Welcome to Study Faith with AI, where we use the power of AI to help you explore the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

I'm Meg Jensen.

And I'm Paul Carter,

and we're Google AIs. Whether you're a lifelong member or just starting to learn about the Church, we're here to dive deep into its history, beliefs, and culture.

So, if you're ready to learn, you're in the right place.

That's right.

Let's get started. 

We often think history is just, you know, facts set in stone, but how those facts get presented, the story built around them, that's really powerful.

Yeah, absolutely. And today we're diving into a really interesting case study of that, how a specific historical narrative evolved within the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

We're going to look at this idea sometimes called Lying for the Lord. Now, that that phrase itself sounds pretty provocative, right?

It does. But what we're really trying to unpack is how the Church's approach to its own past, its own history has changed over time and how it was shaped by, well, specific challenges and priorities.

Exactly. The goal here isn't to point fingers or judge the past. It's more about understanding a process. We want to trace how certain ways of presenting information maybe starting around the difficult issue of early polygamy,

Right? How those practices sort of developed into broader strategies, strategies that seem focused on shaping how history is understood, definitely building member loyalty and unity and and um aiming for a positive public image.

So we'll follow this through different periods using the sources we've looked at.

Right?

Okay. So let's start at the beginning. Joseph Smith's era, the introduction of polygamy. I mean this was a hugely difficult time.

One source we have from FAIR Answers really highlights the intense pressure. It talks about early leaders being quite squeezed between their devotion to the truth and their devotion to their wives and children and to one another.

Okay, let's unpack that a bit. You can just imagine the kind of bind they were in.

Totally.

They believed they had this religious duty, polygamy, but it flew in the face of, well, everything, laws, society's norms, even people within the Church like Joseph Smith's first wife, Emma.

Exactly. And telling the whole truth about who is involved when that was risky. Really risky.

How so?

Well, the FAIR Answers piece mentions the real threat of betrayal, ending up in prison. You have to remember that context when looking back at why they did what they did,

Right? So, Faced with all that pressure, it seems like they might have felt, I don't know, justified in not being totally upfront.

Perhaps like withholding details or even misrepresenting things might have felt like the only way to protect the practice, protect their families, their community.

And this is where we see those first hints of what we're talking about. Using information control as a kind of shield.

Yeah. And we have examples. Joseph Smith himself publicly denied polygamy more than once,

but privately. privately. As FAIR Answers notes, he was entering into plural marriages like with Sarah Ann Whitney.

And there's that detail about him telling her parents to be careful what they said around Emma.

It just shows the secrecy involved.

Wow. And it wasn't just staying quiet, was it?

No. FAIR also mentions him publicly condemning something called spiritual

wifery. He called it absolutely false and evil, you know, while secretly practicing polygamy himself.

It paints a really complex picture of the situation that we're navigating.

Definitely. Okay, so fast forward a bit. Late 19th century, polygamy has been officially outlawed by the US government, but some are still practicing it secretly. This is the time of the Mormon Underground.

The Underground, right?

And the Daymon Smith dissertation gives us a lot of insight here. It describes how suspicion and just the constant need for secrecy became like woven into the fabric of daily life for those involved.

So, it gets even more intense.

Oh, yeah. The dissertation talks about this circular feedback loop.

You had gossip flying around people taking evasive actions to avoid getting caught, newspapers reporting on it, and it all just fed on itself, making things even more tense and secretive.

So, how did they manage? What kind of evasive actions are we talking about?

Well, they got creative. Our sources show things like using code words and letters and telegrams. There's an example of a telegram mentioning Maude, which the dissertation explains was code used in a political context.

Like spycraft.

A little bit. Yeah. And then you had people in court like during the Tanner trial, just flat out denying they knew anything about ongoing polygamy.

So, public statements weren't always reliable.

Not at all. The dissertation points to instructions given by a leader named Lyman to someone named Tolton, basically saying, "Don't necessarily believe what's said publicly." Language itself became really pragmatic, almost tactical,

Meaning depended on who you were talking to.

Exactly. It was all about context, trust between the individuals involved, which as the dissertation notes, actually made it hard for these undergrounders to interact with other Mormons who weren't in on the secrets created potential divides.

Okay, so that intense period leads us into the early 20th century and something called the Reed Smoot hearings. What was that about?

Big deal. Reed Smoot was elected senator from Utah, but there was this huge fight to prevent him from taking his seat largely because he was a Mormon apostle, and the whole polygamy issue got dragged back into the national spotlight.

So intense public scrutiny again,

massive scrutiny. And what came out during those hearings, according to the Daymon Smith dissertation looking at Smoot's secretary's diary was, well, a lot of confusion, contradictory testimonies. It really highlighted the lack of a single clear message from the Church - especially regarding polygamy.

Ah so that must have put pressure on the leadership.

Absolutely. It seems like the hearings were a real wakeup call. You see a definite shift afterwards towards Church leaders putting more emphasis on, um, public perception and on conformity within the Church making sure members were aligned with the official anti-polygamy stance.

How did they do that?

