Did the Church Lie to Me?

I was 39 years old when I first heard the 1832 First Vision Account. I wondered why I hadn’t heard that before, despite the fact that I had been a member of the Church my whole life and had studied extensively. That was in 2013, and I have pursued a serious study of Church history since then. In the many conversations I have had with friends and family members about this subject, and in the many things I have read by people who have had similar experiences, I have heard and read many people who say the Church has lied in not disclosing various things from Church history.

It can be challenging to hear something that seems contrary to what we’ve been taught our whole lives. It can make us wonder what else is true, or what else might still be out there that we don’t know. I don’t have answers to those questions, and ultimately each person will have to find their own answers. The primary purpose of this post is not to justify the Church’s actions, but to instead explain how I have approached this topic.

What is the “Church”?

The first question I had to answer is what we mean we say the “Church.” The term “church” in Christian doctrine has been defined as, “the Christian religious community as a whole, or a body or organization of Christian believers.”¹ In the Guide to the Scriptures, the Church of Jesus Christ is defined as, “An organized body of believers who have taken upon themselves the name of Jesus Christ by baptism and confirmation. To be the true Church it must be the Lord’s Church; must have His authority, teachings, laws, ordinances, and name; and must be governed by Him through representatives whom He has appointed.”²

As recorded in the book of Acts, when the apostles began their ministry following Christ’s ascension into heaven, “the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.”³ What was the Lord adding to the church? People. Believers. Members. The “Church” is comprised of people, so although the Lord is at the head, the “church” is the group of people who follow Him by taking upon themselves His name through covenants administered by those who have Christ’s authority to do so.

At the end of his record, Moroni wrote some details about the administration of the “church” in his time, and he said, “the church did meet together oft, to fast and to pray, and to speak one with another concerning the welfare of their souls.”⁴ What did Moroni mean when he said the “church” met together often? He meant the people, those who professed to belong to the “church.”

I believe we can learn much about the identity of the “Church” from its full name: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It is the Church of Jesus Christ, but it is also “of Latter-day Saints.” It is an organized group of believers who recognize Christ as their head and who want to follow Him.

Of course, we sustain prophets, seers, and revelators as those who have authority to administer the ordinances of the gospel and teach correct principles. The primary responsibility of these leaders is to teach correct doctrine and administer the ordinances of salvation. It is a forward-looking faith, founded in hope through the atonement of Jesus Christ. But the “Church” is filled with imperfect people. The fundamental constant is faith in Jesus Christ, repentance, and the administration of ordinances under His authority.

What is the mission of the Church?

After his resurrection and before his ascension into heaven, Jesus Christ gave the following charge to his disciples: “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world.”⁵

After the day of Pentecost, Peter testified of Christ and those who heard him “were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?”⁶ Peter’s response? “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.”⁷

That is the commandment: repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ and receive the Holy Ghost. That is stated over and over in the Book of Mormon. Nephi called this commandment (repent and be baptized) the doctrine of Christ: “And he said unto the children of men: Follow thou me. Wherefore, my beloved brethren, can we follow Jesus save we shall be willing to keep the commandments of the Father? And the Father said: Repent ye, repent ye, and be baptized in the name of my Beloved Son. And also, the voice of the Son came unto me, saying: He that is baptized in my name, to him will the Father give the Holy Ghost, like unto me; wherefore, follow me, and do the things which ye have seen me do.”⁸

When the Savior visited the American continent, he preached repentance and baptism: “Now this is the commandment: Repent, all ye ends of the earth, and come unto me and be baptized in my name, that ye may be sanctified by the reception of the Holy Ghost, that ye may stand spotless before me at the last day.”⁹

This commandment is found in the Doctrine and Covenants: “And I command you that you preach naught but repentance.”¹⁰ Recently, President Russell M. Nelson said that he has “found myself drawn to the Lord’s instruction given through the Prophet Joseph Smith: ‘Say nothing but repentance unto this generation.’ This declaration is often repeated throughout scripture.”¹¹

What is the mission of the Church? It is to preach faith in Jesus Christ, repentance, baptism by authority, and the gift of the Holy Ghost. It is to administer ordinances of salvation by those who have authority, and teach how to keep the covenants that we make when we receive those ordinances. Certainly there are many other things that the Church teaches, and there are many other things that the Church wants to accomplish, but faith in Jesus Christ, repentance, baptism, and the gift of the Holy Ghost are the focus. The Church is filled with imperfect people and we have seen various teachings, opinions, policies, and procedures come and go. There are things that Church leaders have said that have turned out to be wrong. It is hard to reconcile these things, but the way I’ve done it is to reflect on the role of the Church and its primary objective, which is to teach the doctrine of Christ. We may feel frustrated that the Church has only recently started to provide historical information, but the Church is not a historical society. It is an organization of believers who are focused on receiving the ordinances of salvation and following Jesus Christ.

