| 
This is
the second part of a paper delivered at the 2005 FAIR conference,
5 August, 2004. Read Part
One.
For practically all of the questions that seem to trouble people, or that are used in an effort to dislodge members from their faith, satisfactory answers are available. The sincere truth-seeker is not forced to accept the sensational allegations of enemies as the final word.. Obviously the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has a number of informed, articulate defenders. I commend the members of the FAIR organization as well as others who have entered the fray.
In many instances,
the answers they provide are decisive, leaving the critic with
no leg to stand on. There is always work to do, new questions
and some that require answers more profound than the initial defenders
have come up with. But obviously we are not tongue-tied and helpless.
The hope of the detractors, of course, is that they will reach
people who are unaware of what the defenders have already made
available. Sadly, when much of the population is made up of non-readers,
a well-placed fiery dart of the adversary might be fatal.
When
I was in graduate school, one of our seminars included a unit
on the Counter-Reformation, or the Catholic Reformation, of the
sixteenth century. For over thirty years of university teaching,
I introduced undergraduate and graduate students to the subject.
I am confident my students will agree that our approach was fair,
for we tried to understand this complex subject from within, allowing
those who participated in it to speak for themselves. I used this
same perspective in the study of a variety of subjects. Would
that those who teach and study the history of Mormonism would
do the same.
As an undergraduate,
I had read a reasonably good chapter in a standard textbook, where
the Counter-Reformation was pretty much depicted as a belated
response to the Protestant challenge. Some of its manifestations
the rise of the Jesuits, the Council of Trent, even the lamentable
massacre of St. Bartholomew's Eve in France could easily be interpreted
as further evidence of the corruption of Roman Catholicism. The
old Protestant historiography did this.
The popes
were often presented as the "bad guys" of Christian
history. Names like Alexander VI, Julius II, Leo X were well known
symbols of the immorality, corruption, and worldliness of the
Renaissance papacy. In connection with my graduate seminar, I
read Leopold von Ranke's three-volume history of the popes. On
one level, it was an instructive example of the use of newly available
sources such as the relazioni of the Venetian ambassadors.
"Hmm," I thought. "Maybe things are not as simple
as I had thought.".
I also read
several volumes in Ludwig von Pastor's History of the Popes,
a huge work in eighteen volumes, the product of a lifetime of
research and writing. Pastor’s History of the Popes
was a real eye-opener. I will not make the mistake of describing
this work by a Catholic historian as "objective." What
Pastor does is to use internal church documents to describe in
detail the successive challenges confronted by the popes, the
letters and reports they had to go on, the urging of different
advisors, sometimes the false starts and backtracking of papal
policy.
Studied in
this way, some popes were good, some were bad, most were somewhere
in between. Most were doing the best they could under the circumstances.
The closer one gets to their minds, through careful scrutiny of
the documents available to them and the letters and speeches that
came from them, the less one is inclined to defame them. Studied
in this way, the popes simply cannot be credibly portrayed in
the cartoon-like terms of their adversaries. I don't recommend
Pastor as the last word, but his great history is still instructive
and must be known by anyone presuming to treat the subject.
Some of you
have already anticipated my conclusion. This is the kind of history--or
at least one kind of history--we need in the Church of Jesus Christ
of Latter-day Saints. Speaking from a background of reading many
diaries and minutes of meetings, as well as letters and reports
on which decisions were based, I can confidently say that such
history, in addition to being closer to the reality of actual
experience, enhances appreciation for the dedicated, sincere men
and women who made decisions and moved the work along. You don’t
have to agree with them. You don’t have to consider them
inspired or vested with God's authority. That is a separate question.
But in the face of such history you simply cannot portray them
as evil or as simpletons.
Since all history is affected to one degree or another by the faith position of the historian, I rejoice when any topic is treated by someone who is both a believer and a good historian. Ideally, the result will be so conscientious, willing to face the facts and consider the complexity of the events, that the resulting article or book will command attention. Let me say that I also welcome non-Mormon historians and will praise their works when they deserve it.
Consider a current example. The Mountain Meadows Massacre of 1857 has been a cause celebre ever since. Anti-Mormons loved to describe the event in excruciating detail, conveying the impression that this was Mormonism, pure and simple. Instead of the smiling, clean-cut young people with name tags, you see, the real Mormonism, lurking behind the facade, is the massacre and other events like it. So the anti-Mormons would have you believe. That is the subtext of the repeated tellings of the event by critics of the church. The anti-Mormon writer is not satisfied with describing the event. The horrifying group murder is used as a foundation for larger conclusions-- the perfidy of Brigham Young, the intrinsic cruelty of the Mormon religion, the depravity of its doctrines, or, as with Jon Krakauer’s recent book, the narrowness, self-righteousness, and violence of all religion.
