Reflections of a Non-Mormon Historian

Until the past thirty-five years the very idea of Mormon history was viewed as something of a joke by most professional historians. Despite the massive outpouring of dissertations and books devoted to studying Mormon history, virtually none were known or treated seriously outside the ranks of a handful of western history buffs, social historians, and other enthusiasts with highly specialized interests. Brigham Young University dissertations were seen as providing the classic stereotype of the genre. No matter what the topic, each dissertation seemed to begin with Joseph Smith's first vision and end with a reaffirmation of the author's faith in the restored Mormon gospel. In between, almost as an afterthought, were sandwiched enormous masses of undigested data with no apparent organizing principle. Sober Mormon scholars could spend inordinate amounts of time trying to find evidence that Joseph Smith had really seen an angel—an argument that had about as much interest for non-Mormon historians as the debates of medieval scholastics over how many angels could dance on the head of a pin. Though Mormon history was written in English, it might just as well have appeared in an undeciphered foreign tongue for all the sense it made to the secular American scholar.

As a non-Mormon historian initially trying to get through this massive body of writing in order to better understand the controversial origin and early development of Mormon polygamy, I struggled to comprehend the basis for this seemingly pointless collection of data. What was it that made Mormon historical writing so dull to an outsider yet of such importance to an insider? Why, I wondered, did Mormon historians characteristically take their complex and fascinating history and turn it into pablum? Above all why were Mormons so preoccupied with detail and so uninterested in larger conceptual frameworks? Why did Mormons never do anything intellectually with their history?

The answer was a long time in coming, but eventually it became clear to me that in the last analysis to be a Mormon meant to accept the idea that Mormonism explained everything. Mormons did not use theories from other disciplines—with some rare exceptions—because they felt that they already knew all the answers (at least all the answers that really mattered). Most Mormon scholarship thus was simply a footnote which added more evidence to an already well-known and well-loved story. Mormon control and insularity extended even to the thinking of historians themselves and to their writing. It seemed that there were almost no intellectuals within Mormonism—or outside it for that matter—who could step back and view it freshly. Most Mormon scholars still appeared to think almost exclusively within old categories. Disaffected Mormons did no better; they simply stood traditional Mormon arguments on their head. Instead of being a pasteboard saint, for instance, Joseph Smith was a malicious fraud. Even Fawn Brodie in her path-breaking biography No Man Knows My History spent too much of her time carping that her Sunday school image of Joseph Smith had not been the full picture. And as always the vast majority of non-Mormons outside the areas of Mormon cultural influence remained largely uninterested in such internal squabbles.

This isolation of Mormon scholarship from the mainstream of American historical writing was, it seemed to me, a most unfortunate situation. For in Mormonism, if anywhere in recent American life, was the sort of group that could provide almost "an ideal laboratory" for the social and intellectual historian of the sort that Perry Miller had found in earlier New England Puritans. Growing out of deeply American roots, Mormon people rejected the pluralism of the dominant culture, and indeed of the modern world. They instead set up a distinctive way of life and in their own manner challenged a host of commonly held assumptions about the way modern society inevitably must develop. And notwithstanding the great difficulties that they faced, Mormons had been remarkably successful—not simply in their own terms but also in terms of the wealth and power that the external society viewed as so significant. Surely both Mormons and non-Mormons could learn something of value about the extraordinary complexity of social change and the varied options for human development from the rich experience of the Latter-day Saints.

