My submission for the Leonard J. Arrington Mormon History Lecture essay contest in fall 2013. It isn't great and I'm not surprised it didn't win anything.
Faith and Doubt in My Life
By C. Randall Nicholson
Gregory Prince based his title for the 2013 Leonard J. Arrington Mormon History Lecture, “Faith and Doubt as Partners in Mormon History”, on the title of the inaugural lecture in the series – “Faith and Intellect as Partners in Mormon History”, given in 1996 by Dr. Arrington himself. His general thesis was that doubt provides an impetus for continuing revelation and change within the Church by leading people to question old paradigms and assumptions. Many members frown on doubt and distrust such processes because, while they sustain the core doctrine of continuing revelation, “change” per se is more difficult to accept. Some highlights from Dr. Arrington’s life and career were presented as examples of how doubt can motivate us to seek new and more accurate paradigms.
Leonard J. Arrington’s first notable encounter with doubt came as a college student at the University of Idaho in Moscow, Idaho, where he was taught about the theory of organic evolution. The LDS Church has never had an official position on evolution, but many church leaders of that era spoke out very strongly against it and created the impression that it was contrary to church doctrine. Arrington thus became confused by the apparent conflict between what he had been taught growing up and what he was learning now. He was fortunate to have an understanding professor who helped him resolve it.
Dr. Arrington shifted to working in economics and sought advice from LDS Apostle John A. Widtsoe on where to focus his research and how to gain the trust of suspicious church archivists. He followed this advice and wrote a doctoral dissertation that, within a few years, became the basis for a book called Great Basin Kingdom. It looked at the Mormon colonization of Utah from an economist’s perspective and drew mixed reactions from church members and leadership. It was not always faith-promoting in its objective presentation of facts – for example, it detailed several investment errors by Brigham Young and other church leaders that had caused economic woes for the Saints. LDS doctrine does not hold its leaders to be infallible, but criticizing them is frowned upon.
The next year Dr. Arrington published an article in the premier issue of BYU Studies entitled “An Economic Interpretation of the Word of Wisdom”, which discussed practical economic factors that could have guided the LDS health code’s evolution from advice to commandment. This secular explanation was seen as even more “anti-Mormon” than his book, and raised such ire from General Authorities that the publication of BYU Studies was suspended for a year. Dr. Arrington continued to gain prestige for the rest of his life and eventually spent some time as official Church Historian, but this was his last major controversy. He declined to personally investigate other issues that troubled him, such as the historicity of the Book of Mormon or the ban on priesthood ordination and temple rites for members of African descent, but took great interest in the work done on those topics by other scholars.
The lecture closed with a question and answer session, and many questions pertained to the LDS Church’s current difficulties with historical and doctrinal issues in this age of widespread dissemination of information through the internet. Dr. Prince urged that more work needs to be done on these issues and that the best information will float to the top of internet search results through a process of natural selection. Though he did not sugar-coat the extent of the challenge, or any of the difficulties he discussed in the lecture itself, he ended on an optimistic note that left little doubt as to his own faith.
His optimism seems justified, as the Church is in the process of adapting to the information age by becoming more open and candid about its history. Church leaders, while refusing to compromise on their religion’s truth claims, have become more amiable to the “warts and all” approach of modern research. 1 The Joseph Smith Papers Project, which aims to research and publish all documents created by the first Mormon prophet or his scribes, exemplifies this willingness to engage in responsible scholarship. Controversial issues are being dealt with more frequently in official church publications, and unofficial publications that deal with them no longer fear suspension or other repercussions.
Less than a month after this presentation, one of the highest ranking leaders in the Church expressed a similar sentiment on the role of doubt: “It’s natural to have questions – the acorn of honest inquiry has often sprouted and matured into a great oak of understanding. There are few members of the Church who, at one time or another, have not wrestled with serious or sensitive questions. One of the purposes of the Church is to nurture and cultivate the seed of faith – even in the sometimes sandy soil of doubt and uncertainty.” He was quick to add, however, that members should “first doubt [their] doubts before [they] doubt [their] faith.”2 This seems to have been the approach taken by Dr. Arrington, who remained a devout member all his life.
