The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has long had three missions: Perfecting the Saints, Proclaiming the Gospel, Redeeming the Dead.
A fourth was recently added: Caring for the Poor and Needy.
But all along, the LDS Church has had a fifth mission–Suppressing the Truth.
What truth is it the LDS Church actively suppresses? Any information that reflects negatively on Church leaders, its history, doctrine and practices.
Why does the LDS Church suppress this truth? Because it may negatively impact the testimony of its members and prevent them from being saved in the Kingdom of Heaven.
But does the suppression of truth have other consequences? Yes, it does.
And are some of these other consequences problematic? Yes, they are.
Specifically, the most serious consequence of suppressing the truth is the impact it has on the agency of humankind.
Does the Fifth Mission Destroy the Agency of Man?
People primarily base their decisions on information. Sometimes the information on which they act is incomplete; sometimes it is just plain wrong; but most would generally agree that the more information a person has, the more likely a good decision can be made.
The fifth mission of suppressing the truth makes sure we get only one side of the story–the “faith promoting” side. There are no grays in the LDS Church; only black and white. The Church wants to make sure we hear only the white. 
No element of black will be allowed to seep through.
All information that does not conform with the faithful narrative is systematically suppressed, excised and removed from the narrative. The tools for this mission are not fire and the sword, but white-out and the shredder.
Because the Church allows only the faithful side of the story to be told, people will necessarily choose to follow the restored gospel and be saved in the Kingdom of Heaven. They could choose nothing else. They would be unaware that any other choice could be made.
Are there problems with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints; historical anomalies and even contradictions? There are. But with this fifth mission in mind, nobody need know about them. The Church will sweep them under the rug so they do not detract from anybody’s testimony.
LDS leaders would make of their church a new Garden of Eden—but with the Tree of Knowledge removed.
The LDS Church would become one long episode of The Outer Limits.
There is nothing wrong with your television set. Do not attempt to adjust the picture. We are controlling transmission. We will control the horizontal. We will control the vertical. 
We can change the focus to a soft blur, or sharpen it to crystal clarity. For the next hour, sit quietly and we will control all that you see and hear.
If salvation can be accomplished only by suppressing the other side of the story, so be it. If people can’t make an informed decision because they know only one version of the facts, it is a small price to pay. If the Church has to “destroy the agency of man” in order to save them, who can complain?
The ends justify the means.
And what should happen if, in spite of the Church’s best efforts, a member begins to ask difficult questions–questions that challenge the one-sided narrative promoted by the fifth mission? She will be told to sit down and shut up. Politely, of course. Church leaders are, above all, gentlemen. But if she refuses to be silent, she must be culled from the herd in order to prevent her disease from spreading. She will be branded with a scarlet “A” as a warning to the other sheep to not “go and do thou likewise.”
Leaving the ninety and nine . . .
The Church will not leave the ninety-and-nine to “go after the one.” It will send a sniper up a tower to take out the one.
Remarkably, not only does the LDS Church have a long and established track record of suppressing the truth, Church leaders have from time to time actually said this is exactly what they are doing.
Under this head, let us examine statements from three current apostles of the LDS Church.
Boyd K. Packer
In speaking to CES instructors, Boyd K. Packer said, “Church history can be so interesting and so inspiring as to be a very powerful tool indeed for building faith. If not properly written or properly taught, it may be a faith destroyer. There is a temptation for the writer or the teacher of Church history to want to tell everything, whether it is worthy or faith promoting. Some things that are true are not very useful.” (Boyd K. Packer, “The Mantle is Far, Far Greater Than the Intellect,” 1981 BYU Studies, Vol. 21, No. 3, pp. 259-271.)
Notable is the tacit admission that Church history “may be a faith destroyer” if all the truth is told. The injunction is to teach only one side of the story; the side that is a “very powerful tool indeed for building faith.” Unspoken and unwritten must be those truths that are “not very useful.”
The “temptation” is “to tell everything.”
The ability to choose must be restricted by providing members access to only one side of the story; to only one set of facts. If their agency is destroyed by so doing, it is a small price to pay for building faith.
In his defense, Elder Packer 
is not willing to do something to others that he is not willing to do to himself. If he will attempt to deprive others of free agency, he will set the example and show the way. In a 1976 General Conference address, Elder Packer said this:
“I knew what agency was and knew how important it was to be an individual and to be independent, to be free. I somehow knew there was one thing the Lord would never take from me, and that was my free agency. I would not surrender my agency to any being but to Him! I determined that I would give Him the one thing that He would never take—my agency.”