Fortunately during the past thirty-five years numerous scholars have begun raising such questions and taking steps to bridge the gap between Mormon history and the scholarly world. Thomas O'Dea's fine sociological study in 1957, The Mormons, showed that an outsider could write sympathetically and fairly about Mormons as a people among peoples, raising a host of issues with broader implications. Leonard Arrington's economic analysis in Great Basin Kingdom, a year later, showed that a committed insider could place the epic Mormon struggle to develop the Intermountain West into a larger context with meaning for other developing societies. Much of the best scholarship in Mormon history began to focus on the group's political aspirations and activities and the ways that those had been related to American values. Klaus Hansen in Quest for Empire started to reconstruct the activities of the secret Council of Fifty, a body which was potentially revolutionary in its rejection of American pluralism. Robert Flanders, in Nauvoo: Kingdom on the Mississippi, portrayed the social and economic life of Nauvoo, Illinois, viewing it as an unconventional Jacksonian boom town. And Jan Shipps used sophisticated sampling techniques to study attitudes toward Mormonism in the popular press—showing that however strange Mormonism might appear, it still could be subjected to statistical analysis.

By the mid-1960s and early 1970s, three closely related developments emerged out of the growing interest in Mormon history. First, chronologically speaking, was the founding of the Mormon History Association in 1965. Representing all varieties of Mormon, RLDS, and non-Mormon perspectives, the MHA has grown into an organization of more than a thousand members, publishing its own journal and attracting hundreds of participants to its annual meetings. Second, and almost simultaneous with the founding of the MHA, was the establishment of Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought in 1966. Seeking genuine dialogue not simply between Mormons of different persuasions but also between Mormons and non-Mormons who shared their ideas within its pages, Dialogue has continued to tackle important and often controversial issues which could not receive full consideration by in-house publications. Third, and in many ways most important, was the appointment in 1972 of a highly respected professional historian, Leonard Arrington, to head a reorganized and revitalized LDS Church Historical Department in Salt Lake City. Convinced that full and well-informed accounts could only strengthen the Mormon church in the long run, Arrington and his associates—who at their peak numbered nearly twenty full-time historians—encouraged the opening of the church archives to serious scholars, both Mormon and non-Mormon alike, and began to put out many important studies themselves. A sense of excitement and exhilaration was generated as increasing numbers of Latter-day Saints began to develop a direct, personal sense of their own history, a deeper appreciation of the richness and complexity of the Mormon past.

Great strides have certainly been made by Mormons during the past two decades in developing a truly informed, professional, and compelling history of their faith. Increasing numbers of non-Mormons scholars too have come to appreciate more fully the enormous social vitality of Latter-day Saints. In the face of such achievements, it is particularly disappointing that so few non-Mormons have also become interested in the scholarly investigation of Mormonism as a religious movement. With the exception of Jan Shipps and a handful of others, non-Mormon scholars have shown little serious interest in the inner religious life that has given meaning to the external social activities of Latter-day Saints.

This oversight is not accidental. To state the situation bluntly, most educated non-Mormons still find the religious side of Latter-day Saints (as opposed to their purely social achievements) at best opaque. The growing respect for Mormon social history has not spread as yet, except in rare cases, to respect for Mormon beliefs. During the past two decades I have been at many informal non-Mormon gatherings in scholarly conferences at which the subject of Mormonism has arisen. Almost invariably at least one individual has turned to me and said something along the following lines: "One thing about them has always puzzled me. I have a valued Mormon colleague who seems to be an otherwise fine and intelligent person, but frankly it baffles me how any thinking individual could believe what he does. I just can't understand it."

I can understand this sense of disbelief as well. After all this was my own initial reaction both to Mormons and to their history. Before I got to know Mormons better, they chiefly appeared to be hardworking, clean-cut, loyal, thrifty, brave, clean, reverent—and utterly boring. No group ever talked more about free will (or in Mormon parlance "free agency") yet in practice seemed to exercise free will less in important matters. I was vividly reminded of a cartoon that showed a large, overbearing woman talking with her neighbor while her small, shy husband dutifully sat on the couch, his hands meekly folded. The woman was saying: "Hubert has a will of iron; he just seldom gets a chance to use it." This for me was the epitome of Mormonism and why I found it basically uninteresting and even sometimes distasteful.