How should the faithful Latter-day Saint respond? I think it is perfectly permissible for a Latter-day Saint to say, "I don’t know anything about that. What I do know is that it is not part of my religion. I have never heard it defended or advocated. I do not have a testimony of the Mountain Meadows Massacre."
But we are talking about what historians can do. The best response to bad history, it has been said, is good history. More than a half century ago, Juanita Brooks wrote one such work of good history. During the past two or three years, new attackers have entered the fray, recounting the events in all their horror but now laying the responsibility squarely on Brigham Young. Individuals of means subsidize works of this kind, and, not surprisingly, there is an audience out there ready to read and publicize. In response, reviews have been written, some of them gleefully reveling in anything that discomfits their Mormon neighbors, some of them savoring the violent and sensational while betraying no in-depth understanding of Mormon history, some of them with penetrating criticisms exposing core legal and methodological flaws in the recent books..
In addition to book reviews in the scholarly journals, three historians have undertaken an exhaustive study. Richard Turley, Ronald Walker, and Glen Leonard are in the final stages of preparing a book that promises to be thorough, using more sources than anyone else. It will be comparative. It will place the event in its wartime context. It will examine alleged provocation. Where mistakes were made, as they obviously were, they will not be swept under the rug. Henceforth It will be the book that anyone who presumes to write on the subject simply must come to grips with. Bad or superficial history will be shown for what it is by superior history.
Is this not a model? One can think of a series of controversial and problematical episodes in our church history. With newly available sources, with fresh questions, they are ripe for reexamination. This is not an exciting, original idea that no one else has ever thought of. Some articles and books have already done what needs to be done. But there is much yet to do.
Not that conscientious, scholarly history will satisfy the anti-Mormons. They have another agenda. Our worthy opponents will not cease to mine Mormon history for anything negative they can use. If many Latter-day Saints simply ignore these attacks, I am not surprised. After all, they have careers to pursue, families to raise, callings in the church to perform. Without becoming hugely upset over incidents in our church history, they have work enough to do e’re the sun goes down. But we also have historians both professional and amateur. They also have a work to do.
I don’t mind calling on our apologists, including those present here today, to write good history. You need not embark on a huge multi-volume project. It can be a study of one incident or one problem, eventuating in an article or a two-page response. But if it is a historical question, let our treatment be good history. Simply treat a given topic in a way that satisfies any honest reader and in a way that meets the accepted standards of scholarship.
Some of our apologists are already doing this. They have defined a historical problem with precision, examined all the evidence, subjected it to the necessary critical analysis, and presented their findings. Those with the requisite training, skills, and time will continue to do this, making a contribution and perhaps even producing some major works of history. The evil-doers fume and fret, falling back on their tiresome tactic of labeling the work as apologetic. But if they are not brain-dead, what they are really thinking is, "Hey, these guys are good. This is good history."
How
Important Is History?
I have been
speaking as a historian. What about converts in Mongolia and Ghana?
Do they know, or should they know, the church's nineteenth century
history in any depth? What about those non-readers being produced
by the government schools in this country? Will they know the
details of Mormon history? What about the young missionaries preaching
the gospel throughout the world? Are they shining bright because
they have read history books for ten hours a day during their
teenage years? How much do they know? How much should they know?
Someone makes decisions as to what to include in the missionary instruction lessons. As I read through that material, I see no emphasis on history. Seminary and institute students throughout the world take courses. In some of them, they get a certain amount of church history, especially as background to the revelations in the Doctrine and Covenants. In their gospel doctrine Sunday School classes, Latter-day Saints throughout the world study sequentially the Old Testament, the New Testament, the Book of Mormon, and the Doctrine and Covenants. Only in the Doctrine and Covenants course is some historical background sometimes included, and even there the emphasis is on the spiritual and doctrinal content. Finally, at present and for the past few years, priesthood and Relief Society classes devote a year of study to one of the presidents of the church. Some historical background is provided, but once again the emphasis is on the doctrinal teachings. The message that comes across to me loud and clear from lesson manuals and missionary lessons is simple. Our testimony is not in the history of the church.
So our eager
anti-Mormon comes to us with his version of Mormon history. He
has probably picked up his example from other anti-Mormons. He
is pretty sure his Latter-day Saint neighbor will not know about
it. His eyes are bright with anticipation. "Gotcha! What
do you say to that! In view of that, how can you possibly be a
Mormon?" If he doesn't say these things, he implies them.