One can only imagine God’s reaction to such an act. What God would not allow Satan to do to others, Elder Packer did to himself. In response to the issue that sparked a war in heaven, Elder Packer laid down his arms and surrendered. God, who liberated the captives by the spilling of his own blood, finds them voluntarily putting their chains back on.
Elder Dallin H. Oaks
But Elder Packer is not alone in proclaiming he wants only one-side of the story to be portrayed—the faith promoting side. Elder Dallin H. Oaks bears his apostolic witness that any contradictory facts, though true, must be suppressed.
“My duty as a member of the Council of the Twelve is to protect what is most unique about the LDS Church, namely the authority of the priesthood, testimony regarding the restoration of the gospel, and the divine mission of the Savior. Everything may be sacrificed in order to maintain the integrity of those essential facts.”[i]
Is this why Elder Oaks seeks to suppress any criticism of Church leaders? Because 
“everything may be sacrificed” in order to maintain their “integrity”?
In his 1985 address to the CES Symposium on the Doctrine and Covenants and Church History, Elder Oaks said:
“It is one thing to depreciate a person who exercises corporate power or even government power. It is quite another thing to criticize or depreciate a person for the performance of an office to which he or she has been called of God. It does not matter that the criticism is true.”[ii]
Elsewhere Elder Oaks indicates that the “value” of not depreciating church leaders is a “virtue” that leads him to suppress the truth.
“Truth surely exists as an absolute, but our use of truth should be disciplined by other values. . . . When truth is constrained by other virtues, the outcome is not falsehood but silence for a season.” (The Ensign, February, 1987)
In a particular revealing statement made in the 1985 CES address referred to above, Elder Oaks says:
“Balance is telling both sides. This is not the mission of official Church literature . . ..”
This makes for a jarring juxtaposition 
with what the LDS Church teaches about honesty in its Gospel Principles manual:
“There are many other forms of lying. When we speak untruths, we are guilty of lying. We can also intentionally deceive others by a gesture or a look, by silence, or by telling only part of the truth. Whenever we lead people in any way to believe something that is not true, we are not being honest. . . . Satan encourages us to justify our lies to ourselves. Honest people will recognize Satan’s temptations and will speak the whole truth, even if it seems to be to their disadvantage.”
What did that just say? Satan tempts people to not speak the whole truth? Is Elder Oaks resisting this temptation? Or succumbing to it?
And if Elder Oaks is committed to telling only one side of the story, is he justified in so doing as long as his goal is the salvation of his audience?
Elder Russell M. Nelson
Even Elder Nelson has gotten into the act. I say “even Elder Nelson” because while Elders Packer and Oaks have long come across as crusty and curmudgeonly, Elder Nelson has always struck me as bright, warm and chipper.
Regardless of the tune, the lyrics to the same song come through loud and clear. 
In a talk ironically titled, “Truth—and More,” Elder Nelson solemnly warns “anyone who, because of ‘truth,’ may be tempted to become a dissenter against the Lord and his anointed.” (The Ensign, January, 1986.)
Now, we all know that when Elder Nelson talks about the Lord’s “anointed,” he is referring to Church leadership.
For Elder Nelson, it seems that when the choice comes down to truth or sustaining the Lord’s “anointed,” it is always truth that must be sacrificed on the altar of devotion to Church leaders.
Lending a touch of the surreal to his address, Elder Nelson quotes all four verses from a famous LDS Hymn, including the line, “Yes, say what is truth? ‘Tis the brightest prize to which mortals or Gods can aspire.”
Sing it with me, now!
Elder Nelson does not want his audience to misunderstand him. “I do not decry the revealing of negative information per se.” Of course not. That would be preposterous!
Elder Nelson is clear that what he decries is only the revealing of negative information about leaders; and specifically Church leaders. His warning is only for “any who are tempted to rake through the annals of history, to use truth unrighteously, or to dig up ‘facts’ with the intent to defame or destroy.”
(Elder Nelson does not explain why he feels constrained to put “truth” and “facts” in quotation marks.)