Popular Mormon history merely reinforced this stereotype. Mormons throughout history, it seemed, had always been paragons of virtue, dedicated to the faith 100 percent or more. They had never had any doubts or problems except how better to spread the "gospel" among non-Mormons, who for inexplicable reasons were adamantly opposed to accepting the "truth." For me to give any credence to such Pollyanna-ish writing was impossible. Even without any knowledge of what had actually gone on, I was certain that the official version could not be the full story. Surely there must be more to Mormon history than such naive accounts indicated if their church had been able to achieve the remarkable degree of success that it had.

My investigation of what has sometimes been called "the New Mormon History" finally led me into real appreciation of the Mormon past and what Mormonism might become in the future. In beginning research for a 1973 paper on the origin of Mormon polygamy, I fortuitously decided to read systematically through all the back issues of Dialogue to see what the current historical and religious concerns of Mormonism were. The result was a minor revelation. Latter-day Saints clearly were not simply a bunch of zombies but in fact were real people who were struggling with many of the same questions that in a different religious tradition had also baffled and challenged me. Perhaps by studying Mormons I could gain insight not simply into their past but into my own as well.

[p.118]The Mormon past came even more vividly alive as I began to work closely in printed and manuscript records, especially those in LDS church archives. What a fascinating cast of varied and interesting people I encountered. These were not the modern-day stereotype of dutiful, unquestioning, and unbelievable "saints" but real men and women who struggled in new and more creative ways to understand themselves, their faith, and their place in the world. Figures such as Joseph Smith and so many others became real to me as I read first hand of their personal efforts, triumphs, and failures. Any group which could attract such talent and dedication was surely worthy of deeper investigation. What a pity that the poorly informed writers of Sunday school manuals and approved histories were evidently ignorant of the vitality and richness of their own faith.

Nowhere was such blindness to their own history more pronounced than in Mormon treatments of polygamy, the primary topic I was investigating. The most common approach seemed to be to say as little as possible about the subject, as though it was something of which to be ashamed. Only when talking about how inexplicably nasty and hostile non-Mormons were to the Saints was polygamy brought up, and then almost exclusively as a religious revelation that had been introduced to test the faith of the Saints. But working with manuscript records, I became vividly aware of the importance that polygamy had for nineteenth-century Mormons—not simply as a test of faith but also as an integral part of a total way of life. Although I personally found polygamy distasteful, clearly many of the men and women who practiced it were fine people who did so sincerely and to the best of their ability. Simply to ignore a practice for which they had struggled and sacrificed so long seemed to be doing fundamental violence to the history of Mormonism as a whole. I wanted somehow to recapture that past and help both Mormons and non-Mormons to achieve a more constructive understanding of this remarkable Latter-day Saint effort to restructure relations between men and women.

Despite the great achievements of Mormon historical studies over the past two decades, many Latter-day Saints nevertheless have remained fearful of realistic writing about the Mormon past or attempts to deal seriously with controversial issues such as polygamy. The repeatedly expressed anxiety is that such an open and honest approach might not be "faith promoting," that it might tend to raise questions which would cause Latter-day Saints to be less loyal to their church. As a result of such fears, the last few years have seen an increasing drive from some factions of the church to restrict or even put a stop to serious historical studies of Mormonism. Leaders of the church are now calling publicly for their historians to write only sanitized, saccharine accounts, treatments which would best be characterized as "propaganda" by an objective observer. Never in the past decade has the outlook for the serious writing of Mormon history appeared so grim.

I am convinced that this restrictive tendency can only be counterproductive. The writing of misleading yet supposedly "positive" accounts of the Mormon past will be neither faith promoting nor good history. Of course it all depends on what kind of faith one is trying to promote. If one wishes to promote uninformed, unthinking acquiescence to the church as an institution that can do no wrong, then clearly the propagandistic approach is most suitable. But if one wishes to promote a mature faith tested by a responsible exercise of free agency, then such an approach can only be destructive and self-defeating. All too many Saints seem to be less concerned with promoting faith in Mormonism and more concerned with promoting faith in the naive writings that have appeared about Mormonism, even if those accounts can be clearly shown to be misleading or inaccurate. It is indeed sad that for some Saints the horror of having any doubt is so great that they do not see the even greater horror of having a faith so small that they are afraid ever to doubt or test it for fear the whole structure would crumble. Realistic faith, it seems to me, must grow out of confidence rather than fear and defensiveness.

