President Gordon B. Hinckley, top leader of the Church (1995-2008) addresses several issues related to the church’s history and practices in an interview on Christmas Day in 2005. The interview covered many topics but here we’ll look closely at what he said about polygamy and fundamentalist Mormons and church history and transparency.
Polygamy and Fundamentalist Groups: Hinckley clarifies that the LDS Church officially discontinued the practice of polygamy through a revelation and emphasizes the church’s commitment to obeying the law. He distances the church from fundamentalist groups that still practice polygamy and claim Joseph Smith as their own, stating the church has little sympathy for those who break the law in this manner.
Historical Scholarship and Church History: Hinckley asserts that the church’s history is transparent and open to scrutiny, claiming it supports faith, strength, and virtues. He downplays concerns about discrepancies between historical records and the official church history.
Disciplinary Actions: When asked about individuals who have been disfellowshipped or excommunicated for their writings, Hinckley explains that such actions are rare and are taken only when individuals attempt to influence others in ways that could harm the church.
Overall, Hinckley defends the church’s stance on these issues, stressing adherence to law, transparency in its history, and the protection of the church from potential harm. But is he honest?
Associated Press: The church seems to have difficulty distancing itself from its history of polygamy. You’ve said there are no fundamentalist Mormons, but these groups still practice polygamy and still claim Joseph Smith as their own. How do you resolve that dilemma?
President Hinckley: Well, let me just say this, the doctrine came of revelation and was discontinued by revelation. We believe in honoring, obeying and sustaining the law. And so, we have very little sympathy with those who disobey the law in this manner.
Associated Press: Some scholars say historical records point to discrepancies with the official church history. How do you reconcile the differences? And what is the church’s position on historical scholarship?
President Hinckley: Well, we have nothing to hide. Our history is an open book. They may find what they are looking for, but the fact is the history of the church is clear and open and leads to faith and strength and virtues.
Associated Press: If that’s so, why have some people either been disfellowshipped or excommunicated for the things they have written?
President Hinckley: There have been very few of them. It’s only when they begin to teach what they believe to try to influence others that action is taken against them.
Associated Press: Because by extension they try to damage the church in some way?
President Hinckley: Try to damage the church, yes.
Deseret News: Pres. Hinckley answers myriad questions about the LDS Church, Dec 25, 2005
https://web.archive.org/web/20150323080630/http://www.deseretnews.com/article/635171604/Pres-Hinckley-answers-myriad-questions-about-the-LDS-Church.html?pg=all
https://www.deseret.com/2005/12/25/19929667/pres-hinckley-answers-myriad-questions-about-the-lds-church/
One of the most potent tools of control in Mormonism is the naive trust of seeking humans who do not, by default, expect another human to lie to them, let alone one who claims to be in communication with the divine as a prophet and placed on a pedestal as the ultimate example.
When anyone tells us that we shouldn’t study the history of the church too much, we can point to this statement from President Gordon B. Hinckley. We can confidently say that a prophet of the Lord told us that (a study of) the history of the church leads to faith and strength. Who, you might ask, would tell us not to study church history? We have multiple apostles stating this very thing!
We can highlight several key examples countering Hinckley’s claim that the church is fully transparent with its history:
Selective Disclosure
- Early Polygamy: The church’s official narrative often glosses over or downplays Joseph Smith’s involvement in polygamy, including his marriages to women who were already married and young girls. For many years, church materials did not fully disclose these details, leading to a more sanitized version of church history.
- First Vision Accounts: While the church now acknowledges multiple accounts of Joseph Smith’s First Vision, for many decades, only one version was widely taught, leading members to believe there was only one consistent narrative.
Controlled Access to Information
- Restricted Documents: The church has historically kept many documents, such as the Joseph Smith Papers and other archival materials, out of public reach. While more has been made available in recent years, the church’s past reluctance to release these documents raises questions about its commitment to transparency.