I will not pretend to have the same professional qualifications or breadth of knowledge as Dr. Arrington, but nonetheless I can identify with his faith journey. Like Dr. Prince, I enjoy studying church history as an avocation, and by nature I question and scrutinize it. Just prior to my senior year in high school I encountered a web site by a disgruntled former member of the Church which made several criticisms and accusations. This caused a lot of cognitive dissonance and a significant crisis of faith until I researched each criticism for myself and satisfied myself that they did not disprove the Church’s truth claims.
Though my faith was ultimately strengthened, I had to concede that some of the criticisms had merit, or at least provided another aspect of the Mormon story that made it more complicated and nuanced. Like Dr. Arrington, my investigation necessitated a paradigm shift, and I am still making occasional adjustments to this day. Two particular issues stand out; though neither of them was directly a part of this initial faith crisis, both were extremely significant in my spiritual and intellectual development.
First, like Dr. Arrington, I had to confront the question of organic evolution. I was raised in a household that respected science, and from my earliest childhood I was given dinosaur books and videos that mentioned evolution without apology. I gave the subject little thought but readily accepted that the earth was billions of years old and had been inhabited long before the advent of humans, and assumed there was a way to reconcile all this with the account of Genesis. Thus I took particular notice when I stumbled upon Elder Joseph Fielding Smith’s assertion that “you cannot believe in this theory of the origin of man, and at the same time accept the plan of salvation as set forth by the Lord our God. You must choose the one and reject the other, for they are in direct conflict and there is a gulf separating them which is so great that it cannot be bridged.”3
Besides quotes like this I encountered pseudoscientific arguments that purported to expose flaws or anomalies in the theory. Something that had posed no difficulty as a child thus became problematic, and I rejected evolution as antithetical to revealed religion. This quickly brought me cognitive dissonance as I realized that even if the criticisms of evolution were all true, nothing in biology made any sense without it and there was no other reasonable explanation for the evidence. I pushed these doubts to the back of my mind because I felt that religion and even morality in general were at stake.
When I began college I was required, like most students, to take a biology course. I knew the course would discuss evolution but was determined to approach it with an open mind, and as I did I could not escape the fact that it made as much sense to me then as it had in my childhood. In another class, we were discussing the conflict between religion and evolution when one of my classmates incredulously asked, “Why does there have to be a conflict? I know a lot of Christians who accept evolution.” I felt a great deal of angst at that moment. I yearned to regain that spirit of reconciliation I had once felt, but I felt that my particular religion did not make that option available.
After my second semester I read Finding Darwin’s God by Catholic biologist Kenneth Miller, and finally had the courage to admit to myself that I believed in evolution again and probably always had. Yet this still left the issue of church doctrine. Claims that the Church had no position on evolution seemed to directly contradict what I had read and learned, even when certain quotes were explained as the personal opinions of their authors. Researching further, however, revealed another side of the story, one summarized in a letter to General Authorities in 1931: “Leave geology, biology, archaeology and anthropology, no one of which has to do with the salvation of the souls of mankind, to scientific research, while we magnify our calling in the realm of the Church.”4
The other doubt to which I referred has been more troublesome than all the others in my life put together, and that is the issue of blacks and the priesthood. It did not bother me when I first heard of it in childhood because I was well aware of the past discrimination against blacks in American society, and naturally assumed this was merely another instance of that. A few years later I began to wonder why a church led by revelation from God would not have known better. When I asked, I was told that this situation was similar to only Levites holding the priesthood in Old Testament times, and that there was no racism involved at all. I was satisfied with this explanation.