One of the most frequently voiced fears is that serious historical writings tend to "secularize" Mormonism. This view is a red herring, in my opinion. For believing Mormons to write either an exclusively "religious" or an exclusively "secular" version of their history is for them to make a false dichotomy since Mormonism, more than most contemporary religions, has refused to accept a religious-secular dichotomy at all. Mormon theology unequivocally states that the spiritual dimension is comprised of a form of matter too and presumably must also be subject to some form of natural law, if only we could understand it. Joseph Smith asserted: "All spirit is matter, but it is more refined and pure, and can only be discerned by purer eyes." "Spirit is a substance that is material but that is more pure and elastic and refined matter than the body. . . . It existed before the body, can exist in the body, and will exist separate from the body when the body will be moldering in the dust."

Growing out of this assertion is the Mormon belief that when properly sealed under church authority, earthly relationships will literally continue and develop further in the afterlife and for all eternity. Death then is only a transition to a higher realm of reality which nevertheless involves a type of physical order even though we normally cannot comprehend that order because of our earthly limitations. (The analogy presented in Edwin Abbott's Flatland would be useful here.) Moreover, because this life and the afterlife are believed to be indissolubly linked, it also follows that in the last analysis all religious and secular activities on earth ideally should be inseparable. The extraordinary Mormon effort to set up Zion in the American west during the nineteenth century reflected this drive to integrate all reality into a unitary whole. In short Mormonism paradoxically is the most overtly materialistic of all major offshoots of the Christian tradition. Yet at the same time it also emphatically affirms the reality of the spiritual dimension of life. Mormons might thus be said to believe in a form of "spiritual materialism."

This explicitly materialistic orientation has some important logical consequences for Mormons studying their own history. Naive Saints, of course, will undoubtedly continue to look upon events of their past as having happened due to unaccountable divine fiat. More mature Saints, however, have the important option of investigating even the seemingly miraculous or inexplicable elements of their history to try to understand their naturalistic dynamics insofar as that is possible. Such investigation need not reduce the sense of awe, mystery, and power in Mormonism. Anyone who has ever read widely among the great writers in the natural and physical sciences such as Loren Eisley, Stephen Jay Gould, or Carl Sagan is surely aware that deeper understanding heightens rather than reduces our sensitivity to the ultimate wonder that is life. Similarly human history itself when understood deeply and fully is an ever-unfolding miracle. Not ignorance but knowledge is ultimately the most effective in promoting a rich and vital faith. As Mormons would say: "The glory of God is intelligence."

The writing of good history is also necessary if the Mormon church is to deal constructively with the challenges it faces. Since the end of World War II, Latter-day Saints have entered a new period of [p.121]crisis and transition brought about somewhat paradoxically by their very success in attracting new members. The seven-fold Mormon growth to over seven million members and the spread of that membership out of the intermountain west and into other parts of the United States and the world is already requiring significant institutional changes. The long-range intellectual changes will eventually be even more profound, however, probably greater than those which took place in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. At that time Mormonism gave up polygamy and most of its political exclusivity in order to reach at least a working accommodation with American society as a whole. If Mormonism is successfully to reach out into the world in the latter part of the twentieth century, it must also eventually shed many of its parochialisms. As only one example, the remarkable Mormon success in Brazil, where limiting membership due to racial antecedents ultimately proved too complex to be practical, contributed significantly to eliminating the policy of excluding blacks of African descent from full participation in the church.