If he isn’t making himself sufficiently clear, Elder Nelson goes on, “We now live in a season in which some self-serving historians grovel for ‘truth’ (how does one “grovel” for truth?) that would defame the dead and the defenseless. Some may be tempted to undermine what is sacred to others, or diminish the esteem of honored names, or demean the efforts of revered individuals.”
To tell the full truth is the “temptation.” Elder Nelson apparently does not see it as a temptation to keep quiet about the truth that would give a fuller and more accurate picture.
Hello darkness, my old friend.
What was it that Gospel Principles Manual said again? Oh, yeah. “Honest people will recognize Satan’s temptations and will speak the whole truth, even if it seems to be to their disadvantage.” I almost forgot.
And finally, Elder Nelson agrees with Elder Oaks that the best course in dealing with problematic truths is not to deal with them at all—to simply be quiet about them. “Indeed, in some instances, the merciful companion to truth is silence. Some truths are best left unsaid.”
Considering its content, a more accurate title for Elder Nelson’s talk may have been, “Truth—and Less.”
Of Questions and Avenues
The Church recently released a statement saying members are “always free” to ask “questions about Church doctrine, history, or practice.”
Church spokesperson Ally Isom followed suit: “There are many avenues to express that and discuss (our doubts and opinions).”
But isn’t this a little like Charlie Brown trusting Lucy one more time to hold that football so he can kick it? 
Of what use is the freedom to ask questions when Church leaders have told us in advance the answers will not be given? What good are “avenues to express” doubts and opinions when we know beforehand that all such avenues lead to a dead end? And why should we expect any other result than that Lucy will once more yank away the football at the last moment, leaving us yet again flat on our backs?
Pre-mortal Musings
The recent discipline of Church members for voicing variant views has prompted me to reflect on the Grand Council in Heaven. We all know the story. I won’t repeat it here.
What has been brought into sharp relief for me, however, is that the crux of the story is how Lucifer wanted to do the best thing imaginable by doing the worst thing imaginable.
He wanted to save all of God’s children. What could be better than that?
But in order to accomplish this laudable goal, he would have to “destroy the agency of man.” (Moses 4:3) Nothing could apparently be worse.
What does this teach me? It teaches me that trampling on the agency of human beings is something God cannot tolerate; even if the reason for doing so is the best reason that could possibly be imagined—
the eternal salvation of the person whose agency is being destroyed.
And God appears to have practiced what he preached. God could have simply struck Satan dumb so he could not spread his poisonous opinions, like Alma did with Korihor. Or God could have told Lucifer it was all right for him to have his own opinions, so long as he didn’t express them in public. Or God could have told Lucifer that he could ask questions, but only to his bishop and stake president.
God appears to have done none of these things.
God realized that allowing free agency necessarily involved letting his children have their own opinions together with the freedom to voice those opinions publicly.
God realized that allowing free agency is a messy business. But if God were going to allow his children free agency on earth, he was going to have to allow it to them in the pre-mortal existence.
Conclusion
In spite of the best efforts of the Lord’s anointed, the truth about the history of the Church is coming to light. It began with a trickle but has become an avalanche with the advent of the Internet, accompanied by a commensurate 
cascade of members leaving the Church.
Perhaps, in the final analysis, this is why the LDS Church’s fifth mission to save humanity could never have worked—because it is simply not possible to keep so much problematic information a secret. The truth will out. Nature finds a way. “For murder, though it have no tongue, will speak with most miraculous organ.”[iii]
And when the truth does finally come out and the member who has been taught only the “faith-promoting” side of the story discovers the skeletons in the closet, the experience is usually coupled with feelings of bewilderment and betrayal. “The skeletons are scary enough, but why wasn’t I told they were there? Now I have to question whether anything the LDS Church tells me true.” And so the strategy of telling only one side of the story in order to build faith ends up destroying faith when the truth comes to light.
This is why the course of suppressing the truth is a minefield. Everything is fine and dandy until somebody steps on one.
We have seen that it is the professed goal of Church leaders to teach only the “faith promoting” aspects of the LDS religion. In light of this, we must ask whether their intentional suppression of the rest of the picture will deprive members of the ability to choose anything other than adherence to the general authorities and the church over which they preside. We must ask whether Church leaders are willing to “destroy the agency of man” in order to ensure that all are saved; that “one soul will not be lost.” 
And ultimately, on a personal level, what I am asking is for Church leaders to stop suppressing the truth regarding the history, doctrine and practices of the LDS Church.