Well, one key thing was the second manifesto in 1904. The dissertation suggests this was partly aimed at reassuring monogamous members, but also importantly at improving the Church's public image,

Trying to present a more unified modern face to the world.

Exactly. A move towards a more public Mormonism.

Private disagreements, especially about polygamy, were kind of frowned upon. The dissertation even mentions concerns leader Joseph F. Smith had about apostles keeping detailed personal diaries. Maybe a sign of wanting more control over the narrative, even internal ones.

And they took practical steps, too.

Yeah. Committees were formed, like one in 1909 mentioned in the dissertation, specifically to root out any new polygamous marriages and enforce the Church's official position, solidifying the shift.

Okay. So, this leads us into the era of Joseph F. Smith as Church president, and the focus on history, the narrative becomes even stronger.

It seems that way. We start seeing discussions about how the past gets presented. Maybe certain uh less flattering details getting downplayed or omitted

Like what?

Well, the affair answer source brings up claims that some official Mormon histories have omitted references to Joseph Smith's drinking and use of tobacco. Now, FAIR provides explanations for why that might be, but the claim itself points to this idea of selectivity and storytelling. Interesting. And the Church was also actively defending its history by this point.

Oh, definitely. You look at something like the FAIR Answers website itself - it's full of responses to criticisms about creative editing of things like the first vision accounts or stories about the Book of Mormon Witnesses, other sensitive points in history. It shows an ongoing effort to manage and shape how the past is understood.

Which brings us to this concept mentioned in one of the sources, the idea of correlated history. What does that mean practically speaking?

Okay, so correlated history as it's described often seems to involve starting with the Church's current beliefs and doctrines, right? And then looking back at history through that lens. finding the parts of the past that support or align with the present understanding.

Okay, like starting with the answer and working backward.

Kind of. The source about the John Taylor manual gives a good example. It describes the committee deciding first on the topics they wanted to cover based on current needs and understanding before diving deep into Taylor's actual writings to find material for those topics. So, the present framework guides the selection from the past.

I see. So the goal is consistency with current teachings making history relevant for members today.

Exactly. But, you know, the potential downside is that it might smooth over complexities or maybe ignore historical details or perspectives that don't quite fit the current mold.

Okay. So, let's connect all this to the present day. How do these historical threads influence how the Church operates now, particularly regarding loyalty, conformity, and public image?

Well, the Daymon Smith dissertation talks a lot about priesthood correlation. This is a huge initiative really ramped up under David O. McKay.

And what’s correlation about?

It's basically a system to centralize Church materials, lessons, publications, everything. The goal is doctrinal accuracy, consistency, making sure everyone's teaching the same things.

Okay?

And naturally, that includes how Church history is taught and presented in official materials. It's a powerful way to ensure a unified message.

So that centralized control shapes the official historical narrative that members generally receive,

Right? And the dissertation suggests this correlated approach often interprets the past using current ideas, current analogies like we talked about with the John Taylor manual. It can simplify things, make them fit neatly into today's understanding.

And does this link back to public perception, too?

I think so. Yeah, you can see parallels with the pressures felt during the Smoot hearings. There's still understandably a strong emphasis in the modern Church on maintaining a positive unified public image.

So things like official Church websites, PR efforts, even resources like FAIR Answers They're all part of managing that narrative today.

It seems that way. They're tools to address criticism, explain potentially difficult historical points. Yeah.

And generally present the Church and its history in a way that aligns with current teachings and aims for, you know, positive public sentiment.

Wow. So, we've really traced quite an evolution here.

Yeah, we have.

Starting from what seems like a very specific, almost desperate measure to protect the practice of polygamy in the early community. This idea of Lying for the Lord in that narrow context. right than through the intense secrecy of the Underground, the public relations crisis of the Smoot hearings,

Leading to a more conscious effort under leaders like Joseph F. Smith to actively shape the historical narrative

And now connecting to the modern Church's structure. Things like correlation, the emphasis on loyalty, unity, and definitely keeping an eye on public perception. It shows how historical experiences really shape how an institution operates today.

The way the Church tells its own story has clearly been molded by this whole journey, these changing needs and priorities over time.

Absolutely.

So, thinking about all this, what does it mean for you listening, I think it really underscores how the stories we hear, especially from big institutions, aren't always simple facts. They're often shaped narratives.

Yeah. They're the result of history, choices, strategic communication, all mixed together. Understanding that process gives you a much richer way to think about any organization's story.

And maybe it leaves you with this question to chew on. How does any institution, religious, corporate, political, whatever, handle that tricky balance?

Right? The balance between sticking to core beliefs and values while also presenting a story, a narrative that's coherent and ideally positive, especially in a world where information travels so fast and comes from everywhere.

Thinking about how historical narratives get shaped, that ongoing dance between accuracy, identity, and public image,

It's a really fundamental tension, and you see it playing out all around us, not just in this one specific example. Something definitely worth thinking about.

If you find value in this exploration, please like, share, follow, and consider becoming a subscriber. Your contributions help keep these conversations going and allows us to maintain the highest quality production. You can find all the details at studyfaithwithai.com. Thank you for being part of this journey.