In this as in similar cases, historians and others may play a crucial role in articulating the need for change and providing evidence that may encourage and support leaders in making necessary changes. On the particular issue of race, the new policy itself may well have come about primarily because of the institutional demands of the church, but without the often unpopular writings of historians to prepare the way, elimination of this policy might have taken much longer than it did. In the future similar issues will undoubtedly arise. Historians and others both inside and outside the church will continue to be needed because of broader and more realistic perspectives they can provide on both past and present. As a non-Mormon historian, I shall watch with great interest as the Latter-day Saint movement continues to struggle to come to terms with itself and with the challenges of an ever-changing society. Much has already been accomplished in writing Mormon history, but much more remains to be done if Mormon historians are to help successfully in spanning the gap between the still insular confines of Mormonism and the larger world.

As you know, I wrote the post on "faith-promoting history." It was brief and covered only a tiny part of why I can provide - with links and references - to faith-promoting history.

I believe the reason your link broke is that the article was available at the online library of Signature Books, a Mormon publishing company, which became temporarily unavailable as of April 7, 2011. The website is being moved, updated and books are being proofed, organized, and uploaded. Here is the explanation.

Links from my post on "faith-promoting history" are now 404'd as well.

When completed, the online library for Signature Books will be available here. Notice the slightly different domain name. About 50 books are available there now, as opposed to the 150 0r 200 that were available previously. What's sad about your link disappearing (if your link to the article above is the same as my link), is that the article was part of a Signature Books collection of about a dozen articles on the difficulties in writing and reading Mormon History, many of them with thirty to sixty footnotes to articles available online in the articles in Dialogue: A Journal on Mormon Thought, or in Sunstone magazine, or in other academic periodicals. It was a great starting place to read about writing and reading Mormon history by both LDS historians and non-LDS religious academics.

delacoert, my post on "faith-promoting" history was perhaps 1% of what I have on the subject of publishing only faith-promoting history;

I didn't provide links or footnotes to my references, which I can do.

You could start by asking a few authors and historians about the church's view on academic freedom.

Fawn M. Brodie.

Grant Palmer.

Thomas W. Murphy.

D.Michael Quinn.

Avraham Gileadi.

Paul Toscano.

Lavina Fielding Anderson.

Maxine Hanks.

Lynne Kanavel Whitesides.

Michael Barrett.

Brent Metcalfe.

Janice Allred.

Margaret Toscano.

Shane LeGrande Whelan.

Boyd Packer didn't start the concept of hiding history; he just gave it the famous name of publishing only "faith-promoting" history.

Here, direct from Brigham Young University, is LDS Apostle Boyd K. Packer's speech on the Mantle is Far, Far Greater Than The Intellect," which was originally given to BYU professors and church employee-historians. (PD's favorite source, www.fairlds.org, admits that the speech took place; however fairlds says that it is perfect fine for a religious employer to tell its employees what historical facts may be told - notwithstanding that (a) some of the employees are BYU professors who are supposed to enjoy academic freedom, (b) the members of the church are told that the history they are provided is true and not completely laundered, and (c) the speech was later published in a pamphlet and distributed beyond this select crowd).

This speech is where the phrases "faith-promoting" history comes from. Note this article comes FROM BYU. It was later published in a pamphlet for wider distribution.

As a starting place, you may also want to delve into the letter (you'll find the same letter published everywhere, including some photos of the typed letter.) LDS Apostle Bruce McConkie wrote to BYU historian Eugene England back in 1981, regarding England's paper sent to McConkie for review, Perfection and Progression of God: Two Spheres of Existence and Two Modes of Discourse." (it was published eight years later with a slightly different name). In the letter McConkie chided England for publicly discussing controversial statements made by Brigham Young, though he fully admitted Young did in fact teach them. In closing he warned England:

"Now I hope you will ponder and pray and come to a basic understanding of fundamental things and that unless and until you can on all points, you will remain silent on those where differences exist between you and the Brethren. This is the course of safety. I advise you to pursue it. If you do not, perils lie ahead. It is not too often in this day that any of us are told plainly and bluntly what ought to be. I am taking the liberty of so speaking to you at this time, and become thus a witness against you if you do not take the counsel."

