Conference Aftermath II: The Baron's Guide to Church History

“Hey, Baron," you say, "I’m interested in learning about LDS Church history…do you have any advice for me?”

Why, yes…thanks for asking!  Many people have a passing-to-serious interest in Church history and spend a lot of time studying and discussing it.  You're welcome to join in if you'd like.  Just let me share with you The Baron's Two Fundamental Principles Of Studying Church History to keep in mind:

(1) I don’t know what happened 150+ years ago—who said or did what to whom…

(2) Neither do you.

If you study Church history you’ll hear about a lot of things: some of it faith promoting, some of it not, and some of it just so weird you don’t know what to think…

When you hear such and so a person did or said ____ in 18-something-something, there are really four possibilities:

        (1)  The story is completely accurate, and exactly reflects the Lord’s will towards His church at the time—they did/said what He wanted them to.

        (2)  The story is completely accurate, but reflects Church members doing (or saying) something that was not the Lord’s will—often directly contrary to it.

        (3) The story is only partially accurate—with details that were misunderstood, changed, left out, or taken out of context through time so that it no longer really reflects the facts of what really happened.

        (4) The story was completely made up from the beginning, with no factual basis at all, and was carried down through the years by people who desperately wanted to believe it was true because it fit with their natural beliefs.

And so your task becomes: for each story X, determine in which of the four categories it belongs.

How are you going to do it?

The question becomes, not: ‘is the answer important’…but ‘is the answer possible to find’? You’ll find scholars on any subject who will put forth conflicting mounds of evidence, with conflicting opinions on what it means. Are the positive stories you hear accurate, or ‘white-washed’ by faithful Church members? Are the negative stories accurate, or grossly exaggerated (or fabricated entirely) by anti-Church types? Some of both, you say? How do you tell which is which, then?

• So, when and how did the black priesthood ban really come about?
• So, did Brigham Young approve of or know about the Mountain Meadows Massacre ahead of time?
• So, what was polygamy really like in the early days of the Church?

Now…outline a method where the answers to these questions can be obtained conclusively… Is there one? If not, then at what point do discussions of said questions become pointless?

It is a truism that most people will generally accept ‘truths’ that fall in line with their core beliefs--and oppose those that do not--without thinking too critically about their accuracy in either case. The side you take on ‘He did not!/He did too!’ discussions will almost always be influenced by whether you want one side to be true more than the other.  When you have 20/21^st century scholars with their inherent biases, reporting on things 19^th century people said they heard other 19^th century people do or say--with their biases--you have an equation with too many variables. And in math, you can’t solve a problem with too many variables…you can only discuss possibilities.  And you know what?  You can analyze it as long and hard as you want--and you'll still be left with the same set of possibilities...and no answer.

It’s no wonder Church leaders are hesitant to delve into deep discussions of Church history. What’s the point? People can (and will) discuss, question, debate, dispute, argue, and fight over what things happened when…and when it’s over they are no closer to figuring out what really happened than they were when they started…

So, if you really want to study Church history, go right ahead…nothing wrong with it. You could get plenty of history lessons from The Work and the Glory series, or from any number of anti-Mormon books that will gleefully tell you everything there is to know they want to tell you about happenings in the early Church. Just ask yourself: “What am I looking for? What do I hope to find?”

Sometimes, people are on the border and don’t know which way to lean—activity-wise—and hope some of the stories of the early Church will make their decision for them. You can find inspiring stories, and disturbing stories…and they might both be true, or neither. The question is whether you're merely exploring possibilities, or depending on it for answers...and whether you’re using Church history as a crutch—a sandy foundation to justify your pre-existing belief (or non-belief)—without looking around for a more solid foundation to rest upon…