Mormonism and history/Censorship and revision/Has the Church whitewashed its history

FAIR Answers Wiki Table of Contents

Has the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) "whitewashed" its history?

Jump to Subtopic:

• Question: Has The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints deceived its members regarding controversial issues about its origins, history, and/or scripture?
• Question: What are the different levels of knowledge that members may have about Church history?
• Question: Do Mormon histories have a long history of omitting mention of plural marriage as a cause for the Saints' troubles in Illinois?
• Question: Why does the account of Sidney Rigdon's 'trial' recorded in the Times and Seasons differs markedly from the version available in the History of the Church?
• Question: Does Oliver Cowdery's blessing and promise to Orson Hyde contain a false prophecy, which was then altered before being printed in History of the Church?
• Question: Did Wilford Woodruff criticize assistant Church Historian Andrew Jenson's decision to publish the names of those who were married to Joseph Smith because he wanted to hide the fact that Joseph was married to other women?
• Question: Did the Church order Ronald L. Poelman's 1984 conference talk to be re-recorded with a "cough track" in order to hide the fact that changes had been made?
• Question: Why is History of the Church written in first-person, as if Joseph Smith himself wrote it?
• Question: How has the Church responded to issues related to Church history?
• Question: Does Church manual, The Teachings of the Presidents of the Church: Brigham Young, attempt to "hide history" by portraying Brigham Young (a well-known polygamist) as having only one wife?
• Question: What does The Teachings of the Presidents of the Church: Brigham Young say about Brigham's wives?

Question: Has The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints deceived its members regarding controversial issues about its origins, history, and/or scripture?

Introduction to Criticism

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is routinely criticized for its treatment of controversial aspects of its history and scripture by critics. It is claimed and has been claimed for a long time that the Church deceives their members by not informing them about issues that are supposedly damning to the Church’s credibility. A mantra of many of those that have left the Church is that "Yesterday's anti-Mormon literature is today's mainstream history" or "Yesterday's anti-Mormon literature is today's Gospel Topics Essays".

Frequently accompanying these charges are portrayals of the Church as a money-making scheme. Church leaders are supposedly seeking to increase tithing donations to defraud people of money and use it to buy up palatial homes and other goods.

About this criticism, President Dallin H. Oaks has said that "[i]t’s an old problem, the extent to which official histories, whatever they are, or semi-official histories, get into things that are shadowy or less well-known or whatever. That’s an old problem in Mormonism — a feeling of members that they shouldn’t have been surprised by the fact that this or that happened, they should’ve been alerted to it. I have felt that throughout my life."

This article will examine the assumptions that need to be made in order to believe that the Church has lied to its members about controversial issues and the problems with those assumptions. The criticism is broad enough that we'll need to use a lot of space to unpack it. We'll do so in general terms. Specific cases that critics have pointed to as instances of the Church acting deceptively have been addressed in other FAIR articles and are linked to throughout the course of this article and most especially at the end of it.

Important information is found in both the main body of this article as well as the footnotes. The footnotes contain tangential but still important information related to this topic. We encourage readers to read and explore both.

Assumptions Behind an Accusation of Deception

1. The information must be available

The first assumption we can identify is that there must be information that can actually be discussed. This can be difficult for at least three reasons:

1. Some historical documents are not made available to the Church since they can be sitting in personal files of people across the United States and other nations where the Church has had a presence. They may not want to share those documents with the Church or other historians and keep them sacred.
2. Many historical documents are still sitting in large historical archives across the nation and haven’t even been processed. This is especially true of the Church’s archives in Salt Lake City where thousands of historical documents are waiting to be processed by professional archivists. The Church didn’t even get professional archivists until the 70s. Prior to that time, the Church History Department was run by non-expert General Authorities.
3. Many documents don’t get looked at until a historian starts asking the right questions and actively seeks that information. For instance, we didn’t know about several historic ordinations of black individuals to the priesthood under Joseph Smith’s administration until Lester Bush asked the necessary questions, researched them, and finally wrote his seminal 1973 Dialogue article “Mormonism’s Negro Doctrine: An Historical Overview”.

As aptly stated by Latter-day Saint historians James B. Allen and Glen M. Leonard, “[t]he history of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is constantly changing as new information becomes available and as each generation asks fresh questions about its past.”

2. The information must be correct

The information available to Church leaders and scholars must be correct. The facts upon which interpretations are built must be accurately identified and stated and the interpretations of those facts must be the most likely correct interpretation. This can be difficult since historians typically debate the particulars of many issues for years before coming to a consensus on an issue and the Church isn’t going to publish claims in its official literature based on specious scholarship. Sometimes there's more than one interpretation that works for historical evidence. Sometimes one interpretation of that evidence looks more plausible than it actually is—and that interpretation can be the one that makes it to official publications—sometimes to be walked back and rethought later on.

Keith A. Erekson, director of the Church History Library in Salt Lake City, observes that "[s]ometimes errors of fact go unnoticed in the origin, editing, and publishing process. Church curriculum materials or letters about chapel artwork undergo a doctrinal and legal review but not a historical or cultural review."

Even the Church's newest, most transparent, and most professional official history Saints has this disclaimer near the back of the first volume on page 659:

Saints is a true account of the history of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, based on what we know and understand at the present time from existing historical records. It is not the only possible telling of the Church’s sacred history, but the scholars who researched, wrote, and edited this volume know the historical sources well, used them thoughtfully, and documented them in the endnotes and list of sources cited. Readers are invited to evaluate the sources themselves, many of which have been digitized and linked to the endnotes. It is probable that the discovery of more sources, or new readings of existing sources, will in time yield other meanings, interpretations, and possible points of view.

There are many errors that can be made while doing historical scholarship and they all have to do with the historical method. FAIR has an article that gives a brief overview of how to do history and how to answer criticisms of the Church based in it.

3. The information must actually be damning.

The information that is correct must actually be damning either to the character of Joseph Smith, the authenticity of scripture, etc.

This can be a difficult assumption to establish for the simple fact that people can and do react differently to the same information depending on what assumptions they are willing to accept prior to or after confronting that information.

We can take seeming anachronisms in the Book of Mormon for example. Some people might take the presence of seeming anachronisms to be immediately damaging to the credibility of scripture. Others are perfectly fine with the presence of seeming anachronisms since they can be resolved by considering the possibility of loan-shifts. Others might take a seeming anachronism to mean that more information might come to light on it--especially when considering the paucity of archaeological data we have about the ancient New World, preservation conditions for bone deposits, and other factors.

Regarding Church curriculum materials, Keith Erekson observes that "[p]eople draw different conclusions about what is faith promoting, and these judgements, made in the present and influenced by current needs and concerns, have shaped the telling of stories over time. Changes in sensibilities influence what a person or generation deems appropriate for public conversation."

4. Church leaders must become aware of that information at some point

Leaders of the Church have to become aware of that information at some point. This can be difficult for the simple fact that Church leaders likely don’t have time to become aware of controversial scholarly issues.

The late historian D. Michael Quinn observed that "Church leaders have as much experience with the church’s past history as anyone who graduated from seminary, so they are not trying to conceal any concerns or a great secret or mystery, because they are not aware of them. If they haven’t acquired a knowledge of church history before they become a General Authority, they don’t have time to acquire it."

5. Church leaders must take proactive steps to suppress that information

Once information has been found to be correct and damning and general Church leaders have discovered that information, those general Church leaders must take proactive steps to suppress that information. This can be difficult for the simple fact that certain forms of information can’t be easily suppressed.

We can take Book of Mormon anachronisms again as our example. All it takes for someone to find a potential anachronism in our scriptural works is to read those works and compare their claims to the current archaeological science we find from scholars. You can find all that information online or other books that are publicly available.

In the case of historical documents, it’s not that hard to suppress them actually. One need simply burn them secretly if they wished. But there have been exactly zero times when anyone has claimed with credibility that Church leaders have burned documents. The documents that are typically restricted by the Church from public access and stored in its archives are patriarchal blessings of early church members and other temple documents from Church history. The rest is generally open to the public.

This assumption is further complicated by the fact that we have access to information about these issues today. The reader being on the FAIR website and seeing all the claims that critics have made about the Church is evidence that we have vital information on these topics from the Church. The critics couldn’t have made their claims without historical and scientific information being made available for them to formulate those claims. The apologists couldn’t have responded without the critics’ information as well as other info gathered from other sources that help respond to the critics.

This assumption is complicated even further by seeing how many times these issues have appeared in official Church publications, semi-official Church publications, and outside venues over the years. FAIR has compiled exhaustive or near-exhaustive bibliographies for issues like plural marriage, the Book of Abraham, and the First Vision. FAIR has collected smaller yet still revealing bibliographies for most other issues of major controversy. We’ve also collected a number of sources for things like Joseph Smith’s use of the seer stone and/or hat during the translation of the Book of Mormon. Returning to the mantra mentioned before, it's funny that many assert that the Church "is just now admitting" a lot of these facts when they have "admitted" them several decades before the Gospel Topics Essays, for example, were even published. Indeed, nearly all controversial facts that one might find in the CES Letter, for example, can be found in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism published in 1992 and republished in 2007. Critics back then were absolutely sure that the Church "was just then admitting the truth" about a lot of these subjects. They were absolutely sure that the Church was "just admitting" that Joseph Smith utilized a seer stone and placed it in a hat during the translation of the Book of Mormon when Elder Russell M. Nelson mentioned it to a group of new mission presidents and when his talk was published in the July 1993 Ensign. The reality is that nearly all of these issues critics will bring up have been discussed in official, semi-official, and extraofficial literature for a long time.