You see, McConkie had taken the position that God never progressed in his views, despite the changing revelations that were given to LDS prophets (remember the policy on the priesthood for Blacks? Polygamy? Adam-Gold? Even McConkie admits that Brigham Young taught Adam-God.).

Here's a .mp3 of the speech. Here's an unedited transcript of the speech.

Here's the version of McConkie's speech as published by BYU, which has been edited.

Google McConkie and England and you'll find plenty written by Mormon and non-Mormon authors.

Put you hands on the June 1945 copy of Improvement Era Magazine (the predecessor to Ensign magazine), sponsored by the LDS General Authority and the official magazine of the LDS Young Men's Mutual Improvement Association. Flip to page 354:

"When our leaders speak, the thinking has been done. When they point the way, there is no other which is safe. When they give direction, it should mark the end of controversy.... He [Satan] wins a great victory when he can get members of the Church to speak against their leaders and to 'do their own thinking'"

delacoert, you wouldn't believe what all I have. I'm not going to post an article on LDS history or church-mandated deception because I believe that LDS members have every right to practice their religion. I simply get angry - particularly because of things PD said to me after I started a polite conversation with him - when LDS apologists call people liars and propagandists for publishing historical facts about LDS history, when those apologists KNOW that the LDS church has a policy of publishing only faith-promoting history and of pulling temple recommends, disenfellowshipping, or excommunicating historians for publishing facts that are true but not faith-promoting.

Using "propaganda" for non-faith-promoting LDS history may not have begun with BYU religion professor Stephen E. Robinson, but I noted him using it.

Writing for Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies in 1991, he said that "empirical" studies of Mormonism are 'propaganda.'

That's the same word that Paragon Defender used immediately whenever anyone stated anything he didn't like. Remember that PD suggested www.fairlds.org as the first place to research 'facts' about Mormonism, even though fairlds.org is not affiliated with nor approved by the LDS Church. I've always believed PD was one of the staffers at fairlds.org

If you read the one-star reviews on Amazon of academic books on Mormon history, you'll frequently find the term "propaganda" used. For example try Mormonism 101: Examining the Religion of the Latter-Day Saints . One of these one-star reviews says:

What can reasonably be said about this book, in the scope of one of these reviews, has been said here by others.

In short, this book is really nothing more than yet another of the many works of thoughtless propaganda written by ignorant and dishonest fools.

A complete response to this book is in the works, and what has been completed of it so far may be viewed at this URL:

http://www.fairlds.org/apol/morm201/

What PD's www.fairlds.org typically does is to put up a link page to a book or subject that they call 'anti-Mormon" with some canned text saying it is anti-Mormon, but fairlds.org doesn't explain why or give cites to any historical documents, academic papers, Mormon doctrine, or other sources. It's just "we say so" and "someday, we'll get around to figuring out an argument why we don't like it, and we'll write it down."

What is tragically humorous for a website that PD told everyone to go to for the truth is that many, many pages within the website would then LINK to the STUB PAGE for the book or subject that fairlds.org objected to as support for an argument made on another page. On those other pages, you would see a link and think "wow, they even have a reference source for this statement; it must be a fact."

If you clicked on the link - it would take you to a blank page with a "we think this is anti-Mormon and some day we hope to explain why." There are countless stub links in the cite. For other articles, there may be fifteen or more reference links, as if there are fifteen sources to back up an article. They will all go to the same source - which may be a stub link, or another fairlds.org article that is supported by stub links, or to short articles written by fairlds.org members whose research is supported by . . . stub links and research papers written by other fairlds.org members.

But I digress.

If you disagree with fairlds.org's conclusions . . . or, if according to Professor Stephen Robinson, you publish empirical history instead of faithful LDS history, then you're engaged in propaganda.

Here are the archives for Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought. Dialogue does not require its authors to be bound by the "faith-promoting" standard, while BYU's Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies journal is limited to faith-promoting articles.

