I have received requests by several listeners to explain the reasons why church history is now cited so very often as the reason that once-faithful members are leaving the church. These disenchanted members have evaluated church history and have decided the perceived failures they find there must mean the church is not true. I wish to examine the assumptions made by those who criticize church leaders - or any leaders for that matter – that we find in our history books. Mistaken Assumption #1 – The prophets are perfect men Mistaken Assumption #2 – Leaders of the church receive revelation that keeps them from making mistakes Mistaken Assumption #3 – The Church is Hiding Something Mistaken Assumption #4 – Historical Figures in Church and Government “Should Have Known Better” Mistaken Assumption #5 – Histories are Histories and Facts are Facts Mistaken Assumption #6 – Being Offended Justifies Radical Decisions
Episode #9 - Mistaken Assumptions in Judging Church History
Hello everyone. This is Scott Frazer and welcome to the podcast “Science and Scriptures, episode #9 – Mistaken Assumptions in Judging Church History.
I have received requests by several listeners to explain the reasons why church history is now cited so very often as the reason that once-faithful members are leaving the church. These disenchanted members have evaluated church history and have decided the perceived failures they find there must mean the church is not true. Many of the judgements seem to center around Joseph Smith and polygamy or Brigham Young’s ban on blacks receiving the Priesthood. I am not going to specifically address those two historical events today. Those arguments have been made again and again.
Instead I wish to examine the assumptions made by those who criticize church leaders - or any leaders for that matter – that we find in our history books.
Mistaken Assumption #1 – The prophets are perfect men
I partly blame our church Primary as the initial cause of many people’s severe judgement of church leaders, both past and present.You see, in Primary, small children are taught all about the prophets. Their church-authorized photo is usually placed on a small tripod and the children are told about the life of the prophet. The lesson does not include the failures and poor decisions of these men, because we wish to set these men as examples of how to live a righteous life. For the same reasons, elementary schools teach only good things about the past leaders of our country. Do you remember being taught anything critical of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, or Abraham Lincoln before college? Probably not. We just don’t do that to our national heroes.
Thus we teach our young children that the prophets were well… perfect. Primary children often believe that prophets receive nearly continuous, 24/7 revelation from God.These beliefs endure. I have heard numerous adult members say with a laugh that of course the prophets aren’t perfect – a statement they obviously don’t believe for a second.
The problem with believing a prophet is perfect is that we have expectations that he will never make a mistake. I don’t mean to be cruel, but, borrowing a statement by Paul, a time comes to put away childish things. Nobody is perfect and nobody makes good decisions all the time.
With that determination firmly in mind, we can read church history with a different mindset. We can conclude that Joseph Smith rather made a mess of the reintroduction of polygamy to the world. At first, Joseph did not tell his wife Emma or his brother Hyrum about the principle, an omission that was probably ill-advised. Consequently, rumors and gossip gradually leaked out to both the Church and the world regarding the practice and extent of polygamy. To be fair, reintroducing polygamy to the world was a lose-lose task for Joseph Smith.There was no good way for him to break the news to his wife, church, or the world. But the steps he selected turned out to be…less than optimal.
This conclusion is not a criticism of the prophet Joseph. He had to carry out a horrendous responsibility and he didn’t do it perfectly.Why would anyone expect that he could?
Mistaken Assumption #2 – Leaders of the church receive revelation that keeps them from making mistakes
I once had a bishop who called a good and righteous man to be his counselor. Three weeks later that same man was transferred out-of-state by his employer.My bishop could not figure out where his revelation had gone wrong. But his choice was not a mistake; this good man really would have made a good counselor.Was the Lord supposed to reveal the future work transfer of this man to the bishop? No, revelation is very rarely a crystal ball that tells us the future.We need to get that mistaken concept out of our heads.
Many people seem to think that our prophets wear Airpods in their ears so the Lord can constantly whisper counsel and revelation to them. That’s not how revelation works. Let’s look at some scriptural examples of the fact that prophets do not receive revelation all the time.
