Conference tecrus::mormonism

154.0. "The writing of Mormon history" by CACHE::LEIGH () Mon Aug 08 1988 19:16

Has Mormon History Been Deliberately Falsified?

by Dean C. Jessee (formally of the Church Historians Office)

Published by Mormon Miscellaneous, Response Series #2. (not copyrighted)

A prominent theme in anti-Mormon writings is the charge that the Church
of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon) has deliberately falsified its
history.  Critics accuse Mormon historians of deception and dishonesty in the
production of Joseph Smith's 'History of the Church', claiming that
(1) thousands of words have been added or deleted without proper designation;
(2) that only a "small part" of the 'History' was written and published during
Joseph Smith's lifetime; (3) other men's writings have been inserted in the
History and changed from third to first person to give the impression Joseph
Smith himself was the author; and (4) offensive references have been deleted
or altered to give a more positive picture of Joseph Smith and the Church.

When compared with present day rules for writing history, such practices
appear irresponsible and unforgivable.  But in their zeal to discredit
Mormonism the critics have ignored an important consideration: the setting in
which Joseph Smith's 'History' was written.  Let us be fair.  How precise were
the rules that governed the writing of history in Joseph Smith's day?  When
the writers of early Mormon history added and deleted words from their text,
and substituted other men's thoughts for those of Joseph Smith, etc., were
they violating the history-writing procedures of their time?

History in Nineteenth Century America

A study of the writing of history in nineteenth century America reveals a much
less critical standard of accuracy than exists today.  Not until Herbert Baxter
Adams established the first training school for historians in the United States
at Johns Hopkins University in 1876 was the groundwork laid for our present
standards of writing history and editing historical documents.  Prior to that,
and even down into the twentieth century, history writing in America was marked
by the same flaws that critics see in Mormon historical work.

The historical enterprise in early America was characterized by an immense zeal
for gathering everything that related to the founders of the republic.
Extensive projects of publication were undertaken with the intent to preserve 
and magnify qualities of greatness and virtue that it was believed must be
perpetuated if the Nation were to endure.  Consequently, in the published
writings of the Founding Fathers, one finds negative qualities minimized
or deleted and positive ones magnified and even fabricated.

For example, when Chief Justice John Marshall wrote in his 'Life of George
Washington' in the early 1800's it was praised for its scholarly qualities and
accuracy; yet it has been noted that Marshall copied extensively from other
writers without giving credit for the material he borrowed.  William A. Foreign
in his study of the Chief Justice as a historian observes that if Marshall 
were charged with plagiarism "he would be found guilty by modern standards";
but Foreign concluded that the charge must be moderated because Marshall lived
and wrote in a time when plagiarism was a common, acceptable practice.
(William A. Foreign, "John Marshall as Historian," 'American Historical Review'
43 (October 1937), pp. 51-64.)

In his publication of the 'Writings' of Washington in the 1830's, Jared Sparks
rewrote portions of letters, deleted or altered offensive passages, and
changed irregularities of style and awkward modes of expression to magnify
noble qualities of our country's first president.  "He edited away every
suspicion that mighty blemish the sanctity of the national hero," wrote his
biographer.  And Mason Weems, whose life of Washington went through numerous
nineteenth century printings, did not hesitate to invent and alter, in order to
place his subject in the best light.  Nathaniel Hawthorne's journals were
rewritten by his wife before publication and Ralph Waldo Emerson's were
altered to enhance his image as a man of intelligence and sagacity.

The list of distorted nineteenth century historical works is long.  If one
desires to measure them by modern rules of historical decorum, practically
everything that was written can be censured.

In writing of the defeat of Washington at Fort Necessity in 1754, Francis
Parkman, one of America's finest nineteenth century historians, using the
Sparks' edition of Washington's letters, changed a Sparks paraphrase to
give the impression he was actually quoting Washington.  And in using original
sources Parkman took the liberty to alter expressions, delete and add
words of his own to give his writings "vividness and immediacy."  At one point
in his treatment of the Battle of Lake George, Parkman combined two eyewitness
accounts and by remolding them reduced the total 138 words to 100.

In his study of pre-Civil war American history, George Callcott has written
that despite their contributions and their stated effort at responsible
scholarship, "one by one, the early nineteenth century historians have fallen
under attack" of critics from a later generation who have charged them with
dishonesty in their work.  Callcott notes that men like Sparks, Bancroft,
Marshall, Ramsey, Irving and Parkman have all been "branded as plagiarists,
inaccurate ones at that"; but emphasizes, that while "the aims of modern
scholarship have made the methods of the early nineteenth century obsolete,"
these writers "must be judged by their own standards," and declares that it
is unjust to measure them by standards that did not exist.  Callcott explains
that nineteenth century historians "were never secretive about their practices,"
and that "it had never occurred to many that accurate quoting was desirable."
On the matter of using other men's writings as their own, they saw no reason
for making "a fetish of reworking material" when what they wanted to say
"already had been better said by another."  William Gordon, openly and without
apology admitted inserting the writings of others as if they were his own.
Callcott concluded that the writers of the day did not regard the matter
of borrowing as dishonest.  They "felt flattered rather than insulted when
their words were used by another.  The period is remarkable for the lack of
scholarly rivalry, and writers who borrowed from each other remained on the
warmest terms."  [George Callcott, 'History in the United States 1800-1860'
(Johns Hopkins Press, 1970), pp. 128-129, 136.]

