The Mormon History Enigma
Posted: Mon Jul 16, 2012 5:01 am
"We don't know who discovered water, but we know it wasn't the fish"
(Marshall McLuhan - Canadian Communication theorist, Educator, Writer and Social Reformer, 1911-1980)
The above quote by McLuhan would apply to many of the faithful within the LDS church regarding the subject of Mormon history. Just like a fish that can't see the water it's swimming in, we often cannot see the world around us. It takes someone with a different perspective, someone outside our hardened, well warn paradigm to point out our blind spots. Remember, our perception is our reality, it’s the world we live in, we often are not able to see our own learning opportunities, ironically, because we are living and staring at them every day. Once we allow ourselves to become immersed in the environmental muse, filled with people with similar thinking, it becomes extremely difficult to see the world around us, or discern if your belief system is rational and well thought-out able to withstand scrutiny, or are we merely adhering to the powerful influences of tradition and cultural conditioning. It is very difficult to break out of a well warn paradigm once fully ingrained.
There is nothing inspiring about nuance, vagueness, or ambiguity. Firm, confident, resolute, are the adjectives that stimulate the senses, this may explain why Mormon leaders like Bruce R. McConkie and Joseph Feilding Smith were so popular in their day. Mormon history, like history in general is fuzzy, open to interpretation, it can be compared to statistics, you can make them say anything you want. A good example of this is found in a speech given by President Barak Obama, March 15, 2012 wherein he used a famous quote attributed to President Rutherford B. Hayes, the 19th President of the United States (1877–1881) about the telephone:
"One of my predecessors, Rutherford B. Hayes, reportedly said about the telephone, 'It's a great invention, but who would ever want to use one?' (Laughter.) That's why he's not on Mt. Rushmore — (laughter and applause) — because he's looking backward. He's not looking forward. (Applause.) He's explaining why we can't do something, instead of why we can do something ..."
What started out as a great quote in a speech full of confidence and conviction, to energize the masses turned out to be apocryphal, the quote has also been attributed to President Ulysses S. Grant. What history does show is that President Hayes had the first telephone, and first typewriter in the White House, he also had Thomas Edison visit him to demonstrate the phonograph, behaviors you would not expect if he was adverse to technology and innovation.
This is not an indictment of President Obama, it’s an easy mistake anyone could make, it merely shows that despite our desire for history to be inspiring, pep rally material, it’s most often grey and ambiguous. American history is full of such historical myths and narratives that have evolved over time. We want our heroes to be heroes, be dammed with the details!
Mormonism is not exempt from similar historical exaggeration. Many of its sacred narratives are designed with the intent to promote belief rather than accurately depict historical events. This has created a situation where many within the church do not fully understand the history of Joseph Smith, their founding father, or the controversial aspects of his history. Many historical problems in Mormonism have been glossed over, de-emphasized, and in some cases more palatable versions substituted as actual history, creating a divide between the actual event and the authorized narrative. This divide is perpetuated further when church members fail to do the necessary research that is required to gain a full and rich understanding Mormon history. There are many opinions why the church has not fully embrace it’s history, chief among them, in this authors opinion, being correlation and religious zeal, compounded by years of neglect on the subject by church leaders has made this a very complicated issue today. As for the faithful, the amount of heavy lifting required to research and dissect Mormon history is just simply to daunting a task. What some would call the holy trinity of required reading in Mormon history, Quinn, Bushman and Palmer, their three books combined are over 1,150 pages. Most will simply rely on the church authorized materials for their information and will forever remain suspect of the uncorrelated.
This "tree topper" method creates a situation where our knowledge is a "mile wide and an inch deep" and partisan, forming a “perfect storm” for the inevitable faith crisis that accompanies when complete and accurate information is discovered regarding Mormon history. This post is not intended to focus on the psychology behind why the suppression of church history but rather to encourage others to find out what "the rest of the story" is regarding church history, all the data needs to be considered when evaluating the truth claims of the Mormon church. Full activity in the LDS church requires a large economic and time commitment emphasizing the need for full disclosure. Conviction creates commitment.