Later, however, I found out that during Joseph Smith’s tenure the priesthood was given to Elijah Abel (or Ables) and at least one or two other black members. The ban was implemented under unclear circumstances a few years after his death, with Brigham Young and other top church leaders citing the Protestant “curse of Ham” and “curse of Cain” as its justification.5 To further complicate matters, General Authorities after 1978 have said that these and all other explanations for the ban are speculation and not doctrines of the Church.6 The entire thing disturbed me and screamed for an explanation. It seemed one thing for fallible church leaders to make mistakes and preach their personal opinions, but another entirely for these mistakes and opinions to have such a tangible and far-reaching negative impact on church policy.
So while this was one doubt that Dr. Arrington opted not to pursue, I felt compelled to do so with vigor. For months I read everything I could on the subject – pro-Mormon, anti-Mormon, or neutral – and extracted all the relevant facts and quotes into a compilation of my own. I was not doing any original research and this compilation did not measure up to professional standards of scholarship. My goal was simply to get the broadest view possible of the topic, to see it in its totality from every angle. I hoped the picture that emerged would end this doubt and bolster my faith, and that I could then share my insights with others and help them as well.
The emerging picture was vastly more convoluted than even the aforementioned details would indicate. Much of what I learned disturbed me, yet much of it was faith-promoting as well. I took particular notice of this perspective by Dr. Lester Bush, Jr.: “For the faithful Mormon a… question, less amenable to research, also poses itself: Have our modern prophets received an unequivocal verification of the divine origin of the priesthood policy, regardless of its history? The lack of a tangible answer… emphasizes even more the need for greater insight... We have the tools and would seem to have the historical resource material available to provide valid answers to these questions. Perhaps it’s time we began.”7
As I studied I came to realize that perhaps there was a false dichotomy between human fallibility and God’s will. John Taylor said “The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray… If I were to attempt that, the Lord would remove me out of my place, and so He will any other man who attempts to lead the children of men astray from the oracles of God and from their duty.”8 This statement is canonized and I accept it as part of my faith. I realized, however, that I needed to determine what exactly is meant by “leading astray”. The historical record clearly shows that serious mistakes have been made, but they may somehow work out for the best in God’s plan.
Hence I adopted the sentiment expressed by LDS chemist Henry Eyring: “[God] often allows [church leaders’] errors to stand uncorrected. He may have a purpose in doing so, such as to teach us that religious truth comes forth ‘line upon line, precept upon precept’ in a process of sifting and winnowing similar to the one I know so well in science.”9 Many Mormons are fond of saying “The Church is perfect, but the people aren’t.” After my amateur research I strongly disagreed with this and was pleased to hear President Uchtdorf say, in direct contrast, “I suppose the Church would be perfect only if it were run by perfect beings.”10
I do not believe that the Church was perfect when it was organized in 1830, nor do I believe that it is perfect today. I believe, however, that it is improving all the time. In this age where all their words are permanently recorded for a global audience, General Authorities are much more careful with their personal opinions. No longer do they denounce evolution in such strong terms or openly speculate about areas in which there is no revealed doctrine. Further, the Church’s increasing openness and transparency, already mentioned, bodes well both for scholars and struggling lay members.
Continuing revelation is the primary factor behind change in the Church, but it does not occur in a vacuum, and I agree with Dr. Prince that scholars can and do become agents in it. For example, the revelation extending priesthood and temple blessings to members of African descent came after an extended period of prayer and study by Spencer W. Kimball, and research on the ban’s history factored into his deliberations.11 Doubt, in turn, is often a primary motivation for investigating these issues in the first place. I do not mean to say that doubt is an enjoyable or desirable state of mind; but in trying to resolve it I, Leonard Arrington, and many others have expanded our horizons to achieve a deeper and more mature faith.
