The Church is built on specific claims. The church claims that Joseph Smith met God and Jesus, received ancient plates from an angel, translated them, and had priesthood authority restored by heavenly messengers. Church leaders even state that if the events didn’t occur, the church would fall apart. This is the danger in the church having so closely identified its own truthfulness to historical events.
If any or all of these claims didn’t happen as proclaimed by the church, then the whole church, as we know it, would crumble to rubble. The truth claims are foundational to the structure of the church. The truth claims are inseparable from the essence of the church. The leadership has done this when they claim it to be the Only, One, True, and Living church. This is not a new issue, it’s been said before and will continue to warrant repeating. Sterling McMurrin understood the minutia of this dilemma.
Sterling McMurrin
Sterling McMurrin was a prominent Mormon and distinguished figure renowned for his intellectual contributions and steadfast advocacy for progressive causes. As a liberal Mormon theologian and philosophy professor at the University of Utah, McMurrin left his mark on both academia and public service. Notably, he served as the US Commissioner of Education during President John F. Kennedy’s administration, where he advocated for racial integration of the public school system. He was outspoken about his moral disagreements with the church, particularly on issues such as racial discrimination and intolerance of free thought, challenging its leadership to uphold the highest ideals of fairness and integrity. Despite his significant contributions, McMurrin faced criticism from some church leaders who believed his public dissent of church failings warranted excommunication. However, his steadfast dedication to his principles and unwavering commitment to social justice earned him respect and admiration both within and outside the Mormon community. Despite his complex relationship with the LDS Church, McMurrin’s devotion to Mormonism and his unwavering commitment to reason and justice in human affairs defined his legacy.
McMurrin argued that the LDS Church concealed parts of its history and had been declining in intellectual freedom. He believed that an honest study of religion would erode faith, and he personally did not believe in the historicity of the Book of Mormon. However, he remained devoted to Mormonism, despite his lack of faith and criticism from more “orthodox” church members. In the early 1950s, Joseph Fielding Smith and Harold B. Lee believed McMurrin should be excommunicated. David O. McKay met with McMurrin and agreed to testify on McMurrin’s behalf, but the apostles did not pursue the excommunication. Joseph Fielding Smith suggested again that McMurrin be excommunicated in 1965, but McKay declined to take action.
Sterling M. McMurrin. Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sterling_M._McMurrin
Sterling McMurrin’s discussion of these issues and more can be found in the Matters of Conscience book among other places.
Q: I’m concerned about the attempts of the chrch leaders to maintain the mythology of the early church period; but I wonder if all this emphasis on orthodoxy and obedience isn’t causing a reaction as dangerous as the mythology in the first place.
A: I think you’re absolutely right. And it’s so unnecessary. The church can weather any danger now. It’s a going concern. It rolls on and on, and nothing is going to slow it down. It can be seriously injured only be its own authoritarianism. Things are going to seriously injure many individuals in it, but the institution will roll on. I have to tell you somnething our mutual friend Bill Mulder told me back in the early 1950s. He was walking from the Church Administration Building at 47 East South Temple to the Hotel Utah when he passed one of the elder statesmen of the church, who then worked in the Church Historian’s office. Without even glancing at him, the older man said, “Isn’t it amazing the way the money just keeps rolling in?”
Well, it is amazing, the solidarity of the Mormon people, their devotion to one another and to the institution, and the sacrifices they make for the church. It’s quite remarkable and fives the church great strength. On the other hand, countless individuals are bing hurt, morally, spuritually, and intellectually, by some of the things that are going on to stifle their intellectual freedom.
Q: What is your view of the received version of church history, Sterling?
A: I’ve felt for a long time that the church has made a very serious error in tying itself to all kinds of historical claims instead of focusing its claims on the quality of life it can engender, the happiness it can bring to people, and the spiritual and moral strength it can build in its members. It has always insisted that if X, Y, and Z historical events did not occur, then the church is not true. That’s a lot of nonsense. No church looks very good under a close inspection of its own history. The Catholics don’t, the Protestants don’t, and the Mormons don’t. There’s no need to pretend that our history is free of unsavory episodes–Joseph Smith’s involvement in magic and all that damned nonsense–to say nothing of polygamy. There’s no point in trying to cover them up. It makes more sense to focus the case for the church on something other than its historical origins. But it’s not an easy thing to do. We are so steeped in historical consciousness–often historical error.
Sterling M. McMurrin, Matters of Conscience: Conversations With Sterling M. McMurrin on Philosophy, Education, and Religion (Page 210)
https://www.amazon.com/Matters-Conscience-Conversations-Philosophy-Education/dp/1560850876?tag=circubstu-20
The Changing Narrative
It does seem that the church has noticed that the narrative they have spun about the foundational church history is not true and is not sustainable, as Richard Bushman has clearly stated. The church works to reframe the narrative, but there is a danger in doing so because the truthfulness of the church has been hung on the narrative. Even if the church can successfully pivot and change the narrative, they can’t seem to catch a break.