Read.

Search for articles from prominent Mormon author famous for using original sources to heavily document their writings, but who were excommunicated for writing the truth - like D. Michael Quinn. Until I wrote this post, I didn't even realize that the leadership of the LDS church conducted espionage on 'liberal' BYU professors in 1966. Thanks, Dr. Quinn.

Book reviews, like the one on the involvement of Joseph Smith's family's in magic and mysticism are interesting. I may order a copy.

I think you'll find one of Quinn's articles on all of the post-Manifesto marriages that took place with authorization of the church.

Sunstone magzine is another LDS magazine that does not follow the faith-promoting requirement. You can read from current issues at the site. LDS writers have been excommunicated simply for presenting at Sunstone symposiums.

Which is a little odd, given that the LDS's official Encyclopedia of Mormonism (Encyclopedia of Mormonism 3:1389) lists Dialogue and Sunstone as magazines of value to Mormons:

they "provide an opportunity to learn and distribute new insights regarding theology, the scriptures, ancient cultures, historical events, and current practices. Dedicated members wanting to combine their religious beliefs with their professional training have made significant scholarly contributions, and unofficial journals provide outlets for publishing them."

Read away!

Let's explain further about FAIRLDS, although I don't think FAIR intended this (but they did intend the stub links, multiple cites to the same source, cites to short faith-promoting history by FAIR authors, and cites to faith-promoting history that ignores LDS history or teaching, such as the teachings of Brigham Young). One FAIR's Topical Guide for Early LDS History, FAIR lists all of these impressive-sounding Other Resouces:

"Kirtland Safety Society," FAIR Wiki (City Unknown: FAIR) This FAIR Wiki article examines Joseph's Smith's involvement with the Kirtland Safety Society, why it failed, and the critical charges related to Joseph's involement.

Russell Anderson, "The 1826 Trial of Joseph Smith," (2002 FAIR Conference presentation.) Was Joseph Smith convicted of being a fraud and glass looker?

Russell Anderson, "The 1826 Trial of Joseph Smith," (Mesa, Arizona: FAIR, August 2002) In his 2002 FAIR Conference presentation, Russell Anderson responds to critics who attempt to use the 1826 "trial" to impugn the reputation and character of Joseph Smith.

Kevin L. Barney, "A Tale of Two Restorations," (1999 FAIR Conference presentation.) A comparison of the LDS restoration movement and the Alexander Campbell restoration movement.

Davis Bitton, "George Q. Cannon and the Apostates," (Mesa, Arizona: FAIR, December 2005) Davis Bitton summarizes President George Q. Cannon's statements on why people apostatize and how apostates should be viewed.

Davis Bitton, "I Don't Have A Testimony of the History of the Church," 2004 FAIR Conference presentation. 2004 FAIR Conference presentation. Some of the most knowledgeable historians of LDS history, are believing Latter-day Saints. Bitton explains why accurate history is not a threat to one's testimony.

Matthew B. Brown, "Historical or Hysterical. Anti-Mormons and Documentary Sources," (Mesa, Arizona: FAIR, April 2005) At the 2004 FAIR Conference, Matthew Brown presented a presentation that examined many of the claims made by anti-Mormons about Joseph Smith's character and his account of the events of the Restoration. Anti-Mormon literature is filled with many accusations against Joseph Smith: he was of low moral character, he was not spiritually-minded as a youth, the "true" accounts of his behavior and personality have been nefariously suppresed by the Church, and that historical records show that Joseph Smith's accounting of the Restoration evolved into the story that is told today. Brown brings up evidence showing that these anti-Mormon claims are unsupported and contradicted by the evidence. This article includes the slide presentation used by Brown, and shows point by point how anti-Mormon accusations really are more hysteria than history.

David Ferguson, "Miraculous Events in Early Church History," (Mesa, Arizona: FAIR, July 2005) David Ferguson recounts a number of miracles, fulfilled prophecies, and "marvelous events" in LDS Church history.