How about the Book of Mormon?
These are not minor issues. We have major family problems, murder, and assault. Why didn’t the Lord reveal to his Biblical prophets that they were doing something very wrong? Because the Lord lets his prophets work out their own way in their lives. Prophets need to learn from mistakes too, and members need to realize that prophets can make mistakes.
Setting our Primary lessons aside for the moment, where did we get the idea that prophets do not make mistakes? It goes against all logical conclusion.
For example, if our church leadership is inspired enough to never be wrong, how is it that church leaders sometimes disagree? My favorite example of such disagreement actually established the church’s stance on evolution, one of my favorite subjects.
In 1930, Elder Joseph Fielding Smith, then a junior member of the Quorum of the Twelve, delivered a talk at a conference of the Genealogical Society. In it, he stated that human life did not exist upon the earth prior to Adam and that there was no death on the earth prior to the fall of man.
B. H. Roberts, then senior president of the Seventy, submitted a letter of objection to the First Presidency of Heber J. Grant, asking if the views of Elder Smith were to be considered Church doctrine. Elder Roberts and Elder Smith both appeared to church leadership to plead their cases. In his response, Heber J. Grant essentially stated that they were both wrong. The Church’s stance on evolution would be complete neutrality.
The apostles themselves admit that many discussions within the quorum can become heated. They emphasize that, in the end, they all come together and support the final decision. But we need to get over the idea that the Lord provides inspiration to every decision in the church. Inspiration on a subject can take minutes, or years, or it can never come at all. If continuous inspiration is really available to your prophet, stake president, or bishop, then why do they need counselors?
Many members of the church simply do not want to admit the prophet is ever wrong. Apparently, they fear that if they admit that the prophet has said even one thing wrong, then people may not believe anything else he says. I hope to never be judged so harshly. Prophets and other church leaders can make mistakes. It’s an essential part of earth life and the lessons we learn here.
Mistaken Assumption #3 – The Church is Hiding Something
During the 1900s, the church was not immediately forthcoming in “airing its dirty laundry”. Church history events were always reported in a tone that put the church in its best light. To understand this tendency, one must understand the generations who ran the church during that century. No one in the Greatest Generation (born between 1910 to 1924) or the Silent Generation (born between 1925 to 1945) aired their dirty laundry! To these generations, there were certain things you just didn’t talk about in public. Criticism of church leaders or anything related to God and church were most assuredly not appropriate for public discussion. My grandmother was abhorred if family conversation turned a little risqué or critical of religion. She viewed any such talk as, well, taking the Lord’s name in vain.
On the other end of the age spectrum, Generation Y (born between 1980 to 1994) and Generation Z (between 1995 to 2012) are used to airing all their dirty laundry and everything else for that matter. With Google and the Internet, you can get information about any organization – good, bad, or indecent. With social media, you can read intimate details about the lives of good friends or complete strangers – and see photos! Consequently, these latter generations saw only conspiracy in the church’s explanations of its history when it could most simply be explained as a difference in generations.
The church had to learn that, with the changing world, more transparency was necessary. It has responded. In 1999, the church installed a monument at the site of the Meadow Mountain Massacre, recognizing the role of church members in the tragedy. The church commissioned its History Department to write a four-volume series about church history called “Saints”. Church historians were told to make the history readable and brutally honest, which they have. At this writing, the church has made the first two volumes easily accessible. To buy the first volume of 700 pages I spent $5 – which barely covers the cost of the paper. If you want to read the e-Books or listen to the audiobooks, they will cost you… nothing. The church also radically changed its website to carry and emphasize its views on current social topics. The church is not hiding anything. In fact, it is making every effort to be more transparent and participative, an effort which should be appreciated.
Mistaken Assumption #4 – Historical Figures in Church and Government “Should Have Known Better”
It has become very… trendy to conclude that historical leaders should have known better, than to have made decisions they did.