FAIR also has accurate info and faithful commentary on the artistic depictions of Joseph Smith translating the Book of Mormon that have appeared in Church publications as well as in chapels, temples, and other official Church buildings over the years and that critics say are inaccurate.

Further bibliographic work can be done to find every official, semi-official, and extraoffficial publication done on each controversial issue to further settle debates regarding alleged duplicity on the part of the Church in telling their story. We encourage those interested in this question to do that work. Those interested in doing that work will need to begin their inquiry by first asking when an issue needs to be first mentioned. Because obviously many of the Church's members knew that Joseph Smith was practicing polygamy and polyandry, for instance. But when would that issue begin to be forgotten by church members and need to be researched and discussed in publications? That's when it would become an item of potential duplicity on the part of the Church: if they didn't discuss it when it needed to be discussed. Then bibliographers would need to find all publications that discuss the issue, what controversies researchers faced and had to decide on, when those controversies were decided, when Church leaders found out about the information, when the Church decided to place that information in its official literature, and finally when the claims actually appeared in the literature. Only then can potentially valid criticisms of duplicity arise.

There have been periods of time in which the Church was much more guarded and reluctant to open its archives to outsiders. Non-Latter-day Saint historian John G. Turner observes that Church leaders became such after the publication of Fawn M. Brodie's No Man Knows My History (1945) and Juanita Brooks' The Massacre at Mountain Meadows (1950). Policies for archival access became strict during the 50s and 60s. After Joseph Fielding Smith was relieved of his duties as the Church Historian in 1972, policies for archival access became much more open. From 1972–1982 there was this period of openness to historical research known today among academic historians of Church history as the "Camelot Years," "Camelot Period," or "Camelot Era". Beginning in the 60s and 70s there were attempts to write history about the Church that was more academically-grounded. This work typically did not overtly state that angels, God, and other divine agents were involved in many events of Church history. Rather, phraseology was typically something like "X person claimed to see angels and God." It was called by academics at the time and is still called by historians today "New Mormon History". It presented Church history in a tone that was meant to be palatable to both member and non-member alike. Elders Boyd K. Packer, Mark E. Petersen, and Ezra Taft Benson bristled at this. They wanted to be able to tell the Church's story assuming confidently the existence of God, angels, visions, miracles, etc. Instead of "X person claimed to see angels", they'd say that "X person saw angels". Instead of saying "Joseph Smith, like many other religious figures, sought for a primitive version of Christianity and founded a church claiming to be a restoration of Christ's New Testament church", they wanted to simply say that "Joseph Smith restored the Church of Jesus Christ back to the earth". Since the mid 1980s onward there has been a trajectory towards greater and greater historical transparency and rigor. Beginning in 2001, researchers began the Joseph Smith Papers Project: an attempt at publishing all known documents belonging to Joseph Smith or at least passing through his hands. This project was moved to Church Headquarters in Salt Lake City in 2005 and has been publishing under the Church's auspices since then. Beginning in 2008, the Church planned a new narrative history of the Church to replace B.H. Roberts' old Comprehensive History of the Church published in 1930. Its first volume was released in 2018 entitled Saints: The Standard of Truth. The second and third volumes of this four-volume history have also been published: Saints: No Unhallowed Hand (2020) and Saints: Boldly, Nobly, and Independent (2022). These volumes have consciously been written to address thorny issues in the Church's history and move members' historical knowledge of the church to one that includes "warts and all". The Church has attempted to digitize large and important swaths of its historical archives and interested parties can peruse these documents in the Church History Catalog.

6. Church leaders must take those proactive steps to suppress information with malicious intent

It’s also important to establish that Church leaders must take those proactive steps to suppress information with malicious intent. The author says “malicious” intent because some information seems to have been kept from church members because there was no scholar who could be trusted to take the information and be forthright about its implications while also being sensitive to church members and their beliefs (such as in the case of the First Vision and Joseph Fielding Smith that critics love to talk about). It may take time for Church leaders and other officers to decide how to roll out information to its members so that it doesn’t end up hurting their faith and trust in the Church and it’s past leaders. Often, doubt about the Church is not a matter of information being damning, but the way in which that information is presented that makes it appear as such. It may take time for Church leaders to present the necessary theological and intellectual groundwork that can help other information go down smoothly in members’ spiritual stomachs. As Dallin H. Oaks has observed, “[y]ou don’t want to be getting into and creating doubts that didn’t exist in the first place.” The Church has the right to tell its own story in its own way and at its own time. Not to lie; not to distort the truth; but to present the truth in a way that ultimately advances the Church’s mission of creating Zion and helping others follow God. Church leaders must find the right time (in their incredibly busy schedules and given all the other pressing issues that face the Church and are on the leaders' agendas), the right venue (in the many venues that are available to them and that would be the best conduits to the right hearts and minds), and the right way (given many other circumstances) to present information on these controversial topics. Figuring out all of that is an incredibly tricky task to say the least.

This assumption is further complicated by the fact that the apostles and other General Authorities live lifestyles roughly commensurate with the vocations they held prior to their calls into Church hierarchy. They don't buy up a fleet of yachts nor Lamborghinis just for Church use. Church funds are always geared towards the benefit of the Church. They’re not used for top Church leaders to just live off of the backs of the people. Indeed, they don't need to. They have all the resources, given their stipends and past succesful careers, that they need to live happy, productive lives in their callings and to cover all their necessary expenses. Many critics will doubt that Church leaders aren't trying to just get money—citing things like some General Authorities’ living stipends and the construction of City Creek mall. Information about those topics from an accurate and faithful perspective can be found by following the hyperlinked text.

Finally, it’s doubtful that a lot of information absolutely needs to shared. For example, can one imagine what it would be like if the Church had to announce with trumpet and scrolled proclamation every plagiarism accusation against Joseph Smith? Every argument made against his character? Every argument against other prophets’ characters? Indeed, as Boyd K. Packer correctly observed, "some things that are true are not very useful." Think especially about how you would write the history of a beloved family member that was about to pass and asked you to compile and/or write it. Would you include every single unsavory or negative thing about their life in that history you wrote? Elder Dallin H. Oaks addressed this and urged us to "[s]ee a person in context; don’t depreciate their effectiveness in one area because they have some misbehavior in another area — especially from their youth. I think that’s the spirit of that. I think I’m not talking necessarily just about writing Mormon history; I’m talking about George Washington or any other case. If he had an affair with a girl when he was a teenager, I don’t need to read that when I’m trying to read a biography of the Founding Father of our nation."

7. You must be a good reader.

People need to read to get information. It’s a simple fact of life. It’s also a fact that, as a species, we are fairly bad at reading anything. We aren’t typically interested in something until we feel that we absolutely must be interested in that thing. This is especially true with Latter-day Saints in a crisis of faith: they now feel that their faith is on the line with certain critical arguments made based on history and scripture, whereas before they didn’t feel that and so likely didn’t get interested in Church history and scholarly literature on the scriptures.

As Latter-day Saint apologist Michael Ash has observed:

It [has] been said that America is a nation of non-readers. We are, by and large, literate, but we are often [uninformed] and tend to spend less time reading than watching TV or surfing the Internet. A 2011 survey, for instance, found that the average U.S. adult spends about 7-12 times more time watching TV than reading books. Studies indicate that in the past two decades about 25% fewer American adults spent time reading books. According to another study,

• One-third of high school graduates never read another book for the rest of their lives.
• 58% of the U.S. adult population never reads another book after high school.
• 42% of college graduates never read another book.
• 80% of U.S. families did not buy or read a book last year
• 70% of U.S. adults have not been in a bookstore in the last five years.
• 57% of new books are not read to completion.

When we do read, we often choose pop magazines or novels over nonfiction. Most Americans, for example, are severely uninformed in regards to significant historical issues, current events, or scientific facts. According to a 2003 Gallup poll, a full 83% of Americans could not name the then-current Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, William Rehnquisy, and nearly a third of Americans were unable to name the then-current vice president Dick Cheney. According to Carl Sagan, 63% of Americans are unaware that the last dinosaur died before the first humans lived, and nearly half of American adults do not know that the Earth goes around the sun and that it takes a year to do so.

The problem is even more pronounced among [the United States’] teens. One third of U.S. teens, for instance, were unable to associate Hitler with Germany. Pulitzer prize-winning historian David McCullough complains that many high school and college students are unaware that George Washington was commander of the Continental Army, or that the 13 original colonies were all on the East Coast.

One recent study showed that many Americans were significantly ignorant on what should be common matters of religious knowledge. Only 54% of respondents, for instance, knew that the Koran (Quran) is an Islamic holy book. Only 51% knew that Joseph Smith was a Mormon, and only 46% knew that Martin Luther inspired the Reformation. Although the vast majority of the people polled [were] Christian, only 37% said they read the scriptures at least once a week (not counting worship services), and only 45% knew that the Gospels [were] comprised of the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Only 63% knew that Genesis was the first book in the Bible, and only 60% knew that Abraham was a figure in the Bible who was willing to sacrifice his son for God.