Leonard J. Arrington’s first notable encounter with doubt came as a college student at the University of Idaho in Moscow, Idaho, where he was taught about the theory of organic evolution. The LDS Church has never had an official position on evolution, but many church leaders of that era spoke out very strongly against it and created the impression that it was contrary to church doctrine. Arrington thus became confused by the apparent conflict between what he had been taught growing up and what he was learning now. He was fortunate to have an understanding professor who helped him resolve it.
Dr. Arrington shifted to working in economics and sought advice from LDS Apostle John A. Widtsoe on where to focus his research and how to gain the trust of suspicious church archivists. He followed this advice and wrote a doctoral dissertation that, within a few years, became the basis for a book called Great Basin Kingdom. It looked at the Mormon colonization of Utah from an economist’s perspective and drew mixed reactions from church members and leadership. It was not always faith-promoting in its objective presentation of facts – for example, it detailed several investment errors by Brigham Young and other church leaders that had caused economic woes for the Saints. LDS doctrine does not hold its leaders to be infallible, but criticizing them is frowned upon.
The next year Dr. Arrington published an article in the premier issue of BYU Studies entitled “An Economic Interpretation of the Word of Wisdom”, which discussed practical economic factors that could have guided the LDS health code’s evolution from advice to commandment. This secular explanation was seen as even more “anti-Mormon” than his book, and raised such ire from General Authorities that the publication of BYU Studies was suspended for a year. Dr. Arrington continued to gain prestige for the rest of his life and eventually spent some time as official Church Historian, but this was his last major controversy. He declined to personally investigate other issues that troubled him, such as the historicity of the Book of Mormon or the ban on priesthood ordination and temple rites for members of African descent, but took great interest in the work done on those topics by other scholars.
The lecture closed with a question and answer session, and many questions pertained to the LDS Church’s current difficulties with historical and doctrinal issues in this age of widespread dissemination of information through the internet. Dr. Prince urged that more work needs to be done on these issues and that the best information will float to the top of internet search results through a process of natural selection. Though he did not sugar-coat the extent of the challenge, or any of the difficulties he discussed in the lecture itself, he ended on an optimistic note that left little doubt as to his own faith.
His optimism seems justified, as the Church is in the process of adapting to the information age by becoming more open and candid about its history. Church leaders, while refusing to compromise on their religion’s truth claims, have become more amiable to the “warts and all” approach of modern research. 1 The Joseph Smith Papers Project, which aims to research and publish all documents created by the first Mormon prophet or his scribes, exemplifies this willingness to engage in responsible scholarship. Controversial issues are being dealt with more frequently in official church publications, and unofficial publications that deal with them no longer fear suspension or other repercussions.
Less than a month after this presentation, one of the highest ranking leaders in the Church expressed a similar sentiment on the role of doubt: “It’s natural to have questions – the acorn of honest inquiry has often sprouted and matured into a great oak of understanding. There are few members of the Church who, at one time or another, have not wrestled with serious or sensitive questions. One of the purposes of the Church is to nurture and cultivate the seed of faith – even in the sometimes sandy soil of doubt and uncertainty.” He was quick to add, however, that members should “first doubt [their] doubts before [they] doubt [their] faith.”2 This seems to have been the approach taken by Dr. Arrington, who remained a devout member all his life.
I will not pretend to have the same professional qualifications or breadth of knowledge as Dr. Arrington, but nonetheless I can identify with his faith journey. Like Dr. Prince, I enjoy studying church history as an avocation, and by nature I question and scrutinize it. Just prior to my senior year in high school I encountered a web site by a disgruntled former member of the Church which made several criticisms and accusations. This caused a lot of cognitive dissonance and a significant crisis of faith until I researched each criticism for myself and satisfied myself that they did not disprove the Church’s truth claims.
Though my faith was ultimately strengthened, I had to concede that some of the criticisms had merit, or at least provided another aspect of the Mormon story that made it more complicated and nuanced. Like Dr. Arrington, my investigation necessitated a paradigm shift, and I am still making occasional adjustments to this day. Two particular issues stand out; though neither of them was directly a part of this initial faith crisis, both were extremely significant in my spiritual and intellectual development.
