Church History is NOT Church Testimony:

Used Properly, History Only Provides Perspective

Preface: Becoming complacent about the gospel is a mistake. Only Jesus fully mastered living the gospel. For the rest of us, there is more to the gospel than we can learn and master in a lifetime.

One should NOT conclude having taken a Seminary or Institute class, for example, that one has mastered the content of the Bible, Book of Mormon, or Church History. The proper lesson to have learned would be: "I can study this topic for a lifetime and still be gaining NEW knowledge!!"

Learning is unavoidable if we are living the gospel. There is a principle worth remembering: As we learn new truths, our testimonies should strengthen, not weaken. Embrace new truths and discard falsehoods. This is the lifelong process.

*****New Views Require New Perspectives*****

Some peoples’ convictions fail when they discover a surprising point in Church history. Some people become angry because their original conceptions of Church history were wrong. Yet, when we learn, our misconceptions must give way to better understandings.

For example, it is a common misperception that Joseph Smith handled and examined the ancient gold plates as he "translated" the reformed Egyptian on the Book of Mormon. Instead, Joseph Smith may have "translated" portions of the Book of Mormon using a seer stone in a hat. (See: Russell M. Nelson, “A Treasured Testament,” Ensign, July 1993, 61; and also my fellow blogger: Tim Malone's essay). Well, Joseph may have used such a device, but we have no first-hand account. Read the following, giving attention to the very first phrase:

Richard Bushman, Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling, N. Y.: Knopf, p. 71-72.
Neither Joseph nor Oliver explained how translation worked, but Joseph did not pretend to look at the “reformed Egyptian” words, the language on the plates, according to the book’s own description. The plates lay covered on the table, while Joseph’s head was in a hat looking at the seerstone which by this time [with Cowdery as transcriber] had replaced the interpreters [the Urim and Thummim].

We should not presume how prophets work. Even the above quote is just a best guess. Again, we have only second-hand accounts of the process of translation. (Joseph and Oliver would be the only possible first-hand sources).

Here is one more example: Many LDS members believe that Joseph was thrown into Carthage Jail for trumped-up reasons. Why was Joseph really thrown in jail? The main reason was that he ordered the destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor press, a local newspaper that was exposing polygamy in the Church. Was that a good thing to do? Maybe not according to some.

Below is an excerpt from the Expositor. The statement is by William Law who was in the First Presidency as a counselor, but who dissociated himself from the Church when he learned of polygamy. Having left the Church, he helped found the Expositor. The news building was right next door to the Nauvoo temple. See excerpt below:

*****Excerpt*****

NAUVOO EXPOSITOR.
--THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH.--

VOL. I. ] NAUVOO, ILLINOIS, FRIDAY, JUNE 7, 1844 [ NO. 1. …

AFFIDAVITS.
I hereby certify that Hyrum Smith did, (in his office,) read to me a certain written document [now Section 132], which he said was a revelation from God, he said that he was with Joseph when it was received. He afterwards gave us the document to read, and I took it to my house, and read it, and showed it to my wife, and returned it next day. The revelation (so called) authorized certain men to have more wives than one at a time, in this world and in the world to come. It said this was the law, and commanded Joseph to enter into the law. -- And also that he should administer to others. Several other items were in the revelations, supporting the above doctrines.

WM. LAW.
     
     

*****

Note that the paper appeared on Friday. On the following Monday, the Nauvoo city council, led by Joseph Smith, ordered the press destroyed immediately. It was.

The Laws and others registered complaints in the county seat, Carthage. Ultimately, these complaints caused Joseph Smith to be arrested, placed in jail, and martyred.

From a religious perspective, it is not easy for Latter-day Saints to believe that Joseph Smith made a mistake in destroying the Expositor. Joseph Smith knew that when polygamy became public knowledge that would be the beginning of the end of Nauvoo. He also probably knew that it was the end of him.

Early Mormon history is very colorful, and like any history the flaws of people are exposed. Joseph Smith, although VERY inspired, was NOT perfect. Why? He was human.

At the same time, we need to appreciate that our written history is itself flawed. When we read history we should never think we are reading THE full truth. The very best history books are probably only 70 to 80 percent accurate? Why? Because history is very hard to reconstruct.

Occasionally, one reads blogs critical of the Church that seem to be claiming, “I know more history than you.” Such arguments are based in intellectual arrogance.

"Thinking" Mormons need to be operating on a MORE FIRM FOUNDATION. We need to be prepared to handle controversial issues as we study and learn. In this context, we need to keep the following issues in mind:

1. Historians do not know everything, but they know some things.
2. History CANNOT test gospel truthfulness. No academic field can.
3. We are a Church of revelation, prepared to receive new light.
4. We embrace all truth, regardless of where it is found.
5. Our enthusiasm for a topic should NOT overwhelm appropriate skepticism.
6. Conversely, our skepticism should NOT block our way to truths.
7. We will always be required to make leaps of faith.
8. Our faith is never going to be fully logical.
9. We cannot convince the arrogant.
10. We must pray and be guided by the promptings of the Holy Ghost.

Learning any new topic, even outside of religion, involves some discomfort. New information requires verification and validation. But, life-time learners should never hesitate to seek the discomfort of an expanded mind. In the end, only truth matters, and we are NEVER required to believe falsehood.

*****The Early View of Priesthood*****

History does not teach us theology but it does teach us perspective. Too many misunderstand the life of Joseph Smith, believing that the "restoration" happened all at once – fully developed. Did Joseph Smith have a "full understanding" when the Church was established in 1830? History does NOT verify that view.