According to one author who wrote about the decline in American religious knowledge, 60% of Americans cannot name five of the Ten Commandments and 50% of high school seniors think Sodom and Gomorrah were married. Another study claims that one third of Americans polled believe that evangelist Billy Graham delivered the Sermon on the mount....With such non-reader ignorance, is it really any wonder that a number of Mormons are unfamiliar with Joseph Smith's involvement with plural marriage? To repeat a comment generally attributed to Mark Twain: "The man who does not read good books has no advantage over the man who can't read them."

It’s also true that we need to be reading the right publications to get the information we’re looking for. Elder Dallin H. Oaks observed that "what is plenty of history for one person is inadequate for another, and we have a large church, and that’s a big problem." The Church, including its leaders and scholars, are going to want to place the information in settings that are designed for specific types of explorations in Church history and scripture. Publications like BYU Studies, the Journal of Mormon History, Church magazines, Seminary manuals, Institute Manuals, Church newspapers, the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, Interpreter, Element, and others will all have different topics that they are going to want to explore and different levels that they will address them at. They know that there are going to be different audiences that want different content. Even if you are reading the right literature and reading a lot there’s no guarantee that the issues will be addressed the way that you might prefer. This is because the publications might be written in a style, scope, or at particular reading level that simply doesn’t permit the issue being addressed that way.

Some may complain that they wanted the information to be presented in Sunday School classes. But as Michael Ash has observed:

The purpose of Church curriculum. . .including Sunday School, Priesthood [meetings], and Relief Society [meetings] is to support the mission of the Church: to bring people to Christ. Very little actual history is discussed in Church classes. Even every fourth year when the Doctrine and Covenants is taught (which includes some Church history) the primary goal of the class is to help members draw closer to God, seek the Spirit, and understand gospel principles. Thousands of virtually untrained volunteers, with varying degrees of gospel and historical knowledge, endeavor to bring the Spirit into the classroom so that class members can be spiritually edified. While some Gospel Doctrine teachers may be knowledgeable enough to share detailed historical information, the manuals generally give basic historical outlines that specifically relate to lessons focusing on one or more gospel principles and how to apply those [principles] in the lives of members. In short, Church is a place for worship, spiritual edification, and enlightenment, not for in-depth historical discussion."

Along similar lines, Keith Erekson observed that "[t]he common teaching technique of identifying principles for application [by Sunday school and other teachers in local congregations] inadvertently omits facts. A lesson that uses the First Vision as a template for receiving personal revelation rarely mentions all the historical accounts." Regarding the curriculum writing and publishing of the Church, Erekson observes that "[b]ecause of its latter-day mission, the Church has prioritized messages about conversion and salvation, which means that information about some historical events or issues receives less priority."" Elder Dallin H. Oaks observed that "the Sunday School teacher that gives 'Brother Jones' his understanding of Church history may be inadequately informed and may not reveal something which the Church has published. It’s in the history written for college or Institute students, sources written for quite mature students, but not every Sunday School teacher that introduces people to a history is familiar with that."

Along with these points from Ash and Erekson, we would do well to remember that those who control curriculum at the Church Office Building, the Correlation Commitee, can be conservative in their approach and be suspicious of new information being distributed to members. This is especially true if that information has typically come through and been promulgated by anti-Mormon sources. We can also remember that the Church has, for the first 200 years or so, been on the defensive from many, many critics. Our approach for defense has sometimes been to “circle the wagons” as it were and shield people from attack. It's understandable why there might be some skittishness. Thus, some charity is encouraged from those dealing with this concern.

If you want to find information about a particular facet of criticism that the Church faces, then you need to be reading a lot, reading the right things, and to expect the issue to be addressed in a way unique to the style, scope, and audience of that publication.

8. You must remember what you read.

This assumption might seem a bit superfluous, but it may become more relevant with experience with those who struggle with this question. You have to remember what you read. Many people might actually be exposed to good information regarding a topic that addresses the concern but not remember the issue itself or the details surrounding the issue and responses to it that would inoculate them to that issue.

When they’re confronted with the issue again they may feel that the Church deceived them on this or that detail, when in reality they just have innocently forgotten much about the issue when they first confronted it.

Other Relevant Considerations

There are very few new discoveries related to Church history

Many critics will present a faithful member with some fact of church history and would have them believe that this is a new discovery. The reality is that there are very few new discoveries related to Church history. In fact, most, if not all of these documents have been well known to church historians for many years. Occasionally, a new document will be discovered which sheds additional light on some aspect of Church history. One such example is the discovery of documents that clarify that the Church was actually organized in Fayette, New York rather than Manchester, New York as some have claimed. However, situations such as this are rare. When a critic presents a "new" historical fact, you can be assured that this very same "fact" has been discussed by Latter-day Saint scholars for many years. There is truly little new information for the critics to draw from.

The critic presents these historical facts in order to shake the member's testimony, hopefully to the point of leaving the church. They attempt to present contradictions, such as "Joseph Smith drank wine at Carthage Jail, and therefore violated the Word of Wisdom." They attempt to catch Church leaders in deceit or portray them as hypocrites. Yet, there are many LDS experts on Church history that remain fully aware, faithful, actively attending church members. There are no facts that unarguably disprove the authenticity of the church. As always it comes down to faith and a personal witness between an individual and the Lord.

Past Histories of the Church Were Written in Line With the Hagiographic Style of the 19th and 20th Century

Apologist Michael Ash has observed that past histories of the Church were written in the hagiographic style of the early 19th and 20th centuries. This sometimes affected what information was or wasn't shared:

Information can be withheld intentionally or unintentionally. First we will discuss the intentional reasons. In the context of early creations of LDS history, we find a tradition among most-nineteenth century biographies (the primary form of historical creations) that emphasized the positive aspects of heroic figures in the hopes of inspiring readers while often exaggerating or even fabricating anecdotes--such as George Washington chopping down his father's cherry tree. Frequently, in cases of early American biographies involving religious or philosophical movements, the movement took center stage and the "history" was a tool for evangelizing the movement. Any information that might harm the movement was withheld from the biography/history.

Early Mormon historians, like many historians of their era, were not trained in history but were instead influenced by the English Puritans whose histories were written as faithful explanations of their events. These Puritans (as well as early LDS historians) believed that, like the Hebrews before them, they were God’s chosen people whose coming to America was part of God's unfolding plan. "Their history and biography" note three prominent historians, "told the saga of God's dealings as seen in their personal lives. In short, Puritan biography and autobiography were simultaneously scripture as well as history." "Accuracy and realism were...largely things of the future."

Apostle George Q. Cannon, whose faith-promoting stories were intended for the youth of the Church, wrote some of the more popular historical accounts of early Mormonism. Such works, like many other non-LDS works of the nineteenth century, were defensive in tone, biased, one-dimensional, and devoted to evangelizing a particular perspective. Today such writings are often referred to as hagiographies. It was not until the middle of the twentieth century that the modern biography—critical, multi-dimensional, and objective (at least in principle)—"began to take its present form." The early faith-promoting histories, however, became the source of historical knowledge for many Church members and launched similar popular works for decades to come. While it can be said that early LDS histories intentionally withheld challenging and non-flattering information, in the context of the times this was not unique to Mormonism and is to be expected.

President Dallin H. Oaks observed that "we’re emerging from a period of history writing within the Church [of] adoring history that doesn’t deal with anything that’s unfavorable, and we’re coming into a period of 'warts and all' kind of history."

Conclusion

The Church has not been perfect in the dissemination of information about its history and scripture. That’s rather expected in any institution managed by imperfect mortals. But to say that it hasn’t done a good job or that it has consistently, deliberately, and/or maliciously hidden unsavory parts about its history and/or scripture from others cannot be taken seriously. There are simply too many confounding variables and complicating data points to validly make this claim. In general, it seems fair to say that anyone could have known about all these controversial issues about the Church; but that does not necessarily mean that they should have known about these issues. We all have busy lives with school, work, families, and other responsibilities. It makes sense that we’re not going to be able to have the time and energy to pursue all of these issues at the depth that others might.

Hopefully everyone will evaluate this issue with faith, hope, and charity. Such will be the only way to come to peace with it.

Critics will want to be aware of these assumptions if they want to try and establish their criticism more fully in the future and defenders will want to be aware of these to know how to approach response to critics.

Defenders should keep in mind, as Dallin H. Oaks has observed about this criticism, that "we will never satisfy every complaint along [this] line and probably shouldn’t."

Appendix 1: Specific Incidents Critics Claim are Examples of Deception

Several specific incidents that critics believe are examples of the Church deceiving its members about controversial aspects of Church history and responses to those critics' arguments are linked below. Important to remember that whether or not these accusations are true, they have little to no bearing on the amount of trust that people should have in today’s church leaders since these incidents all occurred in the past and would have been done by people that aren’t today’s church leaders.

Latter-day Saint scholar Paul Reeve has argued validly that the Church attempted to erase from collective memory the ordination of Elijah Abel in order to shore up the authority of the priesthood and temple restrictions on members of the Church of black African descent. His presentation on this can be found here. See under "Restriction is Solidified, 1908".