First, like Dr. Arrington, I had to confront the question of organic evolution. I was raised in a household that respected science, and from my earliest childhood I was given dinosaur books and videos that mentioned evolution without apology. I gave the subject little thought but readily accepted that the earth was billions of years old and had been inhabited long before the advent of humans, and assumed there was a way to reconcile all this with the account of Genesis. Thus I took particular notice when I stumbled upon Elder Joseph Fielding Smith’s assertion that “you cannot believe in this theory of the origin of man, and at the same time accept the plan of salvation as set forth by the Lord our God. You must choose the one and reject the other, for they are in direct conflict and there is a gulf separating them which is so great that it cannot be bridged.”3
Besides quotes like this I encountered pseudoscientific arguments that purported to expose flaws or anomalies in the theory. Something that had posed no difficulty as a child thus became problematic, and I rejected evolution as antithetical to revealed religion. This quickly brought me cognitive dissonance as I realized that even if the criticisms of evolution were all true, nothing in biology made any sense without it and there was no other reasonable explanation for the evidence. I pushed these doubts to the back of my mind because I felt that religion and even morality in general were at stake.
When I began college I was required, like most students, to take a biology course. I knew the course would discuss evolution but was determined to approach it with an open mind, and as I did I could not escape the fact that it made as much sense to me then as it had in my childhood. In another class, we were discussing the conflict between religion and evolution when one of my classmates incredulously asked, “Why does there have to be a conflict? I know a lot of Christians who accept evolution.” I felt a great deal of angst at that moment. I yearned to regain that spirit of reconciliation I had once felt, but I felt that my particular religion did not make that option available.
After my second semester I read Finding Darwin’s God by Catholic biologist Kenneth Miller, and finally had the courage to admit to myself that I believed in evolution again and probably always had. Yet this still left the issue of church doctrine. Claims that the Church had no position on evolution seemed to directly contradict what I had read and learned, even when certain quotes were explained as the personal opinions of their authors. Researching further, however, revealed another side of the story, one summarized in a letter to General Authorities in 1931: “Leave geology, biology, archaeology and anthropology, no one of which has to do with the salvation of the souls of mankind, to scientific research, while we magnify our calling in the realm of the Church.”4
The other doubt to which I referred has been more troublesome than all the others in my life put together, and that is the issue of blacks and the priesthood. It did not bother me when I first heard of it in childhood because I was well aware of the past discrimination against blacks in American society, and naturally assumed this was merely another instance of that. A few years later I began to wonder why a church led by revelation from God would not have known better. When I asked, I was told that this situation was similar to only Levites holding the priesthood in Old Testament times, and that there was no racism involved at all. I was satisfied with this explanation.
Later, however, I found out that during Joseph Smith’s tenure the priesthood was given to Elijah Abel (or Ables) and at least one or two other black members. The ban was implemented under unclear circumstances a few years after his death, with Brigham Young and other top church leaders citing the Protestant “curse of Ham” and “curse of Cain” as its justification.5 To further complicate matters, General Authorities after 1978 have said that these and all other explanations for the ban are speculation and not doctrines of the Church.6 The entire thing disturbed me and screamed for an explanation. It seemed one thing for fallible church leaders to make mistakes and preach their personal opinions, but another entirely for these mistakes and opinions to have such a tangible and far-reaching negative impact on church policy.
So while this was one doubt that Dr. Arrington opted not to pursue, I felt compelled to do so with vigor. For months I read everything I could on the subject – pro-Mormon, anti-Mormon, or neutral – and extracted all the relevant facts and quotes into a compilation of my own. I was not doing any original research and this compilation did not measure up to professional standards of scholarship. My goal was simply to get the broadest view possible of the topic, to see it in its totality from every angle. I hoped the picture that emerged would end this doubt and bolster my faith, and that I could then share my insights with others and help them as well.
