Mormonism and history/Histories written by Mormon historians

FAIR Answers—back to home page

Histories written by Mormon historians

Jump to details:

• Question: Are histories written by Mormon historians not reliable?

FAIR Answers—back to home page

V

Articles about Latter-day Saint history

Overview	Latter-day Saint history Approaching history Responding to criticisms about Church history Primary source documents of early Church history
Accuracy of Church History	Alleged whitewashing of Church history Alleged whitewashing of polygamy in Church history Alleged hiding of facts in Church history History scholars and Church discipline Accuracy of Church art History of the Church (6-volume history) Lucy Mack Smith's biography of Joseph Smith Histories written by scholars
Forgeries and folklore	Mark Hofmann Kinderhook Plates The Sealed Book of Mormon by Mauricio Berger The Mentinah Papers The Ang Aklatan The Bat Creek Stone The Burrows Cave artifacts Mormon urban legends or folklore

Mormonism and history/Histories written by Mormon historians

Ironically, those who criticize Mormon histories as being unreliable and incomplete use Church-produced documents as their source material

The author of the critical book One Nation Under Gods claims that "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.'" and that "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."

How does one define "least reliable?" The assertion that "some of the least reliable reports on Mormon history" are those "produced by the LDS church" does not acknowledge 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 sources is viewed by members and non-members alike as being "produced by the Church. If they are so unreliable, why does the author cite 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? And why if he is relying on Church sources, why does he so often misrepresent the Church?

Elder Boyd K. Packer's comment: "Some things that are true are not very useful"

Elder Packer gave an address to religious educators called "The Mantle is Far, Far Greater Than the Intellect." The quote "Some things that are true are not very useful" has become a favorite of critics to demonstrate that the Church suppresses truth or intellectual thought.

Elder Packer said nothing about stopping historians or insisting that they not aim for objectivity

As is often the case, there is more to the story that we can only learn by examining the original quotation in context.

There are two aspects to this criticism:

First criticism

The first is the claim 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. Elder Packer stressed four main points:

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 and third points, and Elder Packer said nothing about stopping historians or insisting that they not be objective. He simply said that no treatment of Church history could hope to be objective without consideration of the spiritual powers that attend the work.

The intellectual context

Some historians insist that they are being objective—but objectivity is impossible. We can strive to be fair, honest, and balanced, but no one can achieve objectivity. Claims of being "objective" have often, it turns out, been a shield historians who wish to hide their biases or advance their own agendas while claiming to be simply neural purveyors of fact. Very often, such historians insist that because spiritual matters cannont be "proven," they are therefore not obliged to mention them or consider them. It is this dynamic—which was a hotly debated and contested matter at the time—that his remarks refer to.

For example, one author wrote:

Can secular historians claim that their interests and questions reflect a higher order of significance? Can they demonstrate that their approach to history is truly objective? Can they legitimately refer to their own brand of history as mature, accurate, and insightful as opposed to the inevitably "naive, narrow- minded, pollyannish" histories written by Mormon historians who take their own religious categories as a theme for the understanding of the Mormon past?

Such questions must be answered because if the ideal of neutrality and objectivity cannot be approximated, then the historian’s distinction between "good history" and "bad history" evaporates and the secular historian’s claim that somehow his account is of a higher order can no longer hold. ... Such arguments are based on two assumptions: (1) that the historian can somehow be objective and neutral and (2) that the historical record is an independent and objective ground over against which historical explanations can be verified. It is exceedingly doubtful either assumption can stand up to careful and logical scrutiny.

This debate was not a new one for the history profession generally—but historians of Mormon matters were philosophically and intellectually behind the times. They were still attempting to lay claim to a superior "objective" history that the mainstream historical profession had conceded was impossible, and usually a cover for either unrecognized or unacknowledged biases and ideology. This was not a case where only "conservative believers" held this position—even some non-LDS historians argued that the conservative argument was far better grounded in the current philosophy of history than the supposed "objective" faction.

Even in the twenty-first century, there are some who persist in claims about objectivity that do not withstand philosophical or logical scrutiny.

One author at the independent Sunstone magazine noted how the supposedly "objective" secular scholars went out of their way to prevent this type of criticism of their efforts from being published:

At that time, SUNSTONE had just published an article challenging some of the assumptions of those intellectual heroes known in the Church as "New Mormon Historians." What startled—and disillusioned—me was the discovery that a number of historians had gone to great lengths to discourage the publication of this manuscript. For them, open discussion and disagreement was insufficient; they sought to prevent distribution of ideas contrary to their own. Those who had fought against intellectual suppression had suddenly embraced it.

In addition to this intellectual current, Elder Packer was telling LDS teachers and historians employed by the Church 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. Omitting spiritual ideas and claims is no more "objective" than including such things. But, in the intellectual environment of the time, secularist approaches were attempting to claim the high ground of being "real" history, while everything else was biased, "non-objective" writing.

Second criticism

The second is the claim that the Church historical department staff were required to "sign a form" regarding the Church's right to censor anything the staff might publish. Apparently the author hopes we will believe this is a means for the Church to suppress scholarly work.

The author never confronts the issue of whether the Church has a right to control (a) access to their own historical records, and (b) how those records are used by employees.

If we considered a business, there would be no question that businesses have the right to do control access to their records and insist that their employees' use of those records not actively undermine the company's goals.

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? And, why should the Church be required to pay employees to undermine it?

This stipulation of employment is thus unsurprising, and not a sign of sinister goings-on. Most organizations have similar policies and standards.

Notes

Notes