Appendix 2: Further video content

Church historians Matthew Grow and Kate Holbrook, along with Elder Quinten L. Cook of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, addressed this issue at a youth Face-to-Face event sponsored by the Church. They answer the question from 14:25-20:42 of the video below:

President Dallin H. Oaks and Elder M. Russell Ballard gave other perspective on this question in a Face-to-Face event with young adults of the Church. Elder Ballard begins at 46:34 of the video below and their commentary on the issue goes until 48:40.

Question: What are the different levels of knowledge that members may have about Church history?

There are different levels of knowledge regarding Church history

LDS professor Daniel C. Peterson describes different "levels" of knowledge that members may have with respect to Church history.

Many years ago, while a graduate student in California, I heard the late Stanley B. Kimball (a Latter-day Saint scholar who taught at Southern Illinois University and published extensively on both European and Latter-day Saint historical subjects) speak to a small group about what he termed "the three levels of Mormon history."

He called the first of these "level A." This level, he said, is the Junior Sunday School version of church history, in which Mormons always wear the white hats, nobody disagrees, no leader ever makes a mistake, and all is unambiguously clear.

"Level B," he said, is the anti-Mormon version of church history—essentially a mirror image of level A or, alternatively, level A turned on its head. On level B, everything that you thought was good and true is actually false and bad. The Mormons (or, at least, their leaders) always or almost always wear black hats, and, to the extent that everything is unambiguously clear, Mormonism is unambiguously fraudulent, bogus, deceptive, and evil. Much in the level B version of Mormonism is simply false, of course; critics of the church have often failed to distinguish themselves for their honesty or for the care with which they've treated the issues they raise. But, in more than a few instances, level B approaches to Mormonism and its past are based on problems that are more or less real.

The church, Kimball reflected, tends to teach level A history. The trouble with this is that, like someone who has been kept in a germ-free environment and is then exposed to an infectious disease, a person on level A who is exposed to any of the issues that are the fodder for level B will have little resistance and will be likely to fall.

The only hope in such a case, he continued, is to press on to what he termed "level C," which is a version of church history that remains affirmative but which also takes into account any and all legitimate points stressed by level B. Those on level C are largely impervious to infection from level B. Level B formulations simply don't impress them....

Kimball said that he and his fellow historians operate on level C, and that, on the whole, that's where he (as a professional historian) would prefer members to be. He was deeply convinced, he said, that level C was essentially like level A, except that it is more nuanced and somewhat more ambiguous. (He emphatically denied that level A is "false," or that the church "lies" in teaching it.) He acknowledged, though, that, were he himself a high-ranking church leader, he would be hesitant to take the membership as a whole to level C by means of church curriculum and instruction for the obvious reason that moving people from level A to level C entails at least some exposure to some of the elements of level B, and that such exposure will unavoidably lead some to lose their testimonies. Still, he felt that those who make it through to level C are more stable and resilient in their faith than those who remain on level A.

Question: Do Mormon histories have a long history of omitting mention of plural marriage as a cause for the Saints' troubles in Illinois?

The claim that six Latter-day Saint histories omit plural marriage as a cause for difficulties in Nauvoo is clearly false

Note: This wiki section was based partly on a review of G.D. Smith's Nauvoo Polygamy. As such, it focuses on that author's presentation of the data. To read the full review, follow the link. Gregory L. Smith, A review of Nauvoo Polygamy:...but we called it celestial marriage by George D. Smith. FARMS Review, Vol. 20, Issue 2. (Detailed book review)

"Mormons accepted as sufficient the explanation that Joseph Smith’s death was due to an angry mob, without caring to know specifically what those Illinois neighbors had been angry about,” writes one critical author, citing five works from 1888 to 1979 (pp. 5, 449–50, n. 105). These references provide a textbook example of footnotes that do not support one’s claims.

The author's claim that these six histories omit plural marriage as a cause for difficulties in Nauvoo is clearly false.

Roberts: Contrary to the author's claim about Roberts’s Comprehensive History, Roberts described plural marriage

Contrary to G. D. Smith’s claim about Roberts’s Comprehensive History, Roberts described plural marriage, concluding, “Bearing this situation in mind, I am sure the reader will better appreciate the many complications which follow in this Nauvoo period of our history.” Roberts’s discussion of the Expositor reminds the reader of “the introduction of the practice of the new marriage system of the church, permitting under special conditions a plurality of wives,” and notes that the dissident paper had “charged the Prophet with exercising illegal authority, both in ecclesiastical and civil affairs; with the introduction of the plural wife system, and other supposed doctrinal heresies; with gross immoralities; and malfeasance in the administration of the affairs of the church.”

Roberts did not deny that errors by the Saints played a role:

This bitterness had been created in the public mind in large part through the misrepresentations that had been made of the purposes and designs of the church leaders; in part by the unwisdom of church members, for whom no claim is made of impeccability, either in word or action; nor is absolute inerrancy in judgment and policy claimed for even the leaders of the church.

Joseph Fielding Smith: Admits the introduction of plural marriage by Joseph Smith and writes that the Prophet was arrested on a charge of polygamy

For his claim that plural marriage was ignored as a cause of Joseph’s death, G. D. Smith also cites Joseph Fielding Smith’s Essentials of Church History. Yet Joseph Fielding Smith both admits the introduction of plural marriage by Joseph Smith and writes that the Prophet was arrested on a charge of polygamy.

Berrett argues that one of the new doctrines that set the Saints apart was "the doctrine of plural marriage"

G. D. Smith’s appeal to William E. Berrett’s The Restored Church for the suppression thesis is likewise unpersuasive. In a section titled “Causes of the Conflict in Illinois,” Berrett argues that one of the new doctrines that set the Saints apart

was especially responsible for bringing persecution upon the Church. That was the doctrine of plural marriage by divine sanction. . . . In 1840, the doctrine was taught to a few leading brethren who, with the Prophet, secretly married additional wives in the following year. This secrecy could not be long kept, yet the doctrine was not openly discussed. This state of affairs gave rise to serious slander outside the Church. . . . He was convinced that the practice of the doctrine would bring bitter persecution upon the Church and eventually cause him to lose his life. . . . The Prophet was aware that the social order he contemplated would arouse bitter opposition in Illinois. . . . And this not because the Mormons were hard to get along with, or because non-Mormons were wicked, but because the teachings of the Church and the existing social orders were so directly in conflict. (italics in original)

That Berrett’s work was originally published by the church’s Educational Department in 1937 (a fact not noted in G. D. Smith’s footnote) is significant.

Whitney tells the well-known story of Joseph requesting Vilate Kimball as his wife

G. D. Smith’s footnote also suggests that Orson F. Whitney’s biography of Heber C. Kimball supports his view. Whitney’s biography tells the well-known story of Joseph requesting Vilate Kimball as his wife and introduces the martyrdom by declaring that “without doubt, the revelation of the great principle of plural marriage was a prime cause of the troubles which now arose, culminating in the Prophet’s martyrdom and the exodus of the Church into the wilderness.”<ref<{{Book:Whitney:Life of Heber C. Kimball|pages=323–29, (emphasis added)</ref>

Arrington and Bitton: “An additional element [that] contributed to the Mormons’ problems in Illinois—as if more were required—were the rumors of plural marriage that began to circulate in Nauvoo"

Finally, Smith appeals to Leonard Arrington and Davis Bitton’s The Mormon Experience. These authors again note the contribution of polygamy that G. D. Smith insists Mormon histories ignore. The following language contradicts his thesis: “An additional element [that] contributed to the Mormons’ problems in Illinois—as if more were required—were the rumors of plural marriage that began to circulate in Nauvoo,” and “paradoxically, continuing revelation . . . contributed to the divisions of Nauvoo because of the development during this period of certain unusual doctrines, . . . especially plural marriage.” “From the first, polygamy was an explosive issue,” according to Arrington and Bitton. “A scandal to non-Mormon neighbors, it also caused a number of defections within the Mormon camp even before the death of Joseph Smith. . . . By the fall of 1843 the subject of plurality was on every tongue in the city.” Arrington and Bitton also point out that the Expositor “contained inflammatory allegations about the sex lives of Mormon leaders and members.”

Godfrey: “Saints were accused of believing in plural marriage...this doctrine and practice became a major source of non-Mormon resentment.”

G. D. Smith even goes so far as to claim that “one LDS Educator in 1967 wrote about the ‘causes’ of conflict in Nauvoo and mentioned Joseph’s death as a watershed moment . . . without mentioning plural marriage.” He cites the seventh chapter of Kenneth W. Godfrey’s 1967 PhD dissertation for this claim. This chapter is actually entitled “Plural Marriage.” “As early as 1836,” wrote Godfrey, the “Saints were accused of believing in plural marriage. But it was not until the Nauvoo period . . . that this doctrine and practice became a major source of non-Mormon resentment.” Godfrey discusses the first hints of plural marriage in 1831, the Fanny Alger marriage, and Oliver Cowdery’s angry reaction.

When he treats the Nauvoo period, Godfrey notes that “by 1841 or 1842 plural marriage was secretly being practiced with increased frequency.” Godfrey even follows, without comment, Brodie’s exaggerated estimate of forty-nine wives for Joseph. He also details the secrecy surrounding plural marriage and the deception used to maintain it:

Possibly Joseph Smith, partly because of Gentile opposition, kept the doctrine as secret as possible. . . . It was kept so secret that many members of the Church denied that it was even taught. . . . Even though some members of the Church denied the existence of plural marriage, there are a number of documents to support the view that, among the faithful, many such marriages were being performed.