Take for example the concept of priesthood. To us today, priesthood is a central concept. We cannot imagine the Church without it. Of course, we operate with the benefit of hindsight, which is always 20-20. Joseph Smith had no such advantage. In the beginning of the Church his revelations on priesthood did not make complete sense to him. He had never been to a Church where priesthood played a role. What was priesthood??

Richard L. Bushman, a tremendous historian from Columbia University and a Church Patriarch, has recently published what I think will be the standard biography on Joseph Smith. This is what his relatively new (2005) book says:

Richard L. Bushman, Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling, p. 202
Most Protestants, and certainly the radical visionary sects most akin to Mormonism, put little stock in priesthood; it was papist, hierarchical, and insidious. Their impulse was to reduce and dilute priesthood, spreading it thinly among all Christians.

Priesthood figured in Joseph’s theology from the time of the June 1831 conference when elders were ordained to the Melchizedek Priesthood, but a year passed before he grasped the central role priesthood was to play in the Church. In November 1831, he was told to appoint a “President of the high Priesthood.” In time this office was recognized as the highest in the Church – the Mormon equivalent of the pope – but its importance eluded him for six months. Joseph was sustained as President of the High Priesthood at the Amherst Conference in January 1832, but his later history failed to mention the fact. He only noted that “considerable business was done to advance the kingdom.” In a similar lapse, Joseph failed to record the date of the visit by Peter, James, and John to restore the apostleship, nor did he include the event in the first edition of his revelations. For years, priesthood appeared only dimly in his thinking.

Again, the point is, that it is easy for us to see the importance of priesthood now, but in those days it was practically a new concept. “Americans” did not have priests and priesthood – they abhorred such concepts. Consequently, Joseph Smith had to figure it out from scratch.

From the beginning of the Church, Joseph had figured out that there would be teachers, priests, and elders. So, men in the Church were licensed with those titles. However, Joseph only figured out later that “priesthood” should be tied into those titles!! Here is what Bushman has to say on the subject:

Richard L. Bushman, Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling, p. 157-159
Because priesthood was an alien concept to Yankee Christians, Joseph may have considered it prudent to say nothing about priesthood in the early years, or possibly he did not understand it himself. So far as can be told now, before 1831 men were called to church offices – elders, priests, and teachers – given authority, and licensed without reference to a bestowal of priesthood. At the June [1831] conference, the word “priesthood” was used and priesthood was bestowed as if it was an addition to previous authority. …

Because he knew so little about priesthood at the beginning, Joseph could no more grasp its meaning than he comprehended the full significance of the First Vision as a teenager. Although he understood such Church offices as teacher and elder, it took time to comprehend that the powers of priesthood were included in the authority that went with those offices.

It is, therefore, presumptuous of us modern Latter-day Saints to think that Joseph knew everything about priesthood when he was ordained by Peter, James, and John. At the time of the vision he knew something important had happened but he probably did not understand its full significance or even how it fit into the Church.

Such historical findings teach us how Joseph operated as a prophet. He operated by the method of line upon line and precept upon precept. Church organizational principles were not just handed to him on a platter. Instead, they were given to him little by little. In fact, Bushman argues that Joseph had to ponder his revelations after he received them. Only after much struggle did Joseph begin to grasp the central importance of priesthood and its connection to authority and Church office.

*****Modern Applications*****

Let's switch the context to modern prophets. What conceptual issues do they struggle with? Let me give an example. For years and years it was thought that temples had to be expansive and expensive buildings like the Salt Lake Temple. As a result only a few temples were built. Then, in the late 1970s the Brethren, under the direction of Spencer W. Kimball, began to toy with the idea of having smaller temples. Finally, under Gordon B. Hinckley this policy went into full swing – and now we have the Winter Quarters temple and dozens upon dozens like it.

What other visions await??? What other great doctrines and policies have yet to come forth???

Church revelations are NOT magic!! Each revelation represents a prophet’s struggle with some issue, often one that is not fully understood. Even after the revelation is given, most of the time the Lord has the Church leadership work out the remaining details. Very little, if anything, is handed to the Church on a platter.

Joseph Smith said the design of the Nauvoo temple was a revelation from the Lord. When it came time to restore the temple in our own time, why didn’t the Lord just reveal the details to Gordon B. Hinckley like he did to Joseph Smith??? Why?? The answer is probably because we had the capacity to find out the necessary information on our own through the study of historical documents.

The Lord did provide the way, it would seem. In 1948 (yes, that’s right 1948) two missionaries were tracting and happened to knock on the door of the grandson of William Weeks who was the architect of the original Nauvoo temple. The grandson offered the missionaries between 20 and 30 original blueprint drawings, which were then handed over to the Church. Those drawings were the basis for the restoration of the new Nauvoo temple.

Modern lesson: We should not be surprised to learn that the early Church was different from our modern one. Prophets must be allowed to learn. Revelations do not reveal everything. Almost always, revelations leave work to be done by us. It is as if the Lord gives strong hints, but not the full answer, especially when we have the capacity to figure it out ourselves.

*****

Copyright 2008 S.Faux (Email: foxgoku54@gmail.com; URL: http://mormoninsights.blogspot.com). Readers may distribute this post provided such distributing is of the entire post, including author's copyright and contact information. All other rights reserved.




Please feel free to give my blog site a "Blogged.com" rating and review by clicking here.

*****
Support Mormon Insights by making a COMMENT.