For example, I am told that Thomas Jefferson should have known better than to own slaves. Apparently, everyone who owned slaves in the 1800s should have known better. Critics today should probably recognize that people are not born with the knowledge that a practice like slavery is deplorable. Instead, from childhood, we learn what our culture teaches us is acceptable. The United States had to fight a civil war that claimed over 600,000 lives to resolve whether it was going to allow slavery or not. To think that every soul who lived in the Southern States from 1600 - 1860 “should have known better” than to allow slavery is a harsh and unsupportable conclusion.
Some believe that Joseph Smith “should have known better” than to reintroduce polygamy to a society that no longer deemed it acceptable. The fact that the Lord included polygamy in the list of ordinances that Joseph needed to restore is seen by some as a flimsy excuse. Other people can appreciate that a commandment from God should be obeyed. But Joseph had never introduced polygamy to the world before and Salt Lake City did not send him a manual to help him in the task. I’m not sure how he could have “known better”.
I am told that Brigham Young should have known better than to have established the doctrine banning blacks from holding the priesthood. We have little information about Brigham’s decision. What was Brigham’s background? What were the living conditions and education of the black people that Brigham knew? Did Brigham believe he had received revelation or was it a conclusion based on his opinion of what a priesthood holder should be?
I am not going to suggest that you try to understand what Joseph Smith or Brigham Young were thinking – because I don’t believe for a moment that you can do so. You see, if you are listening to this podcast, you didn’t live in 1840. Historians have repeatedly pleaded that people not judge historical figures by today’s standards, a practice called Presentism. Nevertheless, few people seem to be listening to the historians as they judge US and Church history.
Let me illustrate the mistake of judging historical figures by another means. Let’s look into the future instead of looking into the past. Our grandchildren and great-grandchildren may come to see us as being… extremely selfish generations. If global warming has all the effects that are predicted – flooded coastlines, devastating hurricanes, terrible droughts, etc., whose fault is that? By definition, it is the fault of anyone who has left a carbon footprint. Could you write a letter to your great-grandchildren explaining why you continue to leave a carbon footprint, despite knowing about global warming? You drive a car because you must get to work, run errands, and take your kids to their activities. It’s how our society runs. You would have to sell your car, ride your bike everywhere, and never use the furnace in your home to reduce your carbon footprint. Could you explain that to your great-grandchildren? Maybe they will be more forgiving of our plight than the present generation has been of its great-grandparents.
Mistaken Assumption #5 – Histories are Histories and Facts are Facts
When you read accounts of the actions of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, whose writings are you reading? It makes a very big difference. Yes, facts are facts if they are related in a non-opinionated manner. But please understand that non-opinionated statements of fact are very rare. You must understand that the job of a writer is to relate facts to convince his readers that his conclusion about those facts is correct.
Let me give you an example of how history can be related. Please know that I rehearse these facts as example only.
“This man was in trouble with the law from his very beginning. Shortly after his birth, his parents became fugitives from the laws of the land and had to flee the country to avoid arrest. After things had calmed down, the small family was able to return to their homeland. This man stayed at home, doing rough labor, until he was about 30 years old. He then roamed around the country, managing to collect a growing following of other vagabonds. He instructed His followers to turn away from the established religion of the country. He associated with prostitutes and lawyers. His teachings incited riots in Nazareth and Jerusalem. Finally, when one of His own followers betrayed him, church and state officials were finally able to arrest the man. He was tried, and multiple witnesses gave testimony of His misdeeds. He was found guilty of conspiracy and treason against the state and he was put to death for his crimes.”
Sounds like a real scoundrel, doesn’t he? I am, of course, telling you of the life of the Savior. None of these statements are inaccurate; they are just written with a particular purpose in mind. You may have been thinking something like, “But you are not telling the whole story!” Well of course I didn’t – nobody ever does! The point is – a good writer can make anyone sound like a felon. Have you read anti-Mormon literature about Joseph Smith? Do you really think you got a fair and unbiased assessment of Joseph’s life?