Just tell us the truth.
We can handle it.
_____________________________
[i] Robert D. Anderson, “Inside the Mind of Joseph Smith: Psychobiography and the Book of Mormon,” (Signature Books, 1999), p. xliii, footnote 28. It should be observed that the footnote references for this quote is to Linda King Newell, “The Biography of Emma Hale Smith,” 1992 Pacific Northwest Sunstone Symposium, audio tape #J976. Not having access to this audio tape, I am unable to ascertain the source Ms. Newell cites. To the best of my knowledge, however, Elder Oaks has never denied making this statement, though it has been in print for at least 15-years.
[ii] Dallin H. Oaks, “Reading Church History,” CES Doctrine and Covenants Symposium, Brigham Young University, 16 Aug. 1985, p. 25.
[iii] Hamlet, II, 2
Corbin Volluz
Corbin Volluz lives in the beautiful foothills of the Cascade Mountains in western Washington state. He has been practicing law for 25-years with a focus on criminal defense and personal injury. Corbin joined the LDS Church in June of 1978, shortly after the lifting of the priesthood ban, and has been studying Mormonism ever since. He has been published in several venues, including the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies and BYU-Studies.
All posts by Corbin Volluz
Hi Corbin
What a wonderful post to wake up with and to ponder about this day. I appreciate all the work you do to bring us more, and more truth.
Maryann
You sure are sweet to say so, Maryann.
Have a fantastic day!
I am always impressed by your articles, they are always so well written and researched! One thing I do sympathize with is the fact that past prophets and leaders aren’t around to defend themselves. It is easy for us to interpret history the way we want. I cringe to think what others would make of my life after I am gone, without the benefit of hearing it from my own mouth and in context. So I guess I recognize that the pursuit of truth is made more difficult because of this, but it is still so, so important to seek out what actually happened and why. And any attempt to dissuade Church members from seeking the truth is just ultimately hurting those members in the long run.
Thanks for your comments, Daniel.
I agree that “any attempt to dissuade Church members from seeking truth is just ultimately hurting those members in the long run.”
Since you made your comment, I went back and added a paragraph (and cartoon!) to the conclusion which goes along with what you have to say.
Seems to be something about the 1980s especially that engendered this attitude towards truth, though it is apparently much older (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economical_with_the_truth). It’s one thing to see it in reference to espionage and government, but in a church?!?!
I also think it is especially disturbing to see this type of truth-suppression in a church.
Government agents may swear to tell the truth, but we tend to expect church leaders to actually do so.
Well, yes. I remember some of those later quotes being made at the time, and disagreeing with them. I was a teen at the time. But it was pretty much a topic that seemed to be getting some discussion all round then, not just within religion. My view is that it was then we first perhaps became aware of the transition from very paternalist organisations and structures, to the world we have now, in which transparency is valued far more than paternalism. I think that’s a big shift in perspective, and at that time there were a lot of tensions between the two positions. I don’t think those quotes were as disturbing then, for the most part however, as they are seen now. I think the church is coming to terms with the need for greater transparency, albeit at a much slower pace than many of us would like.
I enjoyed Pres Uchtdorf’s address on the topic of truth (https://www.lds.org/broadcasts/article/ces-devotionals/2013/01/what-is-truth?lang=eng), and I particularly liked the implicit acknowledgement that sometimes it is organisations that are slow to recognise advancements, and cause damage by their initial intransigence. Maybe he doesn’t go as far as he could in his remarks, perhaps not as far as John Taylor went when he said: “If there is any truth in heaven, earth, or hell, I want to embrace it; I care not what shape it comes in to me, who brings it, or who believes in it; whether it is popular or unpopular, truth, eternal truth, I wish to float in and enjoy.”
As I see it we’re coming out of a period were paternalism has meant we’ve been ‘protected’ from those truths perhaps to be found in ‘hell’, those that come from less savoury messengers maybe. I don’t think it was malicious in intent, but ultimately has had unfortunate consequences for many. But as an attitude t does date back right to Joseph Smith and attitudes to teaching section 76, for instance, the responses of some seem to have frightened them into believing they should maybe with-hold information until later on the basis of milk before meat (https://history.lds.org/article/doctrine-and-covenants-revelations-in-context-the-vision?lang=eng). with correlation this perhaps developed into an unfortunate situation in which meat was never offered.