Contrary to G. D. Smith’s claim that polygamy’s impact was ignored by Latter-day Saint historians, Godfrey wrote that “gradually rumors became more and more persistent regarding the Mormon matrimonial system,” adding that one author “argues that ‘spiritual wifery was one of the leading causes of the Mormon-Gentile trouble in Hancock County.’” John C. Bennett and Oliver Olney had published about polygamy, and Godfrey argues that “such extensive publicity appears to have aroused the public against Mormonism and its marriage system.” Bennett’s claims about a Cyprian order of women “available to any Mormon who desired her . . . was . . . not true but nevertheless it was somewhat effective in arousing the public mind against Mormonism.”

Godfrey also quotes extensively from the 25 April 1844 edition of the Warsaw Signal to demonstrate the animus in which polygamy was held. As his narrative approaches Joseph’s death, Godfrey argues that “one of the reasons for the publication of the Nauvoo Expositor was to publicly proclaim opposition to the plurality of wives doctrine as taught by the Prophet.”

The Warsaw Signal listed spiritual wifeism as one of the major reasons for its opposition to the Mormons, and many claimed that the Prophet . . . was a licentious seducer of young women. Such declarations played their role in arousing public indignation against the Mormons and their marriage system. If polygamy was not the main reason for the Mormon expulsion, at least it can safely be said that it aroused the moral indignation of many people.

Contrary to what G. D. Smith asserts, Godfrey dealt with polygamy as a cause of the hostilities towards the Saints in Nauvoo. His abstract and conclusion summarize his views:

Peculiar religious beliefs held by Latter-day Saints caused some of the difficulties they experienced in Illinois. Such doctrines as plural marriage . . . led to further hostility. . . . Perhaps in retrospect both Mormons and non-Mormons were to blame for the disharmony. . . . The Mormons . . . engaged in a marriage system held by Gentiles to be adulterous. . . . Since polygamy was unannounced yet practiced, credance [sic] was given to the claims of former Mormons which cast even more doubt upon the Prophet’s character. It become [sic] almost impossible to overstress the role exscinded Mormons played in arousing people against leaders of the Church.

The claim that an “LDS educator” discussed the Illinois troubles “without even mentioning plural marriage” is false.

Question: Why does the account of Sidney Rigdon's 'trial' recorded in the Times and Seasons differs markedly from the version available in the History of the Church?

The history may have been modified by Joseph's successors for noble or base reasons, and they may have served or harmed historical accuracy in doing so

The basic story is essentially unchanged—Joseph wanted to get rid of Sidney, and did not fully trust him or have much confidence in him even when he continued in his role as counselor. Joseph held out some hope that Sidney would rise to his calling, and it is this that is omitted in the History of the Church's version.

The history may have been modified by Joseph's successors for noble or base reasons, and they may have served or harmed historical accuracy in doing so. It is difficult to determine which at this remove.

If those compiling the history did wrong, this simply demonstrates that fallible leaders are not without faults, flaws, or improper jealousies. Most members, however, would probably conclude that the History of the Church version removed the ambiguity in Joseph's initial response simply because Sidney had clearly failed to measure up—for the compilers, there was ambiguity no longer.

Needless to say, such a procedure does not meet modern historical standards, and ought not be undertaken today.

The two accounts are compared in the table below

The two accounts are compared in the table below (paragraphing has been slightly altered so the accounts will align better for comparison). Red italics have been added, the green text is italicized in the original History of the Church:

Times and Seasons version

History of the Church version

MINUTES OF A SPECIAL CONFERENCE. Of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, held in the City of Nauvoo, commencing on the 6th of October, 1843. Friday, October 6th, 10 o'clock A. M. The weather proving unfavorable, the organization of the conference was postponed until the next day at 10 o'clock, A. M. Saturday, 10 'clock A. M. Conference assembled and proceeded to business. President Joseph Smith was called to the chair, and Gustavus Hills chosen clerk. Opened with singing by the choir, and prayer by elder Almon Babbitt. The president stated the items of business to be brought before the Conference, to be, 1st. The case and standing of elder Sidney Rigdon, counsellor to the First Presidency. 2d. The further progress of the Temple; after which, any miscellaneous business. Elder Sidney Rigdon addressed the conference on the subject of his situation and circumstances among the saints. President Joseph Smith addressed the conference, inviting an expression of any charges or complaints which the Conference had to make. He sated his dissatisfaction with elder Sidney Rigdon as a counsellor, not having received any material benefit from his labors or counsels since their escape from Missouri. Several complaints were then brought forward in reference to his management in the Post Office; a supposed correspondence in connection with John C. Bennett, with Ex-Governor Carlin, and with the Missourians, of a treacherous character: also his leaguing with dishonest persons in endeavoring to defraud the innocent. President Joseph Smith related to the Conference the detention of documents from J. Butterfield, Esq., which were designed for the benefit of himself, (President Smith,) but was not handed over for some three or four weeks, greatly to his disadvantage. Also, an indirect testimony from Missouri, through the mother of Orin P. Rockwell, that said Rigdon and others had given information, by letter, of President Smiths' visit to Dixon, advising them to proceed to that place and arrest him there. He stated that in consequence of those, and other circumstances, and his unprofitableness to him as a counsellor, he did not wish to retain him in that station, unless those difficulties could be removed; but desired his salvation, and expressed his willingness that he should retain a place among the saints. Elder Almon Babbitt suggested the propriety of limiting the complaints and proofs to circumstances that had transpired since the last Conference. President Joseph Smith replied, and showed the legality and propriety of a thorough investigation, without such limitation. Elder Sidney Rigdon plead, concerning the documents from J. Butterfield, Esq., that he received it in answer to some inquiries which he had transmitted to him that he received it at a time when he was sick, and unable to examine it -- did not know that it was designed for the perusal and benefit of President Joseph Smith -- that he had, consequently, ordered it to be laid aside, where it remained until inquired for by Joseph Smith. He had never written to Missouri concerning the visit of Joseph Smith to Dixon, and knew of no other person having done so. That, concerning certain rumors of belligerent operations under Governor Carlin's administration, he had related them, not to alarm or disturb any one, but that he had the rumors form good authorities, and supposed them well founded. That he had never received but one communication from John C. Bennett, and that of a business character, except one addressed to him conjointly with Elder Orson Pratt, which he handed over to President Smith -- that he had never written any letters to John C. Bennett. The weather becoming inclement, Conference adjourned until Sunday 10 o'clock A. M. Sunday, 8th inst., 10 o'clock, A. M. Conference assembled agreeably to the adjournment and opened with singing by the choir, and prayer by Elder William W. Phelps. Elder Sidney Rigdon resumed his plea of defence. He related the circumstances of his reception in the city of Quincy, after his escape from Missouri the cause of his delay in not going to the city of Washington, on an express to which he had been appointed -- and closed with a moving appeal to President Joseph Smith concerning their former friendship, associations and sufferings, and expressed his willingness to resign his place, though with sorrowful and indescribable feelings. During this address, the sympathies of the congregation were highly excited. Elder Almon Babbitt related a conversation he had had with Esq. Johnson, in which he exonerated elder Sidney Rigdon from the charge or suspicion of having had treacherous correspondence with Ex-Governor Carlin. President Joseph Smith arose and satisfactorily explained to the congregation the supposed treacherous correspondence with Ex-Governor Carlin, which wholly removed suspicion from elder Sidney Rigdon, and from every other person. He expressed entire willingness to have elder Sidney Rigdon retain his station, provided he would magnify his office, and walk and conduct himself in all honesty, righteousness, and integrity; but signified his lack of confidence in his integrity and steadfastness, judging from their past intercourse. President Hyrum Smith followed with appropriate and expressive remarks on the attribute of mercy in God, as that by which He influences, controls, and conquers -- and the propriety and importance of the saint's exercising the same attribute towards their fellows; and especially towards their aged companion and fellow servant in the cause of truth and righteousness. Elder Almon Babbitt and pres't. Wm. Law followed with remarks in defence of elder Sidney Rigdon. On motion by President William Marks, and seconded by President Hyrum Smith, Conference voted that elder Sidney Rigdon be permitted to retain his station as Counsellor to the First Presidency. Singing by the choir prayer by pres't. Wm. Law. Conference adjourned for one hour.