- Church Archives: Scholars and historians have faced difficulties accessing certain church archives, with the church controlling which documents are available for public viewing and which remain restricted.
Response to Scholars and Critics
- Excommunication of Scholars: The church has excommunicated or disfellowshipped members, particularly scholars, who have published research that contradicts the official narrative or brings to light uncomfortable aspects of church history. This creates an environment where challenging or critical perspectives are not openly discussed within the church.
- Gospel Topics Essays: Although the church has published the Gospel Topics Essays to address controversial aspects of its history, these essays were not widely publicized and are often difficult for members to find without explicit direction. The essays themselves, while a step toward transparency, still present the church’s perspective and may omit or downplay certain details.
Historical Discrepancies
- Book of Mormon Translation: The traditional narrative of the Book of Mormon being translated from golden plates using the Urim and Thummim has been complicated by historical evidence that Joseph Smith used a seer stone placed in a hat. For years, this aspect of the translation process was either omitted or misrepresented in church teachings.
- Mountain Meadows Massacre: The church’s involvement in the 1857 Mountain Meadows Massacre was downplayed for over a century. Only more recently has the church acknowledged the full extent of its leaders’ role in this tragic event, after years of external research and pressure.
Inconsistent Narratives
- Temple Practices: The evolution of temple rituals, including changes to the endowment ceremony, has not been openly discussed. Members are often led to believe that current practices are the same as those in Joseph Smith’s time, despite significant changes over the years.
- Race and the Priesthood: The church’s teachings on race, particularly the ban on Black members holding the priesthood until 1978, were historically justified with doctrinal explanations that are no longer supported. The church’s current narrative suggests the ban was a temporary policy rather than a doctrinal mandate, a shift that isn’t fully reconciled with earlier teachings.
While the LDS Church has taken steps toward greater transparency in recent years, significant discrepancies remain between the historical record and the official narrative. Even faithful historians state that the dominant narrative of church history is not true. The selective presentation of history, controlled access to information, and the church’s response to critical scholarship proves that transparency has not always been a priority. This inconsistency has lead to a loss of trust among members who discover these discrepancies on their own. Members who notice, acknowledge that they were not given the full truth from the beginning.
Church Continues Shaming Questions
We can see many church leaders making statements that lead us to believe they must be coordinated efforts to misrepresent and hide the true history because they collectively know that the true history of the church renders the church impotent and untrue. Dallin H. Oaks suggests that if we have questions about church history, research is not the answer.
Neil L. Anderson shares the friendly advice to “give Brother Joseph a break,” when addressing our honest questions. He suggests that looking through the lens of our century must taint the things Joseph did. He won’t mention what those things are though, those are to be kept safely locked away for those who study “deep” doctrine.
M. Russell Ballard joins President Hinckley in stating that church leaders have never attempted in any part to hide anything from anybody. But we also have examples when church leaders and senior church leaders have done exactly that. Joseph Fielding Smith cut out an account of the first vision because he found it troubling and strange and literally hid it in his safe.
What about the church recently caught hiding it’s “rainy day fund” investments with Ensign Peak Advisors? A whistleblower alerted the SEC of these illegal practices of the church and their misrepresentations in official documents and the church was fined 5 Million dollars! Their excuse when pressed was that they hid the funds so that the members wouldn’t be less inclined to pay their tithing.
The thought being that the hundreds of billions of dollars should be hidden from not only the government but the membership of the church, to entice the members to keep giving the church money. Is this not hiding? Is this transparency?
Or what about the fact that things that previsouly were dismissed as anti-mormon lies, are now admitted as truth in the Gospel Topic Essays?
More reading:
- Church as transparent as it knows how to be
- Dallin Oaks Teaches “Research Is Not The Answer”
- The Strange Hidden First Vision Account of 1832
- https://www.deseret.com/2005/12/25/19929667/pres-hinckley-answers-myriad-questions-about-the-lds-church/
- https://lifeafterministry.com/2015/07/is-mormon-history-really-an-open-book/