We must develop historical empathy

I previously wrote a post called “The Problem of Recordkeeping,”¹² wherein I discussed why keeping records in Joseph Smith’s time would have been uncommon and challenging. In our day when we have so much information available to us, we might think we understand the challenges of the past. But because we are so accustomed to our modern lifestyle, it is difficult to empathize with those who lived in the past. As we learn about past events that have only recently come to light, we need to exercise historical empathy not only for those who experiened the specific past events, but also for those who created and managed the records. In other words, recordkeeping is as much a subject of historical scholarship as the events that are described in those records.

“When we speak of history and empathy, we most often refer to developing a level of historical awareness which allows us to understand why people in the past acted the way they did. This requires having a fairly detailed knowledge of historical context and chronology, as well as an appreciation of the past as a world that is often very different from our own. We develop historical empathy by understanding that we in the present have a privileged vantage point – we know the consequences of people’s actions, we know [how] the story ends. They did not.”¹³

As we consider records and recordkeeping, we need to understand how records were kept in the past. Consider how many generations passed before the common person had access to a bible in their native tongue. William Tyndal is lauded for his sacrifice to create an English translation of the Bible, and for his efforts he was condemned for heresy and executed in 1536.¹⁴ At the time of his death, there were only 18,000 copies of his translation that had been printed.¹⁴ It wasn’t until the mid-17th century and the printing of the King James Bible that the bible came “into the hands of more people than ever before.”¹⁵ Although printing made books more accessible, it took time. “Until 1769 American printers bought their presses from England, but thereafter they acquired their equipment and supplies, including ink and paper, domestically.”¹⁶ Just think of that. It was only about 50 years before Joseph Smith’s first vision that printing equipment and supplies started to become available in America.

As we evaluate how the Church has handled historical records, we have to develop historical empathy so we judge them based on the circumstances of their time, not ours.

Historical scholarship is a relatively new field and is not cheap

In the history of the world, a scholarly look at historical records is a relatively new field. As I have frequently mentioned, I am not a historian, but I have read that even just over the last few decades the field of historical scholarship has continued to be developed and refined: “The first decades of the 21st century have witnessed a broadening of the ways historical knowledge is advanced, applied, accessed, integrated, diffused, and taught.”¹⁷ As we consider how the Church has handled historical records, we need to recognize that scholarship in that area is relatively new, and is likely very different from how historical documents would have been kept even just a few decades ago.

Additionally, scholarship is an expensive pursuit that does not generate income and frequently depends on the generosity of others for funding. In our capitalist society, this combination of cost without the generation of income does not usually endure. Although we cannot know the exact cost, it has been reported that Larry and Gail Miller initially donated $10 million in bonds to fund the Joseph Smith Papers Project, and when that was not enough, they made up the difference.¹⁸ The Joseph Smith Papers website has a page for the “Project Team,”¹⁹ and as of the writing of this post (September, 2023), I count 48 individuals on that list. Even if many of those are only consultants or advisors donating their time, or people working only part-time, that is still an extensive group of individuals who are working to adhere to the highest scholarly standards to publish these documents. It is not cheap to gather, compile, and publish historical documents.

Before we criticize how the Church has kept or produced or even withheld records, we need to understand that we have greatly benefitted from the development of historical scholarship and from generous benefactors who donate to help fund historical scholarship. We need to recognize the great effort and cost that is required to identify and produce historical documents.

A case for historical empathy: the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible

I plan on writing more about the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible in future posts, so I won’t go into significant detail, but for the purposes of this post I will provide a brief example of the problem of historical recordkeeping to demonstrate the need for historical empathy. In order to avoid a footnote after every sentence, my references are all taken from a book written by Robert J. Matthews, a BYU professor who spent his professional career investigating the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible.²⁰

Joseph Smith started working on his inspired translation of the Bible shortly after the organization of the Church (which took place in April, 1830), and continued working on it for about three years. Various parts of this translation were published in the Church’s newspapers during the mid-1830s, which include the Book of Moses in our current Pearl of Great Price. But Joseph Smith didn’t publish more, because he said it wasn’t finished and wasn’t ready for publication. Throughout his life, Joseph expressed a desire to finish the translation and publish it, but for economic reasons (needing money to provide for his family) he wasn’t able to consistently work on the translation. (This is another example that there is a cost to scholarship, and in Joseph’s case, it was an opportunity cost: every day he spent on the translation was a day he lost to earn a living for his family).