In today’s world, in which transparency is the virtue, we regard knowledge of the meat as a vital part of the decision making process. I’m not sure that this necessarily gives us greater agency, but I do think it’s a different kind of agency, one requiring the ability to balance that knowledge. I don’t think that’s a bad thing. But I think we should also be aware that we are never going to have *all* the information in this life, about anything. We simply don’t have the time for one thing.
Ok. That was longer than I anticipated. Either the length or links are holding the comment in moderation.
A very thoughtful response, Hedgehog!
On the other hand, I do think it obligatory on the part of an organization that is asking for so much sacrifice from its members to be completely up front with the truth about the organization and its past.
To do otherwise leads to situations such as described below by The Historian.
I wouldn’t disagree with that Corbin.
I think part of the problem is that not many had a clear picture of what the actual history was, or if they did come across something troubling preferred not to address it themselves, let alone open it up to others. I think that is seen in the tensions of the 1970s – 1980s between historians and leadership.
Additionally, the temptation to overly control the message has to be huge. It’s certainly been seen all through history, including in religion (such as the common person not being permitted to have a copy of the bible, and certainly not in the vernacular language). I think it has always been a struggle.
Yes, we’d hope better for religious institutions, especially one founded on the asking of questions and personal study and searching, and one that makes so much of ‘truth’. But ultimately it’s all still run by people with the same frailties as those who have gone before. It’s my hope we’re learning, and whilst we might still be making some of those same mistakes, there is still some advancement (we’re all encouraged to read scripture for ourselves for instance).
Corbin, if you want to take on the ideas expressed in the quotes, I think we could all learn from that. If you are going to accuse specific individuals–leaders or not–of endorsing a pattern of dishonesty, I think you need to provide more evidence than these quotes and the excommunication of Kate Kelly. I do not believe there is significant evidence of dishonesty in the lives of these men.
Point one: It is possible to interpret the lack of intervention by top leaders regarding Kate Kelly’s discipline as those leaders allowing other leaders (Bishops, Stake Presidents, Seventies, and perhaps others of the Twelve) to exercise their agency. One or two may err, and others may not fix it because allowing leaders to make their best judgments in difficult matters is an important moral good. Maybe some leaders have counseled in private against the actions taken, but have chosen to respect church policy and the agency of other leaders involved.
Point two: It has been slow happening by some standards, but Church History is more open now than ever before. The church is actively publishing large numbers of documents according to the highest professional standards. That takes time, but more professional historians are on church payroll doing this work than ever before. If taking the time to gather all the best information before spouting off “true” stories based on partial information is deceptive, dishonest, or irresponsible, then I have to disagree with your judgment on these issues.
Point three: truth does consist of more than lists of facts. It always has. There are facts which have no use in every arena. You may argue that lists of facts which show that church leaders are human, make mistakes, or do things that are outright evil are useful facts for followers of these leaders to have. I agree. I also agree that such lists should be compared with equally carefully compiled lists of the good that people do. Without such a comparison any judgment we make is incomplete, and in that sense untrue. I believe your post fails in this regard to examine any ways in which these same individuals promote truth and knowledge. In this regard your post controls information, lies, and contributes to Satan’s plan.
I write my response in this tone reflecting what I perceive to be the tone of the blog post. I would be happy to discuss any of these points in softer tones and in other contexts if you feel it would be of any value. Your post hasn’t changed my respect for you earned through other posts you have written. I just don’t like or agree with several aspects of this post.
Suppress the truth! A challenging, yet intriguing aspect of the Church’s mission. But what is truth anyway? Can truth be objective? Or is it subject to any individual, depending on his/he background, upbringing, level of intellect etc……
What is truth anyway?
It is said in D&C 84
For the word of the Lord is truth, and whatsoever is truth is light, and whatsoever is light is Spirit, even the Spirit of Jesus Christ.
and further
in D&C 93
The glory of God is intelligence, or, in other words, light and truth.
and yet, why do we cling to different truths?
When I left the church in 1993, I left because was told “truths” about the LDS church. I did not enquire or check thoroughly back then, just believed them.
After a painful, yet still enlightening, journey through Christianity, and its diversity of faiths, that took me nearly 20 years, I discovered those “truths” were for the most part blatant lies! By studying Anti-Mormon literature and the history of early Christianity, other “truths” emerged….
