|
|
 |
Author's Preface, About Mormon History
Historical Suppression in the Church
The Quote
One Nation under Gods, page xv
The history of Mormonism--The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS)--can only
be pieced together using a wide variety of historical sources. It is a complex tale that takes
many surprising turns, has numerous divergent paths, and often becomes intertwined with other
historical events of the same time period. Unfortunately, some of the least reliable reports
on Mormon history, especially with regard to its earliest years, are those that have been
produced by the LDS church.2
The Reference
Endnote 2, page 477
2. Mormon church officials have routinely insisted that any materials written on LDS history
by Mormons must be "faith promoting," which means they must support Mormon beliefs and official
teachings, even at the risk of being historically inaccurate. In 1981, for instances, LDS
apostle Boyd K. Packer warned Mormon historians against publishing objective history, even
in professional journals because such works destroy and weaken the faith of Mormons (Boyd K.
Packer, "The Mantle is Far, Far Greater Than the Intellect," BYU Studies [Summer 1981],
vol. 21, 264-265). Eventually, in June 1986, the staff of the LDS church's historical department
were made to "sign a form which Elder Packer declared gave the right of pre-publication censorship
for any archival research completed before signing the form" (Smith, 109, footnote #52; quoted in
Tanner and Tanner, 3, http://www.utlm.org/newsletters/no85.htm).
The Problems
The assertion by Abanes that "some of the least reliable reports on Mormon history" are
those "produced by the LDS church" is very interesting in light of the fact that some of the source
documents used by Abanes in his book include the Journal of Discourses, the Messenger and
Advocate,, the Millennial Star, the Evening and Morning Star, the Ensign,
Conference Reports, and the Encyclopedia of Mormonism, to name a few. Each of these is
viewed by member and non-member as "produced by the LDS church." If they are so unreliable, why does
Abanes cite from them? If there is a disagreement between two sources--one from the Church and the other
from someone viewed as an enemy of the Church--how does Abanes know which one is more reliable?
To bring the example closer to home, if I wanted information about Abanes' business
dealings, should I believe Abanes' statements or those of someone who has a grudge against Abanes? To
a large degree, the answer to that question depends on my experiences with Abanes and my predisposition
toward him or his family. If my experiences were bad, and I had a bad feeling about Abanes already, I
would probably believe the person with a grudge rather than Abanes himself.
Abanes, unfortunately, is in the same position when it comes to the history of the Church. He
castigates any sources produced by the LDS Church, but then uses many of those sources in his historical
treatment. When it suits his predisposition (remember, from the Overview that
Abanes had his introduction to the Church through the works of the Tanners), he falls back and cites as
sources those who have a grudge against the Church. Quite a quandry, indeed, as a careful examination of
the sources which Abanes chooses and the references he provides the reader illuminate his predisposition
more than his ability to recount history.
The quandry exists because by writing to meet his predisposition, Abanes places himself in the
same ethical dilemma in which he tries to place the Church. The Church, which views itself as the Kingdom of
God on Earth, is predisposed to create materials that put the events of history in the best possible light.
Abanes, who does not view the Church in such light and who was tutored by the works of career-apostates Jerald
and Sandra Tanner, is predisposed to create materials which put the events of history in the worst possible
light. If the Church's predisposition means that it becomes a "least reliable" source, then doesn't Abanes'
predisposition make him a "least reliable" source, as well? If not, then why not?
As an example of Abanes' quandry, let's examine the reference provided above. There are two
main parts to this reference. First, is the assertion that Church officials have "routinely" insisted
LDS-authored historical materials be "faith promoting" at the expense of being historically accurate.
To prove this assertion, Abanes provides the example of a talk by Boyd K. Packer that was published in
BYU Studies. In reading this talk, Elder Packer stressed four main points, as follow:
- There is no such thing as an accurate, objective history of the Church without consideration of
the spiritual powers that attend this work.
- There is a temptation for the writer or the teacher of Church history to want to tell everything,
whether it is worthy or faith promoting or not. Some things that are true are not very useful.
- In an effort to be objective, impartial, and scholarly, a writer or a teacher may unwittingly be
giving equal time to the adversary.
- The final caution concerns the idea that so long as something is already in print, so long as it
is available from another source, there is nothing out of order in using it in writing or speaking
or teaching.
The only mention of "objectivity" in the talk was in relation to the first point, and Elder Packer said
nothing about stopping historians or insisting that they not be objective. He simply said that no treatment
of history could hope to be objective without consideration of the spiritual powers that attend the work.
In other words, he was telling LDS historians that to leave out consideration of God's spirit was to leave
out an important component of why and how things were done in the Church.
A careful reading of Elder Packer's talk reveals that it does not say what Abanes represents
it as saying. Since it does not, Abanes has no "for instance" for his opening assertion in his reference,
and it cannot stand on its own, except as Abanes' own impression of what happens in the Church--an impression
that illuminates his predisposition and attendant lack of objectivity.
The second main part of Abanes' reference is the claim that Church historical department staff
were required to "sign a form" regarding the Church's right to censor anything the staff might publish. It
appears that Abanes feels such a form is an example of ways in which the LDS Church suppresses scholarly
work. To be fair, Abanes is not the only one who feels this way, as the article he cites (by George D. Smith)
and the Web site he cites (at the Tanners' Utah Lighthouse Ministry) focus on "repression" and "control" of
Church history presentations by LDS Church leaders.
Abanes never address the issue, however, of whether the Church has a right to control (a) access
to their own historical records, and (b) how those records are used. If this were a discussion about business
corporations, there would be no question that the businesses have the right to do both--control access and use
of past business records. The assertions of Abanes and others in this area are reminiscent of paranoid theorists
who see nothing but shadowy characters and conspiracies when it comes to the government requesting secrecy and
discretion from its employees, or requiring censorship of sensitive documents.
Any responsible person recognizes that both businesses and governments must establish a certain
amount of secrecy and exercise a certain amount of control in order to fend off the advances of those it views
as adversaries. In this instance, Church staff members are the employees, and the adversary is Satan
and those who would inappropriately use information, outside its original context and devoid of its spiritual
component, to pass earthly judgment on a divine organization.
Does the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (or any church, for that matter) have the right
to control its own records and how they are used? If businesses and governments do, why not churches? If the
Church has no right, then what rights in this area would anyone have? How about Mr. Abanes? Would others have
the right to examine his family's history, rifle through his personal records, examine his business dealings,
and then write anything they wanted based on what they supposedly discovered? Of course they wouldn't.
I would propose that there is no "conspiracy of suppression" at work in the Church, only the
rightful exercise of control over records owned by the Church. It would be nice to know why Abanes doesn't
feel the Church has such a right, but that detail is lacking in his indictment. What is not lacking, however,
is ample proof of Abanes' predisposition concerning the claims of the Church and that, unfortunately, makes
One Nation under Gods one of the "least reliable reports on Mormon history."
Written by Allen L. Wyatt
Back to the Index
|
