Introduction
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 Joseph Fielding Smith, who served as church historian from 1921 to 1970, found that many important historical documents had not been collected and archived prior to his tenure, and built up an impressive collection that was donated to the church at the time of his death.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.
Footnotes
- 1. This entire book lays out this argument in detail. ↩
- 2. See D&C 47:1-3, 69:3, 85:1. ↩
- 3. In a recent Q&A, LDS history author Richard Bushman explained that the brethren were not informed about the issues “for many years, but recently they have had to get up to speed.” (http://www.wheatandtares.org/17915/richard-bushman-on-mormonism/, retrieved 27 Sept 2015.) ↩
- 4. For example, Elder M. Russell Ballard recently quipped, “the Lord does not require His Saints to have advanced degrees in history and Church doctrine.” https://www.lds.org/prophets-and-apostles/unto-all-the-world/to-the-saints-in-theutah-south-area ↩
- 5. Recollection of Paul Toscano in private correspondence to author. ↩
- 6. See later comments in this chapter. ↩
- 7. The late Larry H. Miller provided an undisclosed amount to finance the Joseph Smith Papers Project. “The Family and Church History Department of the church and BYU's Joseph Fielding Smith Institute for Latter-day Saint History haver [sic] provided space, resources and manpower, but funding comes from the Millers.” (http://www.deseretnews.com/article/600123721/Miller-funding-Joseph-Smithproject.html?pg=all, retrieved 24 Sept 2015) ↩
-
8.
Q: What do you think is spurring this change in focus for including the more controversial aspects of the history when it has previously not been a priority? Bushman: Doubtless the blast of information on the internet changed the situation drastically. The Church had to face that fact that information of all kinds was now in the public realm...
Q: Is there a consensus among the brethren about the History of the Church? Are they usually fairly informed about the issues?
Bushman: They were not for many years, but recently they have had to get up to speed. The recent Church historians have done a great job of informing the Brethren. The gospel topics were a surprise to many. They are often charged with concealing the truth. I think the fact is the old narrative was all they knew. I don’t think that all believe we have to tell the whole story. Why bring all that up they are wont to say. But those on the side of transparency are prevailing. (Richard Bushman, http://www.wheatandtares.org/17915/richard-bushman-onmormonism/, retrieved 27 Sept 2015.) ↩