I remember the first time I learned some of the challenging aspects of church history. The massacre at Mountain Meadows, details of polygamy, multiple accounts of the first vision, and etc. I felt doubt stirring in my mind and heart. It was painful, but short lived.[1]
On reflection, I now realize I assumed the Lord’s appearing to Joseph Smith meant the Lord was there 24/7 guiding the restoration. Consequently there could be no imperfections in the establishment of the church, or in the lives of those who carried the work forward, therefore church history would be uncomplicated and without blemish.
I wonder why I entertained such naive notions. I was a student of the scriptures and understood the difficulties the Savior had with His hand picked apostles. The Book of Mormon’s first family (Lehi and his wife Sariah, and their children) certainly couldn’t have contributed to my naïve ideal. The Standard Works of the church attest to the frailties of mankind, and nowhere teaches the ideal that church history, ancient or modern, ought to be uncomplicated and blemish free.
I read an article by a LDS church historian who didn’t mince words about the silliness of getting caught up in the problems of church history. Davis Bitton, a prominent LDS historian makes the salient point that those who know our history the best, church historians, remain faithful committed members of the church. He wrote:
Let’s get one thing clear. There is nothing in church history that leads inevitably to the conclusion that the church is false. There is nothing that requires the conclusion that Joseph Smith was a fraud. How can I say this with such confidence? For the simple reason that the historians who know most about our church history have been and are faithful, committed members of the church. Or, to restate the situation more precisely, there are faithful Latter-day Saint historians who know as much about this subject as any anti-Mormon or as anyone who writes on the subject from an outside perspective. With few exceptions, they know much, much more. They have not been blown away. They have not gnashed their teeth and abandoned their faith. To repeat, they have found nothing that forces the extreme conclusion our enemies like to promote… Competent historians who have devoted many years of study to the issues have not felt compelled to abandon their faith in the restored gospel…
Think not when you gather to Zion,
Your troubles and trials are through,
That nothing but comfort and pleasure
Are waiting in Zion for you.
No, no, ’tis designed as a furnace,
All substance, all textures to try,
To burn all the “wood, hay, and stubble,”
The gold from the dross purify.
When Eliza R. Snow penned those words, they were good advice for the emigrants leaving Europe to join the Saints in the West. Similar counsel is sometimes needed by students of our LDS history. “Think not when ye study church history,” we might sing, “that everyone was always smiling, that the women were always dressed in freshly laundered, starched pinafores, that the men spoke softly, grammatically, and always politely, or that the children were well mannered angels.” Think not! In other words, get real! [2]
In my opinion, those who get hung up on issues in church history and claim this is reason for doubting, not believing, having their name removed from the records of the church, or not joining the church have other options available to them. For me it was found in prayer and study. Go here for my story.
Following is additional information for those interested in this subject:
* YouTube-Davis Bitton Here
* F.A.I.R.-Davis Bitton Here
* Meridan Magazine-Davis Bitton Here
[1] It was shorted lived for me because I had been the recipient of many manifestations of the Spirit. All that I needed to do is reflect on these experiences and the doubt and pain I experienced were swallowed up.
[2] I Don’t Have a Testimony of Church History, Davis Bitton. Click Here for full text.
Tim Malone
Posted on 22nd June, 2008
Amen! I just invested an enjoyable hour reading the David Bitton article. I had read excerpts from it somewhere before. Thanks for providing the links to the material. Your essay is good stuff - catchy title and great quotes from a trusted historian.
Interestingly, I also wrote about my observations of some who have read and been dismayed by what they have “discovered” in their studies of our history. Maybe they haven’t read Davis Bitton’s little talk.
Clean Cut
Posted on 23rd June, 2008
I really appreciate this post and also for providing the links to Davis Bitton’s article, which I probably would not have read/found otherwise. Thanks!
Jared
Posted on 23rd June, 2008
Stephen, Ardis, Tim, Clean Cut
Thanks for coming by. I think Davis Bitton makes some excellent points on this issue for LDS.
“I wonder why I entertained such naive notions.”
Probably because that it what the Church and it’s leaders have been wanting you to believe. While I wouldn’t go as far to say that this has explicitly been done (though I’m sure instances of it have occured), but rather they implicitly support such naivete by not correcting the notions you expressed, even though they surely know it occurs.