We can’t brush off historical issues as minor flaws in the church. We can’t excuse the church if they were to simply acknowledge the issues and apologize for them. Even by doing this, the church would be incomplete. The fact remains that they claim certain truth claims are true and foundational to the church.
The church has tied itself to all kinds of historical claims. They don’t focus on quality of life, but focus on circular logic and teaching history for engendering positive feelings rather than accuracy. Sterling mentions that the church insists that if “X, Y, and Z historical events” didn’t occur as they teach, that the church is not true. We have seen this time and time again regarding Joseph Smith being a prophet, translating the Book of Mormon, experiencing a First Vision, etc, etc. Multiple presidents of the church have presented the very claim that if one of these didn’t happen, the church is false.
As for the Catholic Church, sure, they’ve faced their own historical problems, but if it were proven that Peter didn’t establish it, they’d lose their authority. The trick is that was so long ago there isn’t much evidence (for or against). It can be placed on faith, unlike Joseph Smith and the claims of the LDS church. Simply being honest about history won’t fix the problem; the issue is deeper than that because in being honest, there must be an acknowledgment that the claims are not true, and if they are not, then the church is not true. If the claims of the church are not upheld, then what basis do they have for any authority from God or real power? It all becomes quite empty, there is no sealing power, priesthood power to preside or speak for God, no secret handshakes or new names, or sentinal angels. No reason to listen to old men leading an organization with their old ways of thinking, and certainly no reason to give this church a tenth of our income to invest as they please in stocks and real estate.
If the LDS Church wants to change its foundational doctrines or beliefs, they need to be upfront about it. It’s more frustrating to hide behind false narratives than to confront the truth head-on. We might be moving towards a new version of Mormonism, but it’s essential to acknowledge that it’s not the same faith we grew up with. The old Mormonism is dead, but we’re forging ahead with a new, more flexible approach.
The church is not a club where all that matters is what good we do for the community. It’s the religion many have built their lives on. It’s only important if it is, in fact, true.
Catch 22
If the church wants to de-emphasize the truth claims and the history, in order to turn into a more palatable and relevant church it may be a good step in the right direction. But they need to be honest about it. Currently, authority is everything to the church leadership, because without it they have no claim to God. The whole central point of the church is the claim that it is the One True Church. Changing to say that authority doesn’t matter anymore or that church history doesn’t need to be perfect for the church to be true, changes the very nature of the church. If they have this path in mind, there’s no way to sneak into it. They’ll have to address the bogus history, the false truth claims and the empty authority at some point.
It is far more offensive to be dishonest about taking the religion in a vastly different direction by changing the foundational doctrines than being dishonest about church history. Being honest about that would be a tacit admission that the religion is false. The central premise is that it’s all true because God leads it and there is no other option. But pivoting to make it less about the truthfulness or uniqueness of it all, makes the central premise moot. What is the claim that the church is True (capital T) if it’s authority or history is de-emphasized dismissed or even reconciled? This change in itself invalidates the authority of the church and admits that it is false. They may rebuild from the ashes a new style of the church where we can find our own comfort level and understanding of what words like prophet and priesthood mean. But, it must be clear, that there is an acknowledgment, that this new Witherspoon/Bushman/etc form of Mormonism is not the Mormonism that we learned and used to teach. That old Mormonism is dead–the facts killed it. The critics were right. But, moving on with a loosey-goosey new brand of Mormonism is not the faith of our fathers, nor the Church we were raised in, but in order to remain relevant, it has to be the church going forward.
If the church is not True, is it even useful though? Many attend because it is true, others attend because it is useful to them, and others attend because they feel it is good. Depending on personal convictions these elements of the church in our lives means slightly different things. Those who only attend because they believe it is True, may not stick around if the church doesn’t make the truth claims anymore and focuses more on being good and useful. Though this may be a more healthy church, leaders must be afraid that the pivot will lose members or at the very least, decrease their own authority and power over the membership.
What about you? Did (or do) you attend because you thought it was good? useful? True? What if the main reason you attended suddenly disappeared? Would you continue? Many have experience this through a faith transition and learn that what they were taught is not true. They face deconstructing their faith. Many leave the church forever, some leave only to return later for perhaps a new reason, some become more nuanced in their beliefs and some even find a strengthened faith. What about you? Consider sharing your own story at wasmormon.org.
More reading:
- https://www.amazon.com/Matters-Conscience-Conversations-Philosophy-Education/dp/1560850876?tag=circubstu-20
- https://www.facebook.com/johndehlin/posts/10100549369317509?comment_id=10100549377146819
- https://www.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comments/hubzn7/sterling_mcmurrin_like_bh_roberts_sterling_was/
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sterling_M._McMurrin
- https://sunstone.org/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/103-10-11.pdf
- https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V17N01_20.pdf