The emerging picture was vastly more convoluted than even the aforementioned details would indicate. Much of what I learned disturbed me, yet much of it was faith-promoting as well. I took particular notice of this perspective by Dr. Lester Bush, Jr.: “For the faithful Mormon a… question, less amenable to research, also poses itself: Have our modern prophets received an unequivocal verification of the divine origin of the priesthood policy, regardless of its history? The lack of a tangible answer… emphasizes even more the need for greater insight... We have the tools and would seem to have the historical resource material available to provide valid answers to these questions. Perhaps it’s time we began.”7
As I studied I came to realize that perhaps there was a false dichotomy between human fallibility and God’s will. John Taylor said “The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray… If I were to attempt that, the Lord would remove me out of my place, and so He will any other man who attempts to lead the children of men astray from the oracles of God and from their duty.”8 This statement is canonized and I accept it as part of my faith. I realized, however, that I needed to determine what exactly is meant by “leading astray”. The historical record clearly shows that serious mistakes have been made, but they may somehow work out for the best in God’s plan.
Hence I adopted the sentiment expressed by LDS chemist Henry Eyring: “[God] often allows [church leaders’] errors to stand uncorrected. He may have a purpose in doing so, such as to teach us that religious truth comes forth ‘line upon line, precept upon precept’ in a process of sifting and winnowing similar to the one I know so well in science.”9 Many Mormons are fond of saying “The Church is perfect, but the people aren’t.” After my amateur research I strongly disagreed with this and was pleased to hear President Uchtdorf say, in direct contrast, “I suppose the Church would be perfect only if it were run by perfect beings.”10
I do not believe that the Church was perfect when it was organized in 1830, nor do I believe that it is perfect today. I believe, however, that it is improving all the time. In this age where all their words are permanently recorded for a global audience, General Authorities are much more careful with their personal opinions. No longer do they denounce evolution in such strong terms or openly speculate about areas in which there is no revealed doctrine. Further, the Church’s increasing openness and transparency, already mentioned, bodes well both for scholars and struggling lay members.
Continuing revelation is the primary factor behind change in the Church, but it does not occur in a vacuum, and I agree with Dr. Prince that scholars can and do become agents in it. For example, the revelation extending priesthood and temple blessings to members of African descent came after an extended period of prayer and study by Spencer W. Kimball, and research on the ban’s history factored into his deliberations.11 Doubt, in turn, is often a primary motivation for investigating these issues in the first place. I do not mean to say that doubt is an enjoyable or desirable state of mind; but in trying to resolve it I, Leonard Arrington, and many others have expanded our horizons to achieve a deeper and more mature faith.
References
1. See Peter Henderson and Kristina Cooke, “Special report – Mormonism besieged by the modern age”, Reuters, 30 January 2012; and Michael De Groote, “Mormons opening up in an Internet world”, Deseret News, 1 February 2012. Both articles cite then-Church Historian Marlin K. Jensen, who spoke candidly on the problem and efforts to ameliorate it.
2. Dieter F. Uchtdorf, “Come, Join with Us”, 183rd Semiannual General Conference of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 5 October 2013.
3. Bruce R. McConkie (editor), Doctrines of Salvation: Sermons and Writings of Joseph Fielding Smith Volume 1 (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1954), pp. 141-142. Similar sentiments are expressed in Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1958); and Bruce R. McConkie, “The Seven Deadly Heresies”, 1 June 1980. The second book contained a disclaimer that it was the “full and sole responsibility” of the author, while the wording in the “Heresies” speech was softened considerably in the printed version.
4. BYU Board of Trustees, “Evolution and the Origin of Man”, October 1992. “This packet contains, as far as could be found, all statements issued by the First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on the subject of evolution and the origin of man, and a statement on the Church’s attitude toward science.” See also Michael R. Ash, “The Mormon Myth of Evil Evolution”, Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 35:4, pp. 33-52. This article includes many of the pro- and anti-evolution statements by church leaders over the years.
