The Mormon church's publication of a series of essays on problematic areas of history and doctrine provides a disturbing picture if you look beyond the surface. Links to these essays along with critical analyses can be found on the MormonThink website. The essays are part of a trend toward greater transparency and have been welcomed by many Mormon critics. However an obvious question is, why was a church that claims devotion to truth not being transparent all along? That the information in these essays has been widely available elsewhere online forced the church to address the issues from their perspective. This has forever robbed them of the opportunity to demonstrate that they would have been transparent of their own volition. All indications from past history indicate that they would have continued to obfuscate and mislead if they had not been caught doing it. This is hardly what one would expect from a church claiming to be the one true church.
While it would be difficult to prove that the church has outright lied, examples of purposefully hiding embarrassing information or at least making it very difficult to find are quite easy to demonstrate. For example, the first manual in the "Teachings of the Presidents of the Church" series covering Brigham Young, first published in 1997, made no mention at all of any of his wives but the first. Another example involves the Book of Abraham papyrus. I first heard from an Evangelical Christian coworker around the year 2001 that the papyrus from which the Book of Abraham had been "translated" was found in the New York Metropolitan Museum and sold to the church in 1967. After examination by Egyptologists, it was found to be a common Egyptian funerary text that had nothing to do with Abraham. As a senior in high school in 1981, I was taught in seminary that this papyrus had been destroyed in the Great Chicago Fire. I was certain that my coworker was wrong about the 1967 discovery until I confirmed this information on pro-Mormon apologetic websites. The information itself did not bother me nearly as much as the cover up. At some level someone who knew better chose to keep this information out of the seminary curriculum. I do not think my seminary teacher was the one being dishonest in this case.
I learned about another instance of a cover up at a high level while listening to John Dehlin interview Sandra Tanner on Episode 473 of the Mormon Stories Podcast. Sandra and her husband Jerald met with the Apostle LeGrande Richards to explore his grandfather's journal entries that supposedly contemporaneously verified certain aspects of Joseph Smith's First Vision story. All Richards produced was a page of typed quotes that he could have just typed himself. They asked to see the original documents and he reluctantly showed them the microfiche in the library so quickly that they could not see the context. Later they went back to the library on their own and found that the card catalog entry for this microfiche had been removed. Fortunately, a helpful librarian remembered how to find it. When they found the relevant entries they discovered that they were from 1875, some 55 years after the First Vision is purported to have happened and 31 years after the death of Joseph Smith. Richards' obvious impatience and irritation with them indicates that he likely knew full well the context of these entries, but chose deliberately to hide this information.
Perhaps the publication of these essays is a step in the right direction, but they fall far short of undoing the damage that has already been done. Regardless of how open the church becomes now, it cannot make up for the excommunications and broken families that resulted from members holding views and revealing information that the church now admits was true all along. The church offers no apologies for past coverups or for excommunicating many of the scholars who first brought this information to light. The essays are anonymous compositions produced by committee, as revealed by assistant church historian, Richard Turley, in a recent RadioWest show hosted by Doug Fabrizio. Turley also admitted that the essays were deliberately made difficult to find for the casual browser of the church's website. The idea is to address these issues for those already aware of them while not creating an issue for those currently unaware. The essays seem to be as much an attempt to deflect criticism about lack of transparency as to address the specific issues. Some of the wording is misleading, such as stating that Joseph Smith was married to Helen Mar Kimball "several
months before her 15th birthday" rather than just saying she was 14.
Turley stated that he was not in favor of this particular wording, but it was inserted
during the committee editing process.
There are various opinions about whether these essays address the issues effectively. They do seem to satisfy some believers, while critics have expressed both vindication that this information is finally out there from an official source and disappointment about the particular slant and omissions. Another reaction has been disillusionment on the part of believers who were completely unaware of some of the information contained in the essays, especially Joseph Smith's marriage to a 14-year-old girl and his practice of polyandry (marrying other men's wives). For those in this category, some apologists have blamed the victims saying that it is their own fault that they were not better informed before now. However, the disillusioned members previous ignorance may only indicate that they were particularly good at following the counsel of their church leaders to avoid reading things about the church from unofficial sources. Blaming them for not knowing is rather calloused and uncharitable.
The anonymity of the essays follows the recent pattern of the highest church leaders' unwillingness to address issues directly and authoritatively. There has been no comment at all to the general membership or the media by any one in the First Presidency or Quorum of the Twelve. This is similar to other recent events, such as the excommunication of Kate Kelly where communication came only from a young representative of the PR department. The highest authorities have been unwilling to give these essays their official stamp of approval. This contrasts sharply with recent statements by Pope Francis who has acknowledged Catholic acceptance of evolution and the Big Bang Theory, and advocated for fair and compassionate treatment of gays.
For me, these essays are too little, too late. My former bishop helped to break up my family, and also made it clear that I was not welcome as a fully participating member given my unorthodox views, even though I kept these views to myself. These essays do nothing to heal the wounds the church has already inflicted on so many. Furthermore, they do not go far enough. While they do acknowledge that some of the criticism of the detractors has been valid, they seldom admit that the church or its leaders have ever been at fault. The essays are not dated, I think deliberately so. Once all the attention over their release from the fringe Mormon community dies down, I am guessing that they will conveniently forget their release dates and claim that the church has always been transparent. As Gordon B. Hinckley would say, "That's all behind us now."