Students have found the writing of history in nineteenth century America to
be often distorted in its portrayal of institutions and great men; they see
that era as producing histories characterized by a rhetorical literary form and
an undependable use of original sources.  But it is recognized that the writers
of the time did the best they knew.  To those early historians truth and
accuracy were measured in a dramatic style that saw raw historical data
transformed into a smooth, flowing story.  It was a common practice for
writers to alter their sources to minimize weakness and magnify virtue.  Method
of expression and moral consciousness were more important than the integrity
of the sources.  Their works make interesting reading, but their use of
original documents was often less than careful.

The Writing of Joseph Smith's History

To charge Mormon historians with deception because Joseph smith's 'History'
was neither completed nor entirely published during his lifetime is to
misunderstand the makup-up of the 'History' and how it was produced.  The
format of the 'History' was established by Joseph himself, and the work of
writing or compilation proceeded under his direction.  Using his own personal
diaries as a base, and inserting information from newspapers, minutes from
church and civic meetings, and his own correspondence files, the Prophet and
his scribes commenced a chronological, first-person narrative of his life and
the rise of the Church.  At the time of Joseph Smith's death in 1844 the 
manuscript of the 'History' had been completed only to August 1838.  After
his death it was continued to its completion using diaries, letters and
other materials he had produced during his lifetime, and following the plan
he had initiated.  In the Carthage Jail, just before his death, he instructed
Willard Richards, the Church historian, to continue the history as he had
started it.

If Joseph Smith compiled only a portion of his history himself, farming out
his writings to others whom he appointed to assist him, why should the critics
of Mormonism find this so offensive when ghost-writing is such a common
practice, even in our time?....

Joseph and those associated with him in producing the 'History' diligently
sought all the information they could find to make their work as accurate
and complete as possible.  Willard Richards on one occasion urged "all
those who have letters, or documents of any kind in their possession, which
in any way relate to the History of the Church," and anyone "who may be in
possession of any fact, circumstance, incident, event, or transaction which
they wish recorded" to report it.  As new information was obtained, it was
inserted in its proper place in the 'History', and the process of revision 
continued to the time of publication.

So carefully were the sources kept -- not only original manuscripts, but
also the handwritten volumes of the compiled 'History' -- that one can
reconstruct with some accuracy the entire process by which the 'History'
was written, who worked on it, and even precise dates when given segments
were compiled.  A comparison of the 'History' with its sources indicates
far more attention to accuracy and honesty than enemies of the Church have
allowed.  Had fraud been the motivation of Mormon historians, the original
sources would not have been preserved with such great care.

Publication of the 'History' was begun in 1842, even while the process of
gathering material was still going on.  The work appeared serially beginning
in the 'Times and Seasons' and continuing in the 'Deseret News' and
'Millennial Star'.  At the turn of the century, Brigham H. Roberts edited
the 'History' for publication in its present six-volume format.  Working in
an era of intense criticism of the Church, and a half century after the work
first commenced publication, Roberts changed archaic phraseology, deleted
material that appeared to him to be insignificant, outdated, in poor taste,
or undignified, and reworked his sources much like contemporaries such as
Francis Parkman had recently done in his 'France and England in North America.'
While not consistent with procedures developed later, the editorial work by
Roberts was not different from that of others of his generation.  And the
result, even with its textual flaws, was not grossly inaccurate; for the
sequence of events and the purposes of most readers, it served quite
adequately....

In the present generation, when the Jefferson papers and other publishing
projects have established the accepted standards for scholarly editing,
historians of the Church have been patiently working to present the
original documents in a more accurate light.  Today's historians are
products of their training and recognize the need for painstaking procedures.
The result, which cannot be accomplished overnight, will be the gradual
publication of basic primary sources in reliable editions.  Such a process,
each generation addressing its responsibilities according to its own best
lights and the standards accepted at the time, is perfectly natural -- scarcely
evidence of a conspiracy to deceive.  To charge early Mormon historians with
deliberated distortion of their history without considering the times in
which they wrote, is to criticize previous generations for disobeying rules
that did not then exist.

Dr. Stanley B. Kimball, professor of history at Southern Illinois University
said the following about the 'History of the Church'.

"It has been well known that the serialized 'History of Joseph Smith' consists
largely of items from other sources, collected during Joseph Smith's lifetime
and continued after the Saints were in Utah, then edited and pieced together
to form a history of the Prophet's life 'in his own words.'  It was not
uncommon in the nineteenth century for biographers to put the narrative in the
first person when compiling a biographical work, even though the subject of the
biography did not actually say or write all the words attributed to him; thus
the narrative would represent a faithful report of what others felt would be
helpful to print."  ("Ensign", August 1981)

In BYU Studies, Dean Jessee published a paper describing the scribes that
helped with the 'History of the Church' and giving a brief chronology of
the events that led to the completion and publishing of the history.

The paper can be ordered from BYU.  Ask for BYU Studies, Volume 11 (Summer,
1971), Number 4.  See note 125.2 for cost and address.