For example, in 1984 Elder Ronald Poelman gave a talk in general conference where he tried to dispel this notion. Some of the brethren disagreed with his talk and had it drastically and fundamentally rewritten for publication. They also had him re-tape the talk the following Wednesday for distribution overseas. Sounds of coughing and such were also added to the new talk so that it would seem like it was the original given at the conference. You can read the unedited version here.
Larry
Posted on 7th July, 2008
Many have trouble believing in the Church even with a backdrop of faith-promoting history and the Official Narrative. Why then is it unreasonable to falter when one learns the thornier details?
Furthermore, for each fully informed historian who maintains the faith there is a fully informed historian who lost his faith. Why are only the former historians reasonable? This seems to suggest that these are matters in which reasonable minds and hearts could differ.
And while academics are often quite able to reconstruct and maintain their faith in light of historical problems, many many average Mormons are not. I suspect in terms of non-scholars, empirically your line of reasoning would suggest that those of us who stay faithful are the unreasonable ones.
In the end, calling those who doubt “unreasonable” and “not forthright” ends discussion and dialogue. It prevents the 99 from reaching the 1. And it likely pushes some over the edge, turning the 1 into 10.
In his recent book, On the Road with Joseph Smith, professor Bushman writes the following on pp. 120-121:
“While Mormons may think of Sunday School and home teaching as Mormon Culture, the work of [dissident and doubting Mormon scholars] is also part of the Mormon whole. The intensity of their interest helps us to recognize the flaws in our conventional divisions into faithful and unfaithful, believing and unbelieving, active and inactive. We all attach ourselves to Mormonism in some peculiar fashion; we all have our irksome points where we don’t feel comfortable and particular sites where we obtain a purchase on our religion. We should recognize that we are all part of big-tent Mormonism and acknowledge each other as brothers and sisters.”
To use Bushman’s terms, you have simply added another false “conventional division.” If you condemn the doubters in our midst as unreasonable and not forthright, you push them right out of the tent.
mpb
Posted on 8th July, 2008
Larry, you beat me to it. I just want to add my amen. It’s important to always give people the benefit of the doubt–even though you think someone is being unreasonable or irrational, that person probably doesn’t, and in fact probably feels like he or she is being very reasonable. I believe that most people are well intentioned and act according to the knowledge they have received in the best way they know how. I know for me that kind of understanding in persons with whom I am engaged in dialogue about the gospel has helped me stay close to the Church.
Jared
Posted on 8th July, 2008
Tech Narrator
No doubt church leaders have their hands full with the challenges of church history. I pray that they will be led to the best solution for all concerned.
I’m familiar with the Ronald Poelman story. It would be interesting to know more of the details. I wonder how Elder Poelman would describe his experience. To my knowledge he served faithfully and spoke in other general conferences.
Thanks for your comments.
Jared
Posted on 8th July, 2008
Larry said: “Furthermore, for each fully informed historian who maintains the faith there is a fully informed historian who lost his faith.”
Wow, do you have sources for this statement. I would be interested in to know more details.
Larry said: “…calling those who doubt “unreasonable” and “not forthright” ends discussion and dialogue”
Mpb said: “It’s important to always give people the benefit of the doubt–even though you think someone is being unreasonable or irrational, that person probably doesn’t, and in fact probably feels like he or she is being very reasonable”.
After reading your comments and rereading mine I’ve decided to edit my post as follows:
In my opinion, those who get hung up on issues in church history and claim this is reason for doubting, not believing, having their name removed from the records of the church, or not joining the church have other options available to them. For me it was found in prayer and study. Go here for my story.
You’re right about giving people the benefit of the doubt. My initial remarks were for those who are “professional doubters”. I describe them as one whose post and comments nudge out faith and bump open the door to doubt in nearly everything they post and comment on. In other words, they have become professional doubters; they don’t appear to be interested in resolving their doubts, but seem to enjoy their role as a doubter.
Go here for my post on professional doubters:
http://www.ldsaliveinchrist.com/2008/06/one-part-faith-seven-parts-doubt-a-recipe-to-reduce-faith-and-maintain-doubt/
teh narrator, I’m so glad you posted that Poelman talk. I heard it live and then saw the edits. Whenever I’ve mentioned it since, people think I’m off my rocker. I feel validated!
Leave your Comment