After Joseph Smith’s death in 1844, Willard Richards, then a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, approached Emma (Joseph’s wife) and asked her for the manuscripts containing Joseph’s translation of the Bible. Emma replied that “she did not feel disposed to give it at the present.” So when the Saints left Nauvoo to travel to Utah, they left without the manuscripts.

Many years later, Emma reluctantly delivered the manuscripts to her son, Joseph Smith III, who was the president of the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which published the New Translation of the Bible in 1867. But the records demonstrate problems with that initial publication: the RLDS Committee who compiled the records for publication did not understand Joseph Smith’s notes.

Joseph Smith did not create only one manuscript. He had a Bible in which he made notes, and he also used several other manuscripts. There is evidence that the RLDS committee working on the publication did not understand many of Joseph’s markings in his Bible. Because of this, and because Joseph himself said the translation was not complete, the Church in Utah decided not to use any portion of the translation that had not been published by Joseph himself. After a copy of the published New Translation was received by Church leaders in Utah, a meeting was held in 1868 in which “President Young spoke of the new translation of the Bible and said it was not complete. Dr. Bernhisel testified that the Prophet told him he wished to revise it. . . . George A. Smith testified that he had heard Joseph say before his death that the new translation was not complete, that he had not been able to prepare it.”

What does that mean? These men had heard Joseph say the new translation was not done, so they were concerned about using it if Joseph did not believe it was finished. Based on that discussion, George Reynolds, the Secretary to the Quorum of the Twelve, wrote the following letter to a member of the RLDS Church: “the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not use the revision of the Scriptures made by the Prophet Joseph Smith, for the reason that he never completed the work. It was his intention to have gone all through the Bible again and make further corrections, but he did not have the opportunity of doing so. Consequently it is deemed an injustice both to the dead prophet and to the reader to place this unfinished work in the hands of the public. Though we may rest assured that the changes he has made are correct, we have no assurance that he would not have made many other corrections in his second revision.”

Why did they not want to use the Joseph Smith translation of the Bible? Apparently, they were concerned about its completeness and accuracy. So why do we use it now? Although I can’t answer that fully, I can guess that we have significant advances in technology and scholarship that have resolved many of the questions about accuracy. Robert J. Matthews (the BYU professor whose book I have used as a reference) began investigating the Joseph Smith Translation in about the 1960s, and he thoroughly examined all sources to form conclusions on authenticity and reliability. A better understanding of handwriting analysis allows scholars to recognize who wrote which passages. Technology allows experts to photograph pages and enhance the image to increase its readability. And modern printing procedures allows the current Standard Works to place the Joseph Smith translation in the footnotes rather than the text, giving us the opportunity to study the New Translation while still having full access to the text of the King James version.

As we try to understand why certain records might have been withheld, we need to exercise historical empathy and look closely at the circumstances of the time periods at issue. Do we consider that there might have been many different reasons why a particular document was withheld? Can we recognize that their lack of scholarship and technology could have made it more difficult for them to feel confident that what they were reading was accurate?

We should evaluate the evidence and never presume unproven facts

The discovery of the 1832 First Vision Account shows how unproven facts can be perpetuated without any basis in reality.

The Joseph Smith Papers has published thousands of historical documents, and for each one there is a “source note” that describes the condition of the document. For the 1832 Account, the Source Note states:

“A reconstruction of the physical history of the artifact helps explain the current material context of the document. Photocopy and microfilm images of the book, as well as an inspection of the conservation work now present in the volume, indicate that the text block separated from the binding at some point. Also, the initial three leaves containing the history were excised from the volume. The eight inscribed leaves in the back of the volume may have been cut out at the same time. Manuscript evidence suggests that these excisions took place in the mid-twentieth century. A tear on the third leaf, which evidently occurred during its excision, was probably mended at the time. This tear was mended with clear cellophane tape, which was invented in 1930. The three leaves of the history certainly had been removed by 1965, when they were described as ‘cut out,’ although they were archived together with the letterbook. The size and paper stock of the three excised leaves match those of the other leaves in the book. Also, the cut and tear marks, as well as the inscriptions in the gutters of the three excised leaves, match those of the remaining leaf stubs, confirming their original location in the book. The three leaves were later restored to the volume, apparently in the 1990s. This restoration was probably part of a larger conservation effort that took place, in which the entire volume was rebound, including binding the formerly loose index of letters.”²¹

The 1832 account was first published in 1965, when it was discussed in a BYU graduate student’s master thesis.²² The student stated that the 1832 account was found in the Church Historian’s Office in Salt Lake City. It should be noted that when discussing this account in the 1965 thesis, the author said, “[S]ince it is recorded in the first person this would also suggest either that Joseph Smith wrote it or he dictated it. From handwriting comparisons it would appear that the latter supposition [dictation] is the more likely one.” But much of the 1832 Account is in Joseph’s own handwriting. So even in 1965, the scholarship of that day could not distinguish the handwriting of Joseph Smith. If they couldn’t recognize his handwriting, how could they be confident that this was an authentic account? Why would they publish it if they didn’t really know what it was or who wrote it?