I never lost touch with my Savior, the Messiah Yeshua, during all these years and three years ago my soul was ready to enter the waters of Mormon again.
Now the truth is, I am not allowed to have home teachers or receive a restoration of the prieshood, because of my mistakes in the past, me leaving the church. Could be a misunderstanding or church leaders don’t care, or whatever, that is my truth……
Again I hear different truths? Concerning the Word of Wisdom, members have told me a variety of “truths”…..some say we should not drink hot drinks, but are allowed cold drinks….others say, they don’t drink black tea and coffee, but all other teas are permitted under prayerful guidance….again others advice, I should only drink water…..finally, after walking literally through hell a stake president comforted me…”why don’t you ask your loving and kind Father in Heaven what you should do”…..does that make sense?
Why is it said, the Word of Wisdom is given “not by commandment or constraint, but by revelation..”….which prophet said explicitly “Thou shalt not drink coffee and black tea?…what does wisdom require? Knowledge, we need to stick our head into the subject and find out what matters, even concerning the use of tobacco, drinks, alcohol, eating of meat etc. ….intriguing, isn’t it? Questions, inspiring questions that only lead to more questions……
SO WHAT IS TRUTH? This was just one of many aspects my soul discovered since my soul rejoined HIS fold. It is still the Restored Church. And yet, Yeshua, my Savior, my Redeemer, my breath, my heartbeat, my life, HE teaches me daily to walk in his presence and HE teaches me individually, according to my needs and understanding…..for some of my brothers I might be a “Son of Perdition” as some have called me…..well, if that is the so-called brotherly love, so be it……my heart simply wishes to bless you all.
It is Yeshua, who is my light, my heart knows totally the truth of HIS promise, that Yeshua will send upon me the Comforter, which shall teach me the truth. No one is infallibe…….my faith in church leader dwindles, yet my faith in HIM, the Savior and Messiah Yeshua, increases…..
stay blessed, keep Yeshua close to your heart, Shalom to all of you
As one who has either used or thought often about that precise film clip (“you can’t handle the truth!”) in many past conversations, and also one who feels strongly about agency, this revamped post (as well as it’s previous version from a few days ago) really resonated with me.
I’m starting to think truth is somewhat subjective. But I’m also starting to think that most people aren’t as interested in truth as they are in getting their preconceived notions of truth confirmed, unfortunately.
Thanks for your comments, Clean Cut.
You are right that confirmation bias plays a large role in what evidence we will consider, and what “truth” we will hear.
The first step out of the confirmation bias echo chamber, though, is the one you have taken–the recognition that it exists.
Thanks for reading my post, Jonathan, and for your thoughtful comments. Let me try to respond to some of the points you raise.
I am not saying the “lives of these men” are dishonest. I am simply saying they are knowingly and intentionally hiding the full truth about the LDS Church from church members.
Indeed, it could be said they are very good at being honest when they say they are not being completely honest.
Excommunication is a spiritually violent act. If top Church leaders allowed a local bishopric to do the wrong thing in excommunicating Kate Kelly, I can have no more respect for them than for a police officer who stands idly by and watches a woman be sexually assaulted by three men.
I cannot see this as a moral good.
I am glad the LDS Church has finally started the historically responsible process of gathering and publishing the documents to which you refer, Jonathan, a large number of which are included in the Joseph Smith Papers Project.
This is all to the good.
But our information will always be “partial.” It is no defense in my eyes that the LDS Church gets to wait until “all the best information” has been gathered before they have a responsibility to tell the truth.
Under that defense, telling the truth can be deferred indefinitely on the basis that “all the best information” still hasn’t been gathered yet.
I do not think it too much to expect for LDS leaders to be open about the current status of information relating to the church and its history.
It seems that we do agree on the fundamental premise of this post, Jonathan, that both sides of the stories should be told; or as you put it both lists of facts should be presented; otherwise any judgment we make is incomplete, and in that sense, untrue.
You proceed to accuse me of doing the same thing I am accusing Church leaders of doing–being incomplete and not giving both sides of the story; of not examining “any ways in which these same individuals promote truth and knowledge.”
I will confess to you, Jonathan, that I do not believe these Church leaders, or any Church leaders I can recall since Hugh B. Brown, have ever promoted the learning of any “truth and knowledge” other than the correlated, trademarked and patent-pending “truth and knowledge” of the LDS Church.