I know there is a huge amount of misinformation out there regarding our political leaders. But this is not a political podcast, so we will not try to sort out the truth about politics. Besides, the president, our Senators, and our Congressmen are elected for temporary assignments who will normally affect your life very slightly.
I do, however, care about the misinformation you read and accept about Jesus Christ, Joseph Smith, or Russell M. Nelson. The conclusions you make about them will affect your life on Earth and the next life to come. That misinformation will affect you as an individual and it may, in fact, influence what you do this coming Sunday. Please know that misinformation about the church is readily available. If you read it, please know that history books never relater unbiased histories and “facts” are rarely just facts.
Mistaken Assumption #6 – Being Offended Justifies Radical Decisions
Social Media has affected our society much more than anyone predicted. Even those who created and led major social media outlets did not see this coming. It is now widely recognized that social media has caused nearly everyone to become more extreme in our political positions. For example, those who lean to the political left only watch left-leaning YouTube videos. Those videos confirm your non-conservative views and you become even more leftist. Those who lean right watch only right-leaning videos and became even more conservative. It is easy to see these shifts in politics, but shifts have occurred in all areas of life, including our religious beliefs.
Social Media also supported a dramatic shift in our nation’s emotional attitudes. As YouTube and Facebook shifted our outlooks further to the extremes, disagreements fostered increasingly hostile rebuttals. Since you can have running dialogues with anyone on-line, increasingly emotional outbursts have become common. Anyone who is offended on-line can apparently justify their cruel words, profanity, and personal attacks. By becoming offended by a doctrine or event out of church history, many church members have justified leaving the church.
The Lord seemed to foresee these times. When answering His disciples about the signs of His Second Coming, Jesus replied,
“And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another.” (Matt. 24:10)
The Savior taught to not give offense and to not take offense. He summarizes this last lesson in Matthew 11:6.
“And blessed is he, whosoever shall not be offended in me.
Here is a question to consider. How could our Savior, who is meek and mild, who loves us, and who wants the best for us, ever offend us? With His doctrine of course. You may not be a fan of the fact that only men have the priesthood. You may not like the doctrine of polygamy, that the Lord may command it if (as Jacob puts it in the Book of Mormon) he needs to “raise up seed unto me”. Finally, you may not be happy that the Lord allowed a doctrine that black men could not hold the priesthood to remain in place for so many years.
In his short epistle to the Philippians, Paul summarizes
“That ye may approve things that are excellent; that ye may be sincere and without offence till the day of Christ;” (Philippians 1:10)
I like Paul’s wording here that we should “be sincere and without offence.” It is common in our social media for its users to become emotional, judgmental, and offended. But please know that today’s social norms do not change the judgements of God. Nothing has changed in that respect. Being emotional and offended about an event in church history does not justify making poor decisions.
You know, I believe there will be a lot of surprised and upset people in the afterlife. I personally expect to say, “You know, that is not how I pictured it.” multiple times in the first couple weeks after my arrival. But I feel bad for those people who will be surprised in the judgement, for I expect there will be many shocked and offended people. I think most will be astonished that the beliefs and attitudes of our present culture do not carry over into their final judgement or even to the next life.
To summarize this episode…
To those who have chosen to leave the church due to issues they see in our church history, we hope and pray that you choose to return.As you know, that being active in the church will help you to be happier in this life – and in the next.
To my listeners, please consider the mistaken assumptions that I have pointed out in this podcast. We all need to have an accurate and, hopefully, unbiased view of our church history and our leaders, both past and present.
That is all that I have for you today; I thank you for the time you have spent with me on this podcast. If you have any questions, please contact me at scottrfrazer@gmail.com.If you like this episode, please share it with your family and friends. Until next week, take care.