Much of the information discussed in blogs and posts similar to this one can easily be found in official church literature or scholarly books written by faithful Mormon historians. However, upon hearing it for the first time it will appear fringy and even deceitful to many within the church due to the lack of exposure. Many of the more controversial historical issues found in Mormon history are rarely discussed in a meaningful way by church leadership, CES, or in the correlated instruction manuals. The LDS church places heavy emphasis on traditional Mormon stories that are less ambiguous, and more faith affirming, it's uses history as a faith building foundation when in reality it's history is nuanced and in some cases considerably different than its sacred narratives . This void in scholarship and commentary from official church outlets regarding its own history, and its emphasis on correlated history further perpetuates the gulf between actual history of the church and its sacred narratives. This peculiar dichotomy creates a situation where those outside the church may have a broader understanding of Mormon history than many of its own true believing membership.
A good example of such historical distortion is found in the methods and process of the translation of the Book of Mormon. Consider the portrayal of Joseph Smith in many of the churches sacred narratives and art work that have been used over the last century depict him engaged in the translation process either by himself, or with Oliver Cowdery viewing the plates of gold in deep concentration, as if receiving revelation from God who is conveying to Smith the interpretation of the “reformed Egyptian” characters found on the gold plates. The term often used by the church to describe this translation process as “by the gift and power of God”. Very rarely is much more said beyond this. Anthony Ivins clearly relays the common belief among the faithful in his 1909 CG talk:
“So He gave us the Book of Mormon, containing the fullness of the everlasting Gospel, in its plainness, simplicity and truth. . . . it was a truth that God revealed these things to him; it was a truth that Moroni delivered the plates into his hands; it was a truth that this book was translated by the gift and power of God, through the medium of the Urim and Thummim. Now, we spend a good deal of time trying to determine how that was brought about. What does it matter how it was brought about? It was done by the gift and power of God, that is sufficient for me. It was done by means of the Urim and Thummim-not a new method either of learning the will of the Lord, for the ancients had it. The High Priests in Israel had it, and with it they ascertained the mind and will of the Lord for the guidance of the people; just as with it the Prophet Joseph was able to translate this record.”
(Anthony W. Ivins, Conference Report April 1909, First day Afternoon Session)
The question of many informed Mormons and those outside the church is, why does the actual historical record differ so greatly from what the leaders of the church have been professing for well over a hundred years? If, as Anthony Ivins said, “It was done by means of the Urim and Thummim-not a new method” then why was a new method used?
Why is the “stone-in-hat” method not fully disclosed? Some may say, does it really matter what method Joseph used when translating the Book of Mormon? Honesty and integrity demands that truth be told, why obfuscate, there is no middle ground, cannot truth stand on its own?
(Marshall McLuhan - Canadian Communication theorist, Educator, Writer and Social Reformer, 1911-1980)
The above quote by McLuhan would apply to many of the faithful within the LDS church regarding the subject of Mormon history. Just like a fish that can't see the water it's swimming in, we often cannot see the world around us. It takes someone with a different perspective, someone outside our hardened, well warn paradigm to point out our blind spots. Remember, our perception is our reality, it’s the world we live in, we often are not able to see our own learning opportunities, ironically, because we are living and staring at them every day. Once we allow ourselves to become immersed in the environmental muse, filled with people with similar thinking, it becomes extremely difficult to see the world around us, or discern if your belief system is rational and well thought-out able to withstand scrutiny, or are we merely adhering to the powerful influences of tradition and cultural conditioning. It is very difficult to break out of a well warn paradigm once fully ingrained.
There is nothing inspiring about nuance, vagueness, or ambiguity. Firm, confident, resolute, are the adjectives that stimulate the senses, this may explain why Mormon leaders like Bruce R. McConkie and Joseph Feilding Smith were so popular in their day. Mormon history, like history in general is fuzzy, open to interpretation, it can be compared to statistics, you can make them say anything you want. A good example of this is found in a speech given by President Barak Obama, March 15, 2012 wherein he used a famous quote attributed to President Rutherford B. Hayes, the 19th President of the United States (1877–1881) about the telephone:
"One of my predecessors, Rutherford B. Hayes, reportedly said about the telephone, 'It's a great invention, but who would ever want to use one?' (Laughter.) That's why he's not on Mt. Rushmore — (laughter and applause) — because he's looking backward. He's not looking forward. (Applause.) He's explaining why we can't do something, instead of why we can do something ..."
What started out as a great quote in a speech full of confidence and conviction, to energize the masses turned out to be apocryphal, the quote has also been attributed to President Ulysses S. Grant. What history does show is that President Hayes had the first telephone, and first typewriter in the White House, he also had Thomas Edison visit him to demonstrate the phonograph, behaviors you would not expect if he was adverse to technology and innovation.