Based on the condition of the 1832 Account, the circumstances and timing of its discovery, and significantly, the cellophane tape that was used to mend the tear, which supposedly could not have been used prior to 1930, there are many who have accused Joseph Fielding Smith, the Church Historian from 1921 until he became President of the Church in 1970, of suppressing the account and even trying to destroy it. But there is no evidence of this; it is all just conjecture that has been perpetuated and so is often assumed to be fact.

I have read many articles accusing Joseph Fielding Smith of suppressing the 1832 First Vision Account. They developed with someone making certain assumptions based on Joseph Fielding Smith’s position as Church Historian and the cellophone tape, and it has evolved into opinions stating that Joseph Fielding Smith intentionally suppressed the 1832 Account because he knew that account proved that the First Vision was a lie. This evoluation from fact, to supposition, to outright misstatement lacking any factual basis demonstrates the “illusory truth effect,” which is the idea that incorrect information repeated over time takes on the appearance of truth. “When judging truth or accuracy, people rate repeated statements as subjectively truer than comparable new statements (the illusory truth effect or repetition-induced truth effect) . . . . That is, repetition generates the illusion of epistemic weight. . . . It persists even when participants are warned to avoid it, possess knowledge about the factual answer, or are explicitly informed about which statements are true and which are false. Repeatedly reading misinformation might even reduce how unethical it feels to share that unambiguously false information on social media.”²³

For argument’s sake, let’s assume the 1832 account was intentionally suppressed, kept in the Church Historian’s Office with no intention of publishing it. Can we exercise historical empathy and perhaps try to think about why that might have occurred?

First, and significantly, the existence of the 1832 Account does not disprove Joseph’s experience. In prior posts I have discussed how the 1832 First Vision Account has helped me to have a greater appreciation for the First Vision.²⁴ Some have argued that the Church “lied” about the 1832 First Vision account, and suppressed it, because it disproves the First Vision. But that is simply not true. Those positions are a form of advocacy: interpreting evidence to advance an argument based on their own personal beliefs and opinions. I believe Joseph Smith experienced the First Vision, and I believe that the 1832 Account enhances an understanding of his experience. So I do not believe that this account was suppressed based on the argument that it damages Joseph’s credibility regarding the first vision.

Second, rather than ascribe malicious intent to the “Church” in regard to suppressing the 1832 Account, can we take a moment to consider the circumstances at issue? The account was found in the 1960s in the Church Historian’s Office. The evidence shows pages had been torn out, but the only evidence of timing is that cellophane tape did not exist prior to 1930. So we do not know when the pages were torn out, we just know they were taped back in sometime between 1930 and 1965. And if someone wanted to destroy the account, why would the pages have been torn out then placed back in the book? And why do we assume all this was done by Joseph Fielding Smith? Do we understand the duties of the Church Historian? Do we know the size of the collections in the Church Historian’s Office? Do we know who else might have worked in that office? Do we know whether anyone recognized this account as having been written by Joseph himself (and from the Cheesman thesis, it sounds like they did not recognize Joseph’s handwriting from the document)?

There are so many questions about these circumstances that I believe it is unfair to impose a malicious intent on Joseph Fielding Smith, and even if that intent existed, I believe it is unfair to extend that to the “Church” as a whole.

Conclusion: we should exercise historical empathy and faith in Christ

I previously wrote a post discussing the weaknesses and imperfections of those who comprise this Church.²⁵ I quoted Elder Holland’s analogy of this Church as a hospital: “[P]lease realize that the Church is not a monastery for perfect people, though all of us ought to be striving on the road to godliness. No, at least one aspect of the Church is more like a hospital or an aid station, provided for those who are ill and want to get well, where one can get an infusion of spiritual nutrition and a supply of sustaining water in order to keep on climbing.”²⁵ In our modern society, we are quick to condemn when we see something that does not fit with our current societal values. But people are imperfect, and the scriptures show that Jesus Christ is patient and merciful, and allows us to learn line upon line, precept upon precept.