MINUTES OF A SPECIAL CONFERENCE. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, in Special Conference, held in the City of Nauvoo, commencing on the 6th of October, 1843. Friday, October 6, ten o'clock, a.m. The weather proving unfavorable, the organization of the Conference was postponed until the next day at ten o'clock, a.m. Saturday, ten o'clock, a.m. Conference assembled and proceeded to business. President Joseph Smith was called to the chair, and Gustavus Hills was chosen clerk. Singing by the choir, and prayer by Elder Almon W. Babbitt. The president stated the items of business to be brought before the conference to be— 1st. The case and standing of Elder Sidney Rigdon, Counselor in the First Presidency. 2nd. The further progress of the Temple; after which, any miscellaneous business. Elder Sidney Rigdon addressed the conference on the subject of his situation and circumstances among the Saints. President Joseph Smith addressed the conference, inviting an expression of any charges or complaints which the conference had to make. He stated his dissatisfaction with Elder Sidney Rigdon as a Counselor, not having received any material benefit from his labors or counsels since their escape from Missouri. Several complaints were then brought forward in reference to his management in the post office; a supposed corespondence and connection with John C. Bennett, with Ex-Governor Carlin, and with the Missourians, of a treacherous character; also his leaguing with dishonest persons in endeavoring to defraud the innocent. President Joseph Smith related to the conference the detention of a document from Justin Butterfield, Esq., which was designed for the benefit of himself, (President Smith,) but was not handed over for some three or four weeks, greatly to his disadvantage; also, an indirect testimony from Missouri, through the mother of Orrin P. Rockwell, that said Rigdon and others had given information, by letter, of President Smith's visit to Dixon, advising them to proceed to that place [p.48] and arrest him there. He stated that, in consequence of these and other circumstances, and Elder Rigdon's unprofitableness to him as a Counselor, he did not wish to retain him in that station, unless those difficulties could be removed; but desired his salvation, and expressed his willingness that he should retain a place among the Saints. Elder Almon W. Babbitt suggested the propriety of limiting the complaints and proofs to circumstances that had transpired since the last conference. President Joseph Smith replied, and showed the legality and propriety of a thorough investigation, without such limitation. Elder Sidney Rigdon pleaded, concerning the document from Justin Butterfield, Esq., that he received it in answer to some inquiries which he [Rigdon] had transmitted to him [Butterfield]; that he [Rigdon] received it at a time when he was sick, and unable to examine it; did not know that it was designed for the perusal and benefit of President Joseph Smith; that he had, consequently, ordered it to be laid aside, where it remained until inquired for by Joseph Smith. He had never written to Missouri concerning the visit of Joseph Smith to Dixon, and knew of no other person having done so. That, concerning certain rumors of belligerent operations under Governor Carlin's administration, he had related them, not to alarm or disturb any one; but that he had the rumors from good authorities, and supposed them well founded. That he had never received but one communication from John C. Bennett, and that of a business character, except one addressed to him conjointly with Elder Orson Pratt, which he handed over to President Smith. That he had never written any letters to John C. Bennett. The weather becoming inclement, conference adjourned until Sunday, ten o'clock, a.m. Sunday, 8th, ten o'clock, a.m. Conference assembled agreeably to adjournment. Singing by the choir, and prayer by Elder William W. Phelps. Elder Sidney Rigdon resumed his plea of defense. He related the circumstances of his reception in the city of Quincy, after his escape from Missouri,—the cause of his delay in not going to the city of Washington, on an express to which he had been appointed: and closed with a moving appeal to President Joseph Smith, concerning their former friendship, associations, and sufferings; and expressed his willingness to resign his place, though with sorrowful and indescribable feelings. During this address, the sympathies of the congregation were highly excited. Elder Almon W. Babbitt related a conversation he had had with Esquire Johnson, in which he exonerated Elder Sidney Rigdon from the [p.49] charge or suspicion of having had a treacherous correspondence with ex-Governor Carlin. President Joseph Smith arose and explained to the congregation the supposed treacherous correspondence with ex-Governor Carlin, and expressed entire lack of confidence in his integrity and steadfastness, judging from their past intercourse. Patriarch Hyrum Smith followed with appropriate and impressive remarks on the attributes of mercy in God, as that by which He influences. controls and conquers; and the propriety and importance of the Saints exercising the same attribute towards their fellows, and especially towards their aged companion and fellow-servant in the cause of truth and righteousness. Elder Almon W. Babbitt and President William Law followed with remarks in defense of Elder Sidney Rigdon. On motion by President William Marks, and seconded by Patriarch Hyrum Smith, conference voted that Elder Sidney Rigdon be permitted to retain his station as Counselor in the First Presidency. President Joseph Smith arose and said, "I have thrown him off my shoulders, and you have again put him on me. "You may carry him, but I will not." [Fn 2:This paragraph in Italics appears as footnote in the Ms. History.] Singing. Prayer by Elder William Law. Conference adjourned for one hour.

There are only two significant differences between the accounts

Thus, there are only two significant differences:

Times and Seasons version	History of the Church version
President Joseph Smith arose and satisfactorily explained to the congregation the supposed treacherous correspondence with Ex-Governor Carlin, which wholly removed suspicion from elder Sidney Rigdon, and from every other person. He expressed entire willingness to have elder Sidney Rigdon retain his station, provided he would magnify his office, and walk and conduct himself in all honesty, righteousness, and integrity; but signified his lack of confidence in his integrity and steadfastness, judging from their past intercourse. (Material in bold was removed from the History of the Church account.)	President Joseph Smith arose and explained to the congregation the supposed treacherous correspondence with ex-Governor Carlin, and expressed entire lack of confidence in his integrity and steadfastness, judging from their past intercourse. (Material in bold was added to the History of the Church account.)
No corresponding text	President Joseph Smith arose and said, "I have thrown him off my shoulders, and you have again put him on me. "You may carry him, but I will not." [Fn 2:This paragraph in Italics appears as footnote in the Ms. History.]

A modern historian, of course, cringes at this modification of the original text

In both cases, it is clear that Joseph still does not trust Sidney, even after he has been cleared of the issue with Gov. Carlin's letters. In the contemporaneous text, however, Joseph does express willingness to keep Sidney as councilor if he will conduct himself properly (though he still expresses doubt that he will).

Since Sidney was kept on as councilor, for him to have any chance of success or influence, Joseph could not simply "cut him off at the knees"—that would guarantee Sidney's failure. Thus, the contemporary account allowed for the possibility of Sidney's proper functioning, though Joseph remained publicly dubious, and privately even more so.

By the time the History of the Church was printed, Sidney had nearly torn the Church apart. He had challenged the right of Brigham Young and the Twelve to lead after Joseph's death. Thus, those compiling the history were firmly convinced that Sidney had failed his chance. Those who compiled it may also have not wanted to portray Joseph as at all 'wrong' about Sidney—they may have known (or believed) that Joseph considered his conciliatory remarks to be of little hope. Or, on a more cynical interpretation, they may have wished to undermine Sidney's claims to leadership after Joseph's death.

It should be noted too that this account is not a verbatim transcript—it is an author's summary of what they heard. Some who compiled the history were doubtless present at the same meeting. They may have remembered the matter quite differently, especially with the passage of time and subsequent events which made them more hostile to Sidney. They may well have seen the Times and Seasons report as too biased in Sidney's favor, or (as discussed above) bending over backward to soft-peddle what Joseph had actually said. They may, then, have seen themselves as restoring accuracy which had been compromised.

The note about the Manuscript History is clearly marked as an addition, and was not included in the original account. It may represent:

(a) a properly-remembered public remark of Joseph's that was not inserted into the record at that time to spare Sidney's effectiveness;

(b) a properly-remembered remark of Joseph's to the Twelve or others; or

(c) a mis-remembered or deliberately fabricated remark inserted after Joseph's death to weaken Sidney's claims to the succession.

One's attitude to Joseph, Sidney, the Twelve, and the Church's truth claims will probably determine which explanation seems most plausible to each reader.

Question: Does Oliver Cowdery's blessing and promise to Orson Hyde contain a false prophecy, which was then altered before being printed in History of the Church?

Claims of "false prophecy" rest upon the most narrow, critical reading possible, and ignore important aspects of LDS thought and theology

It is claimed that the ordination blessing given to Orson Hyde is an example of false prophecy. It is also claimed that Hyde's blessing was altered in the History of the Church for propaganda reasons.

Changes made to the text clarify but do not alter its meaning. Claims of "false prophecy" rest upon the most narrow, critical reading possible, and ignore important aspects of LDS thought and theology.

Text of the Orson Hyde blessing was edited in History of the Church?

The original of Hyde's blessing is in the Kirtland Council Minute book. It is compared here (left) with the version as it appears in the History of the Church (bold text indicates differences):

Kirtland Council Minute Book

History of the Church

Orson Hyde blessing. Oliver Cowdery proceeded and called upon the Lord to smile upon him and that his faith shall be perfect, and that the blessings promised shall be realized. He shall be made mighty and be endowed with power from on high, and go forth to the nations of the earth to proclaim the gospel. That he shall escape all the pollutions of the world. The Angels shall uphold him, and that he shall go forth according to the commandment, both to Jew & Gentile and shall go to all nations, kingdoms and tongues and shall All who hear his voice, shall acknowledge him to be a servant of God. He shall be equal in holding the Keys of the Kingdom. He shall stand on the earth and bring souls till Christ comes. We know that he loves thee, and may this thy servant be able to walk through pestilence and not be harmed. The powers of darkness shall have no ascending over him. He shall have power to smite the earth with pestilence, to divide waters and lead through the Saints. He shall go from land to land and from sea to sea. He shall be like unto one of the three Nephites.

Oliver Cowdery called upon the Lord to smile upon him; that his faith be made perfect, and that the blessings pronounced may be realized; that he be made mighty, and be endued with powers from on high, and go forth to the nations of the earth to proclaim the Gospel, that he may escape all the pollutions of the world; that the angels shall uphold him; and that he shall go forth according to the commandment, both to Jew and Gentile, and to all nations, kingdoms and tongues; that all who hear his voice shall acknowledge him to be a servant of God; that he shall be equal with his brethren in holding the keys of the kingdom; that he may stand on the earth and bring souls till Christ comes. We know that he loves Thee, O, Lord, and may this Thy [p.190] servant be able to walk through pestilence and not be harmed; and the powers of darkness have no ascendency over him; may he have power to smite the earth with pestilence; to divide waters, and lead through the Saints; may he go from land to land and from sea to sea, and may he be like one of the three Nephites.

