contrary. Still, he recognized that what Jesus had told him—the truth—would draw him closer to Christ than all that Phariseeism ever did. He said, “I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ.” (Phillipians 3:8). Paul had no sacred cows, no false idols he wasn't willing to let go of when provided the opportunity to embrace knowledge from God that contradicted his traditions. Are you willing to embrace truth at all costs?

What Latter-day Saint can say that they are not interested in church history, when their very salvation depends on rooting out the many false traditions present in their understanding of the gospel, and when church history is so central to that end? This attitude is opposite of what Joseph demonstrated. He said, “When things that are of the greatest importance are passed over by weak-minded men without even a thought, I want to see truth in all its bearings and hug it to my bosom.” (History of the Church 6:477.)

Church history is vital to living the gospel of the restoration. Church history is the link to the gospel restored through Joseph Smith. Our familiarity with his teachings in the context in which they were given in a large part dictates at once the degree to which we can live the doctrines of the restoration and our capacity to detect deviations therefrom.

Modern church history has for decades matched Napoleon Bonaparte’s purported definition of history: “what is history but fables agreed upon?” He knew that “Whoever controls the image and information of the past determines what and how future generations will think; whoever controls the information and images of the present determines how those same people will view the past.”⁷¹ George Orwell said something similar but simpler: “He who controls the past controls the future. He who controls the present controls the past.” Ignorance of the past invites mistaken ideas about the present. One who thinks his forebears were righteous will seek God very differently than one who knew his forebears were wicked. The Lamanites consistently suffered from a mistaken idea of the righteousness of Laman and Lemuel.

In the New Testament, Jesus told the Pharisees that they had strayed away from the gospel by substituting the commandments of men for God's word. These Pharisees spent a lot of time studying the gospel and practicing religious ceremony. It was not for lack of effort that they missed the mark, but lack of focus. Had they spent only a little of that time studying their church history, they never would have been swept away by the traditions of their elders, which were contrary to the gospel. If we do not know the gospel as given through Joseph, we are just as incapable of noticing deviations from the gospel restored through Joseph as the Pharisees were of noticing deviations from the law given to Moses.

Without history we cannot know our religion, but only what it has become. With history, we can know what differences exist and where they came from. We can ascertain whether the spiritual fruits present today are different from those manifested in the past, and know what changes account for the difference in fruits. The purpose of church history is not to keep our testimonies strong, or in other words, reinforce our traditions. Rather, it is to seek the truth. The truth can and does disagree with our traditions. The descendants of Laman and Lemuel continued to believe that Nephi was a liar, that he stole governance, and that the people of Jerusalem were not wicked. All of these things could be disproved through accurate history. Apologetic history (“keeping our testimonies strong”) is a sure-fire way to dwindle in unbelief because it disconnects our current perspective from what was actually restored in the past.

As an institution, we need to repent of our ignorance and dishonesty, even if it requires a serious and reaching reevaluation of fundamental claims. God will not honor anything built on lies. “He that covereth his sins shall not prosper: but whoso confesseth and forsaketh them shall have mercy.” (Proverbs 28:13.)