It is natural to feel hurt and angry when we find out something that seems contradictory to what we have been taught. But while we are pondering on these feelings, we should also learn to practice historical empathy, and consider the purpose for the Church. We are taught to exercise faith in Jesus Christ, repent, be baptized, receive the Holy Ghost, and endure to the end. We are also taught that the Church is lead by revelation, which not only teaches correct principles, but can be received to correct mistakes. Within that framework is room for all kinds of mistakes, detours, misunderstandings, and corrections, subject to continual repentance, which is essentialy an effort to change and improve each day. Repentance is personal, allowing an individual to draw closer to Jesus Christ. But repentance is also generational. I hope that my children live the gospel of Jesus Christ better than I have, and I believe we have seen the Church as a whole improve over the generations. So we need to be careful about condemning the Church because of actions by individuals in the past.

So be cautious about wondering whether the “Church” has lied. Be patient, evaluate the situation using historical empathy, and focus on the primary purpose and mission of the Church. Exercise faith in Jesus Christ, and recognize that this Church is made up of imperfect people who are just trying to get better.

References

1. Britannica, T. Editors of Encyclopaedia. “church.” Encyclopedia Britannica, June 22, 2023. https://www.britannica.com/topic/church-Christianity.
2. Guide to the Scriptures, “Church of Jesus Christ,” https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/gs/church-of-jesus-christ?lang=eng.
3. Acts 2:47.
4. Moroni 6:5.
5. Matthew 28:19-20.
6. Acts 2:1-37.
7. Acts 2:38.
8. 2 Nephi 31:10-12.
9. 3 Nephi 27:13-20.
10. Doctrine and Covenants 19:21.
11. Russell M. Nelson, “We Can Do Better and Be Better,” Ensign, May 2019, 67-69, https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2019/05/36nelson?lang=eng.
12. “The Problem of Recordkeeping,” https://discoverfaithinchrist.com/the-problem-of-record-keeping/.
13. Matt Kester, “History and Empathy,” BYU Hawaii Convocation, August 05, 2015, https://speeches.byuh.edu/convocation/history-and-empathy.
14. Britannica, T. Editors of Encyclopaedia. “William Tyndale.” Encyclopedia Britannica, August 25, 2023. https://www.britannica.com/biography/William-Tyndale.
15. Sarah Pruitt, “Why the King James Bible of 1611 Remains the Most Popular Translation in History,” History.com, July 13, 2023, https://www.history.com/news/king-james-bible-most-popular.
16. Unwin, G., Tucker, David H. and Unwin, Philip Soundy, “History of Publishing,” Encyclopedia Britannica, October 1, 2020, https://www.britannica.com/topic/publishing.
17. “Guidelines for Broadening the Definition of Historical Scholarship (2023),” American Historical Association, January 5, 2023, https://www.historians.org/definitions.
18. Tad Walch, “A $10M investment in Joseph Smith,” Deseret News, July 23, 2023, https://www.deseret.com/faith/2023/7/23/23793106/a-10m-investment-in-joseph-smith.
19. “Project Team,” The Joseph Smith Papers, https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/articles/project-team.
20. Robert J. Matthews, “A Plainer Translation: Joseph Smith’s Translation of the Bible, A History and Commentary,” Brigham Young University Press, Provo, Utah, 1985.
21. History, circa Summer 1832, p. 1, The Joseph Smith Papers, accessed September 7, 2023, https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-circa-summer-1832/1#source-note.
22. Paul R. Cheesman, “An Analysis of the Accounts Relating to Joseph Smith’s Early Visions” (master’s thesis, Brigham Young University, 1965), app. D, 126–32, available on Brigham Young University, Scholars Archive, http://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/etd/4590/.
23. Henderson EL, Simons DJ, Barr DJ. The Trajectory of Truth: A Longitudinal Study of the Illusory Truth Effect. J Cogn. 2021 Jun 8;4(1):29. doi: 10.5334/joc.161. PMID: 34164597; PMCID: PMC8194981, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8194981/.
24. “The 1832 First Vision Account,” https://discoverfaithinchrist.com/the-first-vision-1832-account/; “How Do I Feel About the Differences in the First Vision Accounts?” https://discoverfaithinchrist.com/how-do-i-feel-about-the-differences-in-the-first-vision-accounts/; “Joseph Smith’s First Vision Accounts as Models for Revelation,” https://discoverfaithinchrist.com/joseph-smiths-first-vision-accounts-as-models-for-revelation/.
25. “Focus on Jesus Christ,” https://discoverfaithinchrist.com/focus-on-christ/.