The word "shall" was changed to "may"

The majority of the changes alter a phrase like "shall" to a phrase like "may." The critics presumably wish to mislead the unwary into concluding that the initial version gave unconditional promises or prophecies, while the History of the Church version adds a conditional aspect. Yet, the critics are simply ignorant of word usage in the early 1800s. Webster's 1828 dictionary noted of "shall":

In the second and third persons [i.e., when applied to another person], shall implies a promise, command or determination. "You shall receive your wages," "he shall receive his wages," imply that you or he ought to receive them; but usage gives these phrases the force of a promise in the person uttering them.

Thus, "shall" indicates a promise or command—and, LDS theology (with its strong emphasis on moral agency) always holds that man is free to accept or reject the commandments or promises of God. The History of the Church makes this fact more unambiguous for the modern reader, perhaps, in its use of "may." But, this change in no way changes the content of the blessing.

In fact, the ordination given to Brigham Young on the same day includes similar promises, but usually uses "may" instead of "shall." Since Brigham's blessing was given by Martin Harris, while Orson's was given by Oliver Cowdery, this difference is probably best explained by the habits in language between the two men. (Compare Brigham Young ordination blessing.) Latter-day Saints do not believe that such blessings are generally word-for-word dictation from God, but instead are the speaker's best attempt to put into words the information communicated to them by the Holy Spirit (e.g., DC 1:24). Those people who edited the History of the Church understood this.

Critics reading through their own theology and ideas

This is another excellent example of sectarian critics' tendency to read LDS scripture and language through their own lenses—the critics are often Calvinists, believing in God's absolute predestination of events and acts. But, LDS theology has never seen the matter that way. Instead, God gives promises or commands to mortals who may choose to participate or not. As the Lord said elsewhere:

49 Verily, verily, I say unto you, that when I give a commandment to any of the sons of men to do a work unto my name, and those sons of men go with all their might and with all they have to perform that work, and cease not their diligence, and their enemies come upon them and hinder them from performing that work, behold, it behooveth me to require that work no more at the hands of those sons of men, but to accept of their offerings....
51 Therefore, for this cause have I accepted the offerings of those whom I commanded to build up a city and a house unto my name, in Jackson county, Missouri, and were hindered by their enemies, saith the Lord your God. (DC 124:49,51

Question: Is this blessing an example of a false prophecy?
Answer: No.

Critics go further in claiming that the blessing which says that Hyde "shall stand on the earth and bring souls till Christ comes" proves that this is a false prophecy.

But, the blessing nowhere asserts that Hyde will be a mortal until the Second Coming. Unlike many Christian theologies, the doctrine of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not place the abode of the dead in another world or realm. Likewise, it does not cause the preaching of the gospel and the redeeming of souls to cease with death. Missionary work continues in the spirit world after death, and the "spirit world" to which the dead go is on earth. Brigham Young said:

When you lay down this tabernacle [i.e., mortal body], where are you going? Into the spiritual world. Are you going into Abraham's bosom. No, not anywhere nigh there, but into the spirit world. Where is the spirit world? It is right here. Do the good and evil spirits go together? Yes, they do. Do they both inhabit one kingdom? Yes, they do. Do they go to the sun? No. Do they go beyond the boundaries of this organized earth? No, they do not. They are brought forth upon this earth, for the express purpose of inhabiting it to all eternity. Where else are you going? Nowhere else, only as you may be permitted....

Father Smith and Carlos and brother Partridge, yes, and every other good Saint, are just as busy in the spirit world as you and I are here. They can see us, but we cannot see them unless our eyes were opened. What are they doing there? They are preaching, preaching all the time, and preparing the way for us to hasten our work in building temples here and elsewhere, and to go back to Jackson County and build the great temple of the Lord. They are hurrying to get ready by the time that we are ready and we are all hurrying to get ready by the time our Elder Brother is ready {{ea}.

Thus, faithful apostles would continue their work among the wicked (either as a mortal or among the spirits) until Christ comes.

Question: Did Wilford Woodruff criticize assistant Church Historian Andrew Jenson's decision to publish the names of those who were married to Joseph Smith because he wanted to hide the fact that Joseph was married to other women?

Jenson’s material, coming when it did, could have put members in danger

Note: This wiki section was based partly on a review of G.D. Smith's Nauvoo Polygamy. As such, it focuses on that author's presentation of the data. To read the full review, follow the link. Gregory L. Smith, A review of Nauvoo Polygamy:...but we called it celestial marriage by George D. Smith. FARMS Review, Vol. 20, Issue 2. (Detailed book review)

Jenson’s material, coming when it did, could have put members in danger. But G.D. Smith makes it appear that Woodruff was trying to hide the practice of plural marriage in 1887.

What is not explained or acknowledged is that Woodruff’s paramount concern was not to hide history or deny plural marriage

George D. Smith writes that Jenson's article “appeared on the down-side slope of the historical peak in polygamy . . . [and] Woodruff complained to Jenson.” G. D. Smith quotes Woodruff to the effect that “we do not think it a wise step to give these names to the world at the present time in the manner in which you have done. . . . Advantage may be taken of their publication and in some instances, to the injury, perhaps, of families or relatives of those whose names are mentioned” (p. 447).

What is not explained or acknowledged is that Woodruff’s paramount concern was not to hide history or deny plural marriage (the Manifesto was three years in the future: polygamy was hardly a secret).

Woodruff likely feared the very real risk of spies and government agents using the information to prosecute members of the church

Rather, Woodruff likely feared the very real risk of spies and government agents using the information to prosecute members of the church. At this period, women were jailed for refusing to testify against husbands; hundreds of men were in hiding or in prison. “Words are inadequate to convey the feelings of those times—the hurts to individuals and families, to the church. . . . Families were torn apart, left to provide as best they could.”

Question: Did the Church order Ronald L. Poelman's 1984 conference talk to be re-recorded with a "cough track" in order to hide the fact that changes had been made?

Elder Poelman voluntarily edited his talk when he learned that some "fundamentalist" Mormons were using his address as justification for their beliefs

Elder Ronald L. Poelman's 1984 conference talk was edited after delivery and re-recorded with a cough track. Some have claimed that this was an effort to hide the fact that changes had been made. Other have claimed Elder Poelman was ordered to make the changes to his talk.

Elder Poelman voluntarily edited his talk when he learned that some "fundamentalist" Mormons were using his address as justification for their beliefs. The re-recording was intended for distribution to the world-wide Church, and was not an effort to hide the fact that changes had been made.

Elder Poelman was not in any way forced to make changes to his talk

Elder Poelman was not in any way forced to make changes to his talk. In fact, the substance of what he said in 1984 is extremely similar to the things that Elder Uchtdorf said in one of his recent conferences addresses. However, after the conference, members and leaders raised issues about how his talk might be received and used by some who sought reasons to discount the counsel of leaders to justify practices such as polygamy. Because of the questions raised, Elder Poelman was desirous to clarify his remarks so that it could not be used as a license by others to disregard modern revelation or counsel.

Because it is common practice for talks to be edited for publication, it was thought that the "official" record should reflect the clarified intent of the talk

Because it is common practice for talks to be edited for publication, it was thought that the "official" record should reflect the clarified intent of the talk. As such, Elder Poelman himself made modifications to his own remarks for the official record that would be published in the Ensign.

Clearly, producing an "updated" version of a talk that had already been recorded posed some problems

In 1984, producing video records of the conference for home use was relatively new. Clearly, producing an "updated" version of a talk that had already been recorded posed some problems. For one, a recording with no background noise would stand out in contrast to all the other talks with no modifications. In addition, there was likely a desire not to deceive but to give authenticity to the presentation so as to not distract from its actual message.

While perhaps a unwise decision in hindsight, the intent was simply to let the core of the message be the focus, not the distractions of the delivery because of the changes

While perhaps a unwise decision in hindsight, the intent was simply to let the core of the message be the focus, not the distractions of the delivery because of the changes. For these reasons, background noises were allowed to be introduced or were intentionally added. (It is not clear whether the background noise--sometimes termed a "cough track" was intentionally added, or whether those in the tabernacle during the retaping were simply were allowed to behave as they would have during the original presentation, resulting in a low level of ambient noise similar to other talks.)

In the end, the intent and purpose was to make the excellent remarks of Elder Poelman the focus of the video, and to allow him to make changes he himself desired to have made, which were made without any compulsion whatsoever from any other church leader.

Unfortunately, critics have shifted the focus from his beautiful message to a misleading discussion of a "cover up," and attempted even in retrospect to impute meaning to his original talk that he did not intend. If anything, this demonstrates the wisdom of making the clarifications he did, if not the technical means used to circulate the changes.

The most telling comment made by the sources available to FairMormon volunteers was that the late Elder Poelman would be horrified to know people today were using his talk to attack the Church. The intent of his talk, including the changes, were intended to foster faith, not doubt in the Church.