5. Lester E. Bush, Jr., “Mormonism’s Negro Doctrine: An Historical Overview”, Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 8:1, pp. 11-68. This and other relevant articles are reprinted in Lester E. Bush, Jr. and Armand L. Mauss (editors), Neither White nor Black: Mormon Scholars Confront the Race Issue in a Universal Church (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1984).
6. See Dallin H. Oaks, “Interview with Associated Press”, in Daily Herald, 5 June 1988 (reprinted in Life’s Lessons Learned, Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2011); Jeffrey R. Holland, PBS Interview, 4 March 2006; and “Race and the Church: All Are Alike Unto God”, Mormon Newsroom, February 2012. The introductory heading for Official Declaration 2, added in 2013, simply says “Church records offer no clear insights into the origins of this practice.”
7. Bush, “Mormonism’s Negro Doctrine”. My own amateur compilation on the subject can be found at http://christopherrandallnicholson.webs.com/lds-racial-history.
8. Wilford Woodruff, Deseret Evening News, 11 October 1890, p. 2; cited in the Doctrine and Covenants alongside Official Declaration 1.
9. Henry Eyring, Reflections of a Scientist (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1983), p. 47.
10. Uchtdorf, “Come, Join with Us”.
11. Edward L. Kimball, “Spencer W. Kimball and the Revelation on Priesthood”, BYU Studies 47:2, especially pp. 27-28, 54.
Read more of my essays here.
2. Dieter F. Uchtdorf, “Come, Join with Us”, 183rd Semiannual General Conference of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 5 October 2013.
3. Bruce R. McConkie (editor), Doctrines of Salvation: Sermons and Writings of Joseph Fielding Smith Volume 1 (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1954), pp. 141-142. Similar sentiments are expressed in Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1958); and Bruce R. McConkie, “The Seven Deadly Heresies”, 1 June 1980. The second book contained a disclaimer that it was the “full and sole responsibility” of the author, while the wording in the “Heresies” speech was softened considerably in the printed version.
4. BYU Board of Trustees, “Evolution and the Origin of Man”, October 1992. “This packet contains, as far as could be found, all statements issued by the First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on the subject of evolution and the origin of man, and a statement on the Church’s attitude toward science.” See also Michael R. Ash, “The Mormon Myth of Evil Evolution”, Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 35:4, pp. 33-52. This article includes many of the pro- and anti-evolution statements by church leaders over the years.
5. Lester E. Bush, Jr., “Mormonism’s Negro Doctrine: An Historical Overview”, Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 8:1, pp. 11-68. This and other relevant articles are reprinted in Lester E. Bush, Jr. and Armand L. Mauss (editors), Neither White nor Black: Mormon Scholars Confront the Race Issue in a Universal Church (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1984).
6. See Dallin H. Oaks, “Interview with Associated Press”, in Daily Herald, 5 June 1988 (reprinted in Life’s Lessons Learned, Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2011); Jeffrey R. Holland, PBS Interview, 4 March 2006; and “Race and the Church: All Are Alike Unto God”, Mormon Newsroom, February 2012. The introductory heading for Official Declaration 2, added in 2013, simply says “Church records offer no clear insights into the origins of this practice.”
7. Bush, “Mormonism’s Negro Doctrine”. My own amateur compilation on the subject can be found at http://christopherrandallnicholson.webs.com/lds-racial-history.
8. Wilford Woodruff, Deseret Evening News, 11 October 1890, p. 2; cited in the Doctrine and Covenants alongside Official Declaration 1.
9. Henry Eyring, Reflections of a Scientist (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1983), p. 47.
10. Uchtdorf, “Come, Join with Us”.
11. Edward L. Kimball, “Spencer W. Kimball and the Revelation on Priesthood”, BYU Studies 47:2, especially pp. 27-28, 54.
Read more of my essays here.