This is not an indictment of President Obama, it’s an easy mistake anyone could make, it merely shows that despite our desire for history to be inspiring, pep rally material, it’s most often grey and ambiguous. American history is full of such historical myths and narratives that have evolved over time. We want our heroes to be heroes, be dammed with the details!
Mormonism is not exempt from similar historical exaggeration. Many of its sacred narratives are designed with the intent to promote belief rather than accurately depict historical events. This has created a situation where many within the church do not fully understand the history of Joseph Smith, their founding father, or the controversial aspects of his history. Many historical problems in Mormonism have been glossed over, de-emphasized, and in some cases more palatable versions substituted as actual history, creating a divide between the actual event and the authorized narrative. This divide is perpetuated further when church members fail to do the necessary research that is required to gain a full and rich understanding Mormon history. There are many opinions why the church has not fully embrace it’s history, chief among them, in this authors opinion, being correlation and religious zeal, compounded by years of neglect on the subject by church leaders has made this a very complicated issue today. As for the faithful, the amount of heavy lifting required to research and dissect Mormon history is just simply to daunting a task. What some would call the holy trinity of required reading in Mormon history, Quinn, Bushman and Palmer, their three books combined are over 1,150 pages. Most will simply rely on the church authorized materials for their information and will forever remain suspect of the uncorrelated.
This "tree topper" method creates a situation where our knowledge is a "mile wide and an inch deep" and partisan, forming a “perfect storm” for the inevitable faith crisis that accompanies when complete and accurate information is discovered regarding Mormon history. This post is not intended to focus on the psychology behind why the suppression of church history but rather to encourage others to find out what "the rest of the story" is regarding church history, all the data needs to be considered when evaluating the truth claims of the Mormon church. Full activity in the LDS church requires a large economic and time commitment emphasizing the need for full disclosure. Conviction creates commitment.
Much of the information discussed in blogs and posts similar to this one can easily be found in official church literature or scholarly books written by faithful Mormon historians. However, upon hearing it for the first time it will appear fringy and even deceitful to many within the church due to the lack of exposure. Many of the more controversial historical issues found in Mormon history are rarely discussed in a meaningful way by church leadership, CES, or in the correlated instruction manuals. The LDS church places heavy emphasis on traditional Mormon stories that are less ambiguous, and more faith affirming, it's uses history as a faith building foundation when in reality it's history is nuanced and in some cases considerably different than its sacred narratives . This void in scholarship and commentary from official church outlets regarding its own history, and its emphasis on correlated history further perpetuates the gulf between actual history of the church and its sacred narratives. This peculiar dichotomy creates a situation where those outside the church may have a broader understanding of Mormon history than many of its own true believing membership.
A good example of such historical distortion is found in the methods and process of the translation of the Book of Mormon. Consider the portrayal of Joseph Smith in many of the churches sacred narratives and art work that have been used over the last century depict him engaged in the translation process either by himself, or with Oliver Cowdery viewing the plates of gold in deep concentration, as if receiving revelation from God who is conveying to Smith the interpretation of the “reformed Egyptian” characters found on the gold plates. The term often used by the church to describe this translation process as “by the gift and power of God”. Very rarely is much more said beyond this. Anthony Ivins clearly relays the common belief among the faithful in his 1909 CG talk:
“So He gave us the Book of Mormon, containing the fullness of the everlasting Gospel, in its plainness, simplicity and truth. . . . it was a truth that God revealed these things to him; it was a truth that Moroni delivered the plates into his hands; it was a truth that this book was translated by the gift and power of God, through the medium of the Urim and Thummim. Now, we spend a good deal of time trying to determine how that was brought about. What does it matter how it was brought about? It was done by the gift and power of God, that is sufficient for me. It was done by means of the Urim and Thummim-not a new method either of learning the will of the Lord, for the ancients had it. The High Priests in Israel had it, and with it they ascertained the mind and will of the Lord for the guidance of the people; just as with it the Prophet Joseph was able to translate this record.”
(Anthony W. Ivins, Conference Report April 1909, First day Afternoon Session)
The question of many informed Mormons and those outside the church is, why does the actual historical record differ so greatly from what the leaders of the church have been professing for well over a hundred years? If, as Anthony Ivins said, “It was done by means of the Urim and Thummim-not a new method” then why was a new method used?
Why is the “stone-in-hat” method not fully disclosed? Some may say, does it really matter what method Joseph used when translating the Book of Mormon? Honesty and integrity demands that truth be told, why obfuscate, there is no middle ground, cannot truth stand on its own?