by

In the past couple of weeks the Church News reported on two different and prominent instances of church leaders teaching that researching church history is not the solution to questions about church history. My first thought after seeing the second was “retrenchment,” to invoke sociologist Armand Mauss’s piercing analysis. And as a researcher in church history, I must say I felt a twinge of disappointment. It may be that my impulse is correct, but after some reflection, it seems to me that there is more going on.



The problem raised in both discourses was the specter of doubt, either personal or of a family member, maybe even a spouse, who has shifting beliefs with regard to the church. To quote the account of President Oaks

Matters of Church history and doctrinal issues have led some spouses to inactivity. Some spouses wonder how to best go about researching and responding to such issues. “I suggest that research is not the answer,” he said.

I think that President Oaks is likely correct, here, though it is complicated. Clearly not everyone should feel like they need to research our history to be member in good standing, and someone leaving the church over “historical issues” could mean any number of things, not all of which could be addressed by research. Moreover history is not religion (as much as we have tried to make it so). The situation is, of course, complicated precisely because of our history. There was a decades-strong movement that reigned in the past, over-simplifying (in retrospect) church narratives, and looking hostilily upon research that complicated things. One might easily relegate President Oaks’ comments to that deprecated past, though I think that is a mistake.

My challenge is that I think the seemingly popular podcasts and letters that are frequently cited as responsible for these situations are just dumb–generally a mirror to the worst thinking in our past. It is consequently hard for me to respond charitably to people in a state of “crisis” induced by them. Modeling responsible research and scholarship is my solution, when I am feeling less snarky. Clearly for me, (good) research and analysis is the answer! So, what are the limits to my default perspective, and are there limits to President Oaks advice?

I do believe that there should be options within the church that focus on experience and belief. The problem outlined by President Oaks, however, is on of relationships. And relationships are more complicated than one’s personal preference for religious engagement. So the question might be how do you navigate relationships complicated by differences in belief? I doubt that there is a single response to that situation that is widely applicable (beyond principles of love, patience, empathy, and communication). In other words, my impulse, when faced with a stereotypical faith crisis, of viewing it is the product of crappy research and thinking is not particularly helpful. My experience has also been that just telling people to pray/go to the temple/serve more without engaging the issues of history, belief, and church law, hasn’t been particularly productive. So what should we do?

First, good research should be informing our common and shared narratives. This appears to be the case more and more every year. Good research should inform our responses to questions and challenges by loved ones, and those interested in our faith. Empathy, love, and communication require us to not ignore those concerns. And with missionaries and all members having access to the Gospel Topics essays, Saints, and the associated online content, we are on the way to be able to do that. Our shared responsibility is that we speak accurately about our faith, our church, and its teachings, both current and historic. We as a people (and church leaders specifically) are making a good faith effort to incorporate good research into our lived religion.

After the quote above, President Oaks specifically acknowledged the Gospel Topics essays, but he doesn’t see them as a solution to the problem at hand:

“But the best answer to any question that threatens faith is to work to increase faith in the Lord Jesus Christ,” he said. “Conversion to the Lord precedes conversion to the Church. And conversion to the Lord comes through prayer and study and service, furthered by loving patience on the part of spouse and other concerned family members.”

It is hard to argue against this statement, and in some ways it seems rather radical: Focus on faith in Jesus Christ through prayer, study and service. Have patience. Worry about the church after that. As I have confessed, my initial responses aren’t always charitable, I could use a dose of Oaks’ exhortation as much as anyone. Earlier he said research was not the answer, but here he says that study is part of the answer. And while we are seeking Christ and at a point where we can start worrying about the church, what do we then study? I imagine for some that might be the Sunday School manual that I still am rolling my eyes at, because I am a jerk. For others that might be the Gospel Topics essays. For still others that might mean the latest titles from University Presses. What I hope is that we can all (especially me) be more loving, kind, empathetic, and communicative.

And let me be clear now: no one should read “research can’t solve everything” to mean “research is bad.” I suspect that there are church members and leaders that are still discomfited by complicated narratives and unfamiliar research, but the solution to our problems isn’t in the fundamentalism mirrored by those silly podcasts and letters about which people have gotten so anxious.