And the way they consistently “promote truth and knowledge” is by knowingly and willfully not giving all the facts.
I am happy to be shown I am wrong if you have quotes from them to the contrary, but strange as it may seem, the way they promote truth and knowledge is by suppressing truth and knowledge.
Corbin,
Thanks for your thoughts on this issue. I enjoy reading your essays on this blog- I especially enjoyed your BOM posts.
I am sensing a sea change in how the church addresses it’s history, as many others are.
You wrote,”And finally, Elder Nelson agrees with Elder Oaks that the best course in dealing with problematic truths is not to deal with them at all—to simply be quiet about them. “Indeed, in some instances, the merciful companion to truth is silence. Some truths are best left unsaid.”
Considering its content, a more accurate title for Elder Nelson’s talk may have been, “Truth—and Less.”
This was one point where I think I draw a different conclusion than you do. For example, I don’t think it would be necessary to know the most serious sin of each member of the quorum of the 12 and first presidency. While that would be the whole “truth” (using quotes intentionally:) about their life-I don’t think it would be relevant to the truth of their calls from God. It would be very harsh and unmerciful to publish truths about the history of the lives of every church leader. Remember, he said in some instances, not every instance, should we be silent So that is where I agree with Elder Nelson and disagree with your thoughts.
Some truths are just not relevant to the truth of the restored gospel of Jesus Christ.
I agree that we should be candid in our curriculum with topics such as polygamy, seer stones, Book of Mormon translation, and more- but I think it is a mistake to chalk up any omission as craven dishonesty. Thank you again for your post
Hi, Alec!
Thank you for your comments.
I agree with you that we do not need to know every last sordid detail of every apostle’s life.
The problem is that, while this is a true principle, it can be used to cover a multitude of sins.
In other words, while we don’t need to know every little prophetic peccadillo, the people in control of all the information can use that as an excuse for telling us things that are not so little, and that could reasonably bear a relationship to the prophetic calling.
For instance, you bring up the subject of polygamy. Should the general membership be made aware of the details of some of these polygamous relationships, such as the age of some of these wives of Joseph Smith, or that around 11 of them were married to other men?
Or can Church leadership simply not mention them, while justifying their silence on the issue as not wanting to “publish truths about the history of the lives of every church leader” on the grounds it would be “harsh” and “unmerciful”?
“…we don’t need to know every little prophetic peccadillo, [but] the people in control of all the information can use that as an excuse for telling us things that are not so little, and that could reasonably bear a relationship to the prophetic calling.”
Okay, I think we are getting somewhere. Respecting the last part of your statement-that some of these large sins potentially “bear a relationship to the prophetic calling” should be told- I’m in full agreement. That is why the church has made this information available. Not only does Doctrine and Covenants 132:52 indicate that Emma should receive Joseph’s plural wives, but many other correlated church sources. Even in seminary manuals:
https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-and-church-history-seminary-teacher-resource-manual/nauvoo-period/doctrine-and-covenants-132?lang=eng
Here is another:
https://www.lds.org/manual/book-of-mormon-seminary-teacher-manual-2013/jacob/lesson-44?lang=eng. Quoting from the BOM seminary manual:
“Point out that at certain times in the history of the world, the Lord has commanded His people to practice plural marriage…and it was practiced for a time during the early days of the restored Church, beginning with Joseph Smith.”
That means that if a student was a Freshman in HS last year, she/he would have learned both during their Freshman (BOM) and now in their Sophomore (D&C) year, that Joseph practiced polygamy. Additionally, though I can’t guarantee it,I would wager that the new OT manual (which will be released in January or February next) will contain yet another direction to teach this to the youth.
This information is not hidden, or concealed, at all.
Now, you and I may disagree about how detailed Joseph’s polygamy ought to be taught. You indicated you would like to see ages of the girls and their marital statuses included. But what about all of their names and dates? What about Brian Hales’ chart as to whom consummated their marriages with Joseph and who did not? What about Emma’s personal feelings (or
Oliver’s) about Joseph and Fanny or about the Partridge sisters and their expulsion? There is a veritable mountain of history that could be taught on this one single subject. But, there again, the principle that every detail is not relevant reemerges (and I think clarifies) that these details are not needed, once the fact is understood that Joseph himself practiced polygamy.