Louis Midgley, "Naturalistic Terms: Some Reflections on a Motto and Type of Historical Explanation," (2001 FAIR Conference presentation.) A look at the "New Mormon History" and its naturalistic approach to the origin of the restored Church.

Louis C. Midgley, "Naturalistic Terms: Some Reflections on a Motto and Type of Historical Explanation," (Mesa, Arizona: FAIR, April 2003) Originally presented at the 2001 FAIR Conference, this article by Louis Midgley examines the roots of the "New Mormon History" movement.

Margaret Blair Young, "Black Latter-day Saints: A Faith-FULL History," (Mesa, Arizona: FAIR, 2003 FAIR Conference) In her 2003 FAIR Conference presentation, Margaret Blair Young shares stories of faithful black Latter-day Saints from the early days of the Church.

Now, that LOOKS impressive. One problem is that only one of those links is valid. The one about a Faith-FULL history of Black Latter-Day Saints. It mentions that one of the Saints in Missouri was Black, and that one of the Saints who travelled to Utah was Black. Somehow, it never gets around to mentioning Brigham Young's teachings on Blacks not being able to receive the priesthood or on the Church's following that teaching for years. But the articles a FULL teaching . . . if you're applying the "faith-promoting" history standard.

Another problem is that two of the links are to articles written by Louis C. Midgley, who said in 1981:

"It is depressing to see some historians now struggling to get on the stage to act out the role of the mature, honest historian committed to something called 'objective history,' and, at the same time, the role of faithful Saint.

So FAIRLDS's pages look like they are chock-full of research. And they are. If you count stub links, 404 links, links to faith-promoting history that leaves out Brigham Young's teachings, links to similar articles written by FAIR members that cite stub links and faith-promoting history, and articles that contain a dozen cites in a four-paragraph analysis (with all of those cites being - if you click on them - to the same stub or same short article written by another FAIR member who has relied upon the article that relies upon him).

A few new quotes for you (and as Henny Youngman would say, "I got a million of 'em).

“I have a hard time with historians... because they idolize the truth. The truth is not uplifting; it destroys. Historians should tell only that part of the truth that is inspiring and uplifting.”

--LDS Apostle Boyd K. Packer, at a talk delivered at Sunstone Symposium, Salt Lake City, August 19, 1994.

"No Latter-day Saint who is true and faithful in all things will ever pursue a course, or espouse a cause, or publish an article or book that weakens or destroys faith.”

--LDS Apostle Bruce R. McConkie, LDS Conference Report, October 1984, p. 104.

“Many things have been intentionally ignored and sometimes concealed or have been taken to have religious meanings or implications which, in my opinion, have no religious connections whatsoever. I believe that the Church has intentionally distorted its own history by dealing fast and loose with historical data and imposing theological and religious interpretations on the data that are entirely unwarranted.”

--Sterling McMurrin, Mormon scholar, “7EP Interview: Sterling M. McMurrin,” by Blake Ostler, Seventh East Press, January 11, 1983, p. 1.

Are you beginning to see why LDS members are blindsided, dumbfounded, and doubtful of objective LDS history? And why there has to be a group of apologists like fairlds.org and Paragon Defender to battle those who dare shine a light on history that is not "faith-promoting"?

A few new quotes for you (and as Henny Youngman would say, "I got a million of 'em).

--LDS Apostle Boyd K. Packer, at a talk delivered at Sunstone Symposium, Salt Lake City, August 19, 1994.

"No Latter-day Saint who is true and faithful in all things will ever pursue a course, or espouse a cause, or publish an article or book that weakens or destroys faith.”

--LDS Apostle Bruce R. McConkie, LDS Conference Report, October 1984, p. 104.

--Sterling McMurrin, Mormon scholar, “7EP Interview: Sterling M. McMurrin,” by Blake Ostler, Seventh East Press, January 11, 1983, p. 1.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.