In retrospect, this talk was a beautiful one in its original form, and had it been left as it was originally delivered it would have have never become the focus of criticism for secular and "intellectual" critics, though some "fundamentalist" groups might have embraced and misused its ideas.

Ironically, the changes Elder Poelman introduced promoted the very criticism and fault-finding with the Church that he had hoped to forestall, but one cannot fault a faithful servant for trying to make his offering more effective, or fault those who sought to make the new technological distribution of his talk as congruent with the rest of conference as possible as they prepared the official record for dissemination.

I personally do not consider his talk, the changes, or the potentially misguided efforts to make the video version authentic as anything deceitful. Given that all knew that the original recording existed, with press and others present for the original delivery, it defies reason that there was an attempt at a cover up or deceive. Rather, there was an effort only to allow him to amend his official remarks in both the written and video record, and allow it to be as authentic as all the other recorded talks.

Question: Why is History of the Church written in first-person, as if Joseph Smith himself wrote it?

The common nineteenth-century format of writing was chosen by Joseph Smith, who directed his clerks to write a first person

Jessee described the differences between historical writing as practiced by a modern writer, and those practices in place in Joseph Smith's day:

Since none of the manuscript of the history is in Joseph Smith’s handwriting, and apparently not much of the text was actually dictated by him, why did those employed on the work write in first person, as though the Prophet himself were writing? That common nineteenth-century format was chosen by Joseph Smith, who directed his clerks to write a first person, daily narrative based upon diaries kept by himself and his clerks. In addition, since Joseph Smith’s diary did not provide an unbroken narrative of his life, the compilers of the history were to bridge gaps by using other sources (diaries, Church periodicals, minute and record books of Church and civic organizations, letters and documents kept on file, and news of current world happenings), changing indirect discourse to direct as if Joseph Smith had done the writing himself. Not uncommon according to the editorial practices of the day, this method of supplying missing detail had the effect of providing a smooth-flowing, connected narrative of events.

Many examples from other works of the period show that this was the historical standard of the time. Nineteenth-century American methods of historical writing and editing were very different from those of today. In 1837, for example, Jared Sparks—regarded as “the first great compiler of national records”—edited in twelve volumes the Writings of George Washington. When his work was later compared with original manuscripts, it was found that he had rewritten portions of letters, deleted or altered offensive passages, and changed irregularities in style and awkward modes of expression.

In his review of historical editing in the United States, Lyman E. Butterfield has noted that changing text and creating text faithful to the ideas of the writer were not uncommon in early years, and that seldom were original texts left to speak for themselves. The History of the Church was written in the general literary and historical climate of its time.

New Testament parallels

Dean Jessee noted that this 19th century approach to historiography matches more ancient practices, such as those used by some Biblical authors:

New Testament writers apparently used a similar method in writing the Gospels. One Bible commentary records that Matthew and Luke borrowed from Mark (Interpreter’s Bible, 7:235–36) and omitted or altered what seemed to be critical of the Apostles. For example, Mark records that James and John came to the Savior and asked that he give them whatsoever they desired; whereupon, the Savior heard their plea that each might sit by his side when he came in glory. (Mark 10:35–37.) When Matthew recorded the event, he said that it was the mother of James and John who desired this privilege for her sons (Matt. 20:20–21.) This difference in recording the circumstances, presumably to place the Apostles in a better light, does not destroy the credibility of the Savior’s mission, nor may we believe that there was dishonesty in making the change.

Challenges with direct citation

Jessee cautions:

One of the challenges facing those who compiled the history was that of presenting the Prophet’s sermons and teachings. Since none of Joseph’s clerks had mastered shorthand during his lifetime, reports of what he said were made longhand. Many of these were smooth-flowing, well-connected summaries and were copied into the history almost as recorded. In some instances, however, it was necessary to reconstruct an address from brief notes and disconnected ideas. George A. Smith’s editorial work was careful, and when he was finished, each discourse was read to members of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve, some of whom had also heard the original address. Their input proved invaluable. These measures no doubt guaranteed the doctrinal accuracy of such reporting of Joseph Smith’s discourses, but the result obviously would not reflect his personality and speaking style as accurately as a verbatim report would have done.

An analysis of the History reveals those portions obtained from material written personally by Joseph Smith. These clearly reflect his loving and warm spirit. For example, the following is an entry from the History stemming from a portion of Joseph Smith’s 1835 diary written by himself:

“September 23. I was at home writing blessings for my most beloved brethren, but was hindered by a multitude of visitors. The Lord has blessed our souls this day, and may God grant to continue His mercies unto my house this night, for Christ’s sake. This day my soul has desired the salvation of Brother Ezra Thayer. Also Brother Noah Packard came to my house and loaned the committee one thousand dollars to assist building the house of the Lord. Oh! may God bless him a hundred fold, even of the things of the earth, for this righteous act. My heart is full of desire today, to be blessed of the God of Abraham with prosperity, until I shall be able to pay all my debts, for it is the delight of my soul to be honest. O Lord, that thou knowest right well. Help me, and I will give to the poor.”

Question: How has the Church responded to issues related to Church history?

Dallin Oaks: "Don’t depreciate their effectiveness in one area because they have some misbehavior in another area"

Elder Dallin Oaks discusses the issue of church history and facts that are not discussed frequently in church approved curriculum during an interview with Helen Whitney (HW) for the PBS documentary, The Mormons. He gives a good description of this dilemma and the church's method for confronting it.

Referring to the importance of not focusing on a person's negative aspects while learning of their history Elder Oaks said,

...See a person in context; don’t depreciate their effectiveness in one area because they have some misbehavior in another area — especially from their youth. I think that’s the spirit of that. I think I’m not talking necessarily just about writing Mormon history; I’m talking about George Washington or any other case. If he had an affair with a girl when he was a teenager, I don’t need to read that when I’m trying to read a biography of the Founding Father of our nation.

Elder Oaks is then asked how the church deals with imperfections of early church members and current members coming across this information themselves on the internet rather than through teachings of the church. Elder Oaks responds,

It’s an old problem, the extent to which official histories, whatever they are, or semi-official histories, get into things that are shadowy or less well-known or whatever. That’s an old problem in Mormonism — a feeling of members that they shouldn’t have been surprised by the fact that this or that happened, they should’ve been alerted to it. I have felt that throughout my life.

Dallin Oaks: We’re emerging from a period of history writing within the Church [of] adoring history that doesn’t deal with anything that’s unfavorable

There are several different elements of that. One element is that we’re emerging from a period of history writing within the Church [of] adoring history that doesn’t deal with anything that’s unfavorable, and we’re coming into a period of “warts and all” kind of history. Perhaps our writing of history is lagging behind the times, but I believe that there is purpose in all these things — there may have been a time when Church members could not have been as well prepared for that kind of historical writing as they may be now.

On the other hand, there are constraints on trying to reveal everything. You don’t want to be getting into and creating doubts that didn’t exist in the first place. And what is plenty of history for one person is inadequate for another, and we have a large church, and that’s a big problem. And another problem is there are a lot of things that the Church has written about that the members haven’t read. And the Sunday School teacher that gives “Brother Jones” his understanding of Church history may be inadequately informed and may not reveal something which the Church has published. It’s in the history written for college or Institute students, sources written for quite mature students, but not every Sunday School teacher that introduces people to a history is familiar with that. And so there is no way to avoid this criticism. The best I can say is that we’re moving with the times, we’re getting more and more forthright, but we will never satisfy every complaint along that line and probably shouldn’t.

Apologist Michael Ash has observed something similar to Elder Oaks:

Information can be withheld intentionally or unintentionally. First we will discuss the intentional reasons. In the context of early creations of LDS history, we find a tradition among most-nineteenth century biographies (the primary form of historical creations) that emphasized the positive aspects of heroic figures in the hopes of inspiring readers while often exaggerating or even fabricating anecdotes--such as George Washington chopping down his father's cherry tree. Frequently, in cases of early American biographies involving religious or philosophical movements, the movement took center stage and the "history" was a tool for evangelizing the movement. Any information that might harm the movement was withheld from the biography/history.

Early Mormon historians, like many historians of their era, were not trained in history but were instead influenced by the English Puritans whose histories were written as faithful explanations of their events. These Puritans (as well as early LDS historians) believed that, like the Hebrews before them, they were God’s chosen people whose coming to America was part of God's unfolding plan. "Their history and biography" note three prominent historians, "told the saga of God's dealings as seen in their personal lives. In short, Puritan biography and autobiography were simultaneously scripture as well as history." "Accuracy and realism were...largely things of the future."

Apostle George Q. Cannon, whose faith-promoting stories were intended for the youth of the Church, wrote some of the more popular historical accounts of early Mormonism. Such works, like many other non-LDS works of the nineteenth century, were defensive in tone, biased, one-dimensional, and devoted to evangelizing a particular perspective. Today such writings are often referred to as hagiographies. It was not until the middle of the twentieth century that the modern biography—critical, multi-dimensional, and objective (at least in principle)—"began to take its present form." The early faith-promoting histories, however, became the source of historical knowledge for many Church members and launched similar popular works for decades to come. While it can be said that early LDS histories intentionally withheld challenging and non-flattering information, in the context of the times this was not unique to Mormonism and is to be expected.

To see citations to the critical sources for these claims, click here

Notes