If a member is personally troubled (and many are) and want additional information, then she/he should be turned to the best sources for additional information (Hales, Compton, Bushman, etc) to fill out the entire picture.
So i guess that our difference of opinion is two-fold: (1) how much detail is relevant, (2) and why those details are omitted. It appears you see darker motives than I do in less detailed portrayals. My perspective is informed by the immense responsibility to teach the entire standard works to high school kids in 4 years. Finite lesson time is a daily reality for me. I personally appreciate that some historical context must necessarily be sacrificed to allow time to adequately teach a universe of deep, soul-stretching, satisfying,and essential doctrines and principles.
That is why I think the church is on the right track now with introducing difficult historical issues honestly to our youth. And lastly, that silence about finer historical detail is inescapable, not evasive.
As a champion of a more fully realized application of agency in our church, I find the following David O. McKay statement worthy of consideration:
“Among the immediate obligations and duties resting upon members of the Church today, and one of the most urgent and pressing for attention and action of all liberty-loving people, is the preservation of individual liberty. Freedom of choice is more to be treasured than any possession earth can give. It is inherent in the spirit of man. It is a divine gift to every normal being. Whether born in abject poverty or shackled at birth by inherited riches, everyone has this most precious of all life’s endowments—the gift of free agency; man’s inherited and inalienable right…. This principle of free agency and the right of each individual to be free not only to think but also to act within bounds that grant to everyone else the same privilege, are sometimes violated even by churches that claim to teach the doctrine of Jesus Christ. The attitude of any organization toward this principle of freedom is a pretty good index to its nearness to the teachings of Christ or to those of the Evil One.”
That is a great quote, Trevor. Thank you for sharing it with me.
Having recently read “David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism,” it seems that President McKay practiced what he preached.
Unfortunately, he could see where Harold B. Lee was going with the Correlation Committee and worried that it could result in the establishment of a super-committee that would in essence be above the apostles; clearing what they could and could not say.
President McKay was prophetic in this regard.
Are you honest in all your dealings with your fellow man? The truth is that each member who would choose to obtain a temple recommend must be able to answer this question in the affirmative. However, the church and it’s leaders cannot answer this in the affirmative at all. They have made a very conscious decision to suppress truth….they have not been honest in all their dealings. Therefore, they are not worthy to hold a temple recommend and are not worthy to enter the temple nor are they worthy to preside over the membership from which they demand obedience
There is some truth in that . . .
Corbin! I’m so happy to see this post. I love both versions of it 🙂 Well done! Thank you for your voice and the time you take to craft amazing essays.
Thanks for your kind words, Lori!
I am glad you got to see the before-and-after versions of this essay!
Read the cesletter.com and then tell me that nothing is being hidden or twisted to paint a faith promoting story.
After near 30 years in the church, having served a mission, married on the temple and current recommend holder I was absolutely astonished and horrified to discover the extent of the deception.
I hear what you are saying, Historian.
It is like a kick in the gut to find this stuff out after a lifetime of devoted service to a church you ultimately find has been deceiving you all along.
This is why the LDS Church is hemorrhaging members and why the only response that will be of any lasting effect is to just start telling the whole truth.
And I don’t mean slanted, incomplete and unsigned “essays” buried in the Church website, either.
Who reads those, anyway?
I am talking about addressing these issues in General Conference.
Talking about them openly shows confidence.
Hiding the information shows fear and frankly a lack of faith in the restored gospel, as well as in the membership.
Corbin Voluz. Your name brought back a vivid memory of a night in Austin, Texas (April 3, 1987) at Allandale Baptist Church, where you attended a presentation I gave. As I remember you actively participated in the question and answer period.
Your blog on this issue is superb. I would love to talk to you and catch up on the years between 1987 and 2014.
Dick Baer
916-723-9785
Talk about a blast from the past!
How are you doing, Dick?
It is obvious why I would remember your name, because you have some degree of fame and notoriety, what with your touring and touting of “The Godmakers” film.
But I honestly cannot believe you would remember me! Color me impressed! Genuinely.
I sincerely hope you are well.
You were a gentleman at the presentation, as I recall, and conducted yourself in a dignified manner. I am not certain I did the same.
I will see if I can find time to give you a call when I have the chance.
Do you still live in southern California?
Aww that’s awesome!
Go Corbin!
This is great