
as a result of the recent podcasts over at
mormon matters, i've been thinking about inoculation...
what if you'd been a mormon all your life and a good non-mormon friend of yours asked you if it were true that joseph smith was involved in treasure seeking with neighbors and family prior to finding his gold bible? would you deny it as false? to whom would you turn if you'd never heard this idea before? what if your bishop reassured you it was false and that your friend must be persecuting you because of satan's desire to tear down the church? would you google joseph smith to find the answer? would you read lucy mack smith's history? and which version of her history would you read?
there are many who learn troubling parts of church history later in life despite lifetime membership in the church. with each troubling idea discovered, every person reacts differently. some may say the church has deceived them and lose trust. many dismiss the ideas as 'anti-mormon' and therefore false. others may be motivated to learn all there is to know and reconcile new ideas with former misconceptions. i think there are many reasons why there are aspects of church history that many twenty-somethings in the church have never heard. and i feel that many of these reasons are not sinister, but understandable and circumstantial.
here are a few thoughts.
hagiography: A worshipful or idealizing biography...in the 19th century and well into the 20th century it was common to use a biography as a tool for praise and persuasion. many of the biographies written about prominent leaders at the time omitted inconsistencies and troubling facts. it was a well accepted genre of writing and mormon authors were not immune to this tendency when writing about each other. with the tendency in mormon culture to show deference to tradition and authority it is not surprising that when contemporary historians began deconstructing inconsistencies in revered mormon biographies that there was resistance on many levels of the church hierarchy.
some information about church history was not common knowledge until after the 1960's. that would mean that most of the aged and lay priesthood and relief society leaders would never have been taught these historical facts. and since our general authorities are not professional historians and are very busy in their ministry, it is probably unreasonable to expect them to be informed regarding lastest new mormon historical finding. also, when new historical research is written, it is important to treat the information with some dispassionate distance since what is true today may be overturned in 10 years by yet to be discovered source material.
in light of these ideas, it is uncharitable at best and spiritually detrimental at worst to lay blanket blame at the feet of all church leaders for facts they too may not be aware of.
as new information came out in the 60's and 70's it was probably true that some at the highest level of church leadership chose to suppress access to church records because the troubling source material seemed peripheral to the church's mission to teach the fundamentals of the gospel and to lead people to christ. however, in the google age it is hard for any information to stay undiscovered for long.
so here we are in 2007. whatever barriers there have been to open discussion and discovery of difficult historical facts in the past, there seems to be trend towards a more progressive approach to disseminating more complete information in the church--see the church's issuance over the pulpit of encouragement to watch the pbs documentary. see the recent ensign article about the moutain meadows massacre. and the list goes on. a powerful, faithful source for discussion of many of the troubling mormon historical facts is found in
rough stone rolling--a favorite of mine--and easily found at your local deseret book.
inoculation is what happens when you receive a vaccine. small doses of the infection are injected into your body. your body receives a small enough dose that your body can grapple with and defeat the infection without experiencing severe illness and/or death. the idea is mormondom is that you inject small doses of troubling church history in a safe environment (3rd hour of church, seminary, institute etc) and allow members of the group to grapple with and come to terms with the ideas.
so what are your thoughts? what historical church fact troubles you (if any) and how old were you when you learned about it? do you wish you had learned certain facts earlier in your life? if so, at what age? how have you reconciled troubling new ideas? would these troubling facts cease to be troubling as they become widely held knowledge with a construct for understanding their implications? i have really enjoyed my recent mormon historical studies and feel that my testimony has deepened and that i approach life from a healthier place...