Here is where
the faithful Latter-day Saint should take the wind out of the
sails of his critic. Instead of collapsing or emitting a wail
of distress, you smile. You shrug your shoulders. You say things
like this. "Hmm. I wonder if that's true." "I haven't
heard what might be said on the other side." "You know
what? That probably interests you a lot more than it does me."
"That isn't part of my religion. I have never heard it taught
in any of the classes and have not read it in any of our manuals."
"I don't have a testimony of the history of the church."
Some of us might deplore the fading of church history from the curriculum. In the meantime, of course, you can still read on your own, individually or in study groups. To my knowledge, no one is forbidding such study.
Admittedly, knowledge of church history is not essential to our eternal salvation. But I do think it is natural and very satisfying to learn as much as we can about it. We study history, any history, as part of our human quest for self-understanding. As I read about the Latter-day Saints and their activities, in the past as well as the present, I can be inspired, amused, bewildered, surprised, proud--and sometimes a little ashamed. More often than not, I am amazed at the perseverance, the tenacity, the determination to stay the course through good times and bad. Without even trying, I instinctively identify with the Saints. Imperfect as they were and are, the Latter-day Saints are my people. But my testimony is not in them, and I hope theirs is not in me
Brigham Young once made a statement about Joseph Smith that our enemies smack their lips over. Missing its point completely, how they love to misuse it! Here is what Brother Brigham said:
I recollect
a conversation I had with a priest who was an old friend of ours,
before I was personally acquainted with the Prophet Joseph. I
clipped every argument he advanced, until at last he came out
and began to rail against "Joe Smith," saying, "that
he was a mean man, a liar, moneydigger, gambler, and a whore-master;"
and he charged him with everything bad, that he could find language
to utter. I said, hold on, brother Gillmore, here is the doctrine,
here is the Bible, the Book of Mormon, and the revelations that
have come through Joseph Smith the Prophet. I have never seen
him, and do not know his private character. The doctrine he teaches
is all I know about the matter, bring anything against that if
you can. As to anything else I do not care. If he acts like a
devil, he has brought forth a doctrine that will save us, if we
will abide it. He may get drunk every day of his life, sleep with
his neighbor's wife every night, run horses and gamble, I do not
care anything about that, for I never embrace any man in my faith.
But the doctrine he has produced will save you and me, and the
whole world; and if you can find fault with that, find it. He
said, "I have done." (Journal of Discourses
4:77-78.)
What do you think Brother Brigham meant? Was he giving carte blanche to church members, saying that it didn’t matter how they behaved? Was he here giving his true feelings about Joseph Smith and actually describing him? Give me a break. If President Young’s meaning isn’t obvious, let me translate it. The truth of the gospel and the divinity of Joseph Smith’s calling as prophet of the restoration do not depend on his behavior as a human being and do not require perfection in his life.
Did Brigham really think that Joseph was a moral reprobate? That is the way some brilliant anti-Mormons use this quotation. Ridiculous. Listen to this: "Who can justly say aught against Joseph Smith? I was as well acquainted with him, as any man. I do not believe that his father and mother knew him any better than I did. I do not think that a man lives on the earth that knew him any better than I did; and I am bold to say that, Jesus Christ excepted, no better man ever lived or does live upon this earth. I am his witness." (Journal of Discourses 9:332.)
But, and this
is an important truth--President Young did not want his testimony
to center on Joseph Smith as a person.
Let's consider
a statement by President George Q. Cannon. "Do not, brethren,
put your trust in man though he be a Bishop, an Apostle or a President;
if you do, they will fail you at some time or place; they will
do wrong or seem to, and your support be gone; but if we lean
on God, He never will fail us. When men and women depend on God
alone and trust in Him alone, their faith will not be shaken if
the highest in the Church should step aside. . . . Perhaps it
is His own design that faults and weaknesses should appear in
high places in order that His Saints may learn to trust in Him
and not in any man or woman." (Millennial Star 53:658-59,
673-75.)
I
do not have a testimony of church history. In this declaration,
I join Nephi, who said: "O Lord, I have trusted in thee,
and I will trust in thee forever. I will not put my trust in the
arm of flesh; for I know that cursed is he that putteth his trust
in the arm of flesh" (2 Nephi 4:34).
Notes
1 Paper presented at the annual conference of FAIR, Sandy, Utah, 5 August 2004.
Click
here to sign up for Meridian's FREE email updates.
© 2007 Meridian
Magazine. All Rights Reserved.
|
