In the earliest years of Joseph’s prophethood, from Abner Cole to Eber D. Howe, critics of the Mormon prophet have pointed to his being a treasure-seer as direct evidence that Joseph was a fraud.  For modern readers, it can be difficult to imagine how anyone could honestly look into a stone and claim to see buried gold and silver.  In the twentieth century, ex-Mormon Fawn Brodie repeated that credulousness in her landmark biography No Man Knows My History—which considerably shaped the understanding of Joseph Smith for several decades—where she stated conclusively that Joseph Smith was a clear impostor as a treasure-seer and that his prophetic identity evolved as the natural next step.

For most the nineteenth and twentieth century, Latter-day Saint historians have been reluctant to admit that the Smith family was ever deeply involved in treasure-seeking.  That seemed to change in the decades surrounding the production and publication of the Hoffman forgeries in the early 1980s which caused many LDS historians to seriously rethink the story of Joseph’s teenage years.  Originally considered legitimate, two of the forgeries were letters—one from Joseph Smith and another from Martin Harris—which implicated the young prophet as a treasure-seer in Palmyra.

Although the letters were later exposed as forgeries, the damage had been done.  Latter-day Saint historians, it seemed, were more willing to admit that Joseph Smith utilized his seer-stone in the search for buried treasure.  The consensus shifted, but scholars still argued over the implications.  Were Abner Cole, Eber Howe, and Fawn Brodie right that Joseph deceived people using the stone?  Or is it possible that Joseph and other early nineteenth-century treasure-seers were sincere in their belief that they could find treasure through occult means?

Brodie in her biography accused Joseph of being a fraud based at least partly on the statements of neighbors in the Hurlbutt affidavits, most of which portrayed his treasure-seeking in a negative light.  However several of the men who signed these affidavits were treasure-seekers themselves—one, Willard Chase, was a respected Methodist class leader.  Richard L. Anderson has demonstrated that the affidavits show much influence from their collector, Mormon apostate Philastus Hurlbut.  Brodie (and other scholars and critics of Joseph Smith over the last two centuries) has given these clearly prejudiced—and possibly doctored—affidavits too much credence when using them to show that Joseph Smith was a fraud as a seer.

Although of course there were exceptions, many treasure-seekers—including the seers—were honest people who sincerely believed they could find buried Indian or Spanish treasure in the earth.  Treasure-seeking was enormously popular in the Northeast during the Second Great Awakening, and many treasure-seekers were deeply religious.  As mentioned, Palmyra’s Willard Chase led Methodist class meetings.  The New Israelite community led by Nathaniel Wood in Vermont made treasure-seeking through divining rods a key part of their worship and believed the ability was a spiritual gift.  In 1826, Joseph Smith was brought to court as “a disorderly person” and “impostor” by one of the relatives of Josiah Stowell, who had hired him to aid in a search for a Spanish silver mine.  At the trial, Joseph Smith, Sr. testified and was reported to have said that he and his son “were mortified that this wonderful power which God had so miraculously given him should be used only in search of filthy lucre.”  Many people in the region saw this ability as a gift from God.  Treasure-seeking did not—in their minds—conflict with orthodox religion.  An honest, hard-working, pious Christian could go on a treasure-hunt—led by either a seer using a stone or a divining rod—without ever considering that the the activity might somehow be antithetical to his religion.

As a spiritual gift, treasure-seeking was actually intricately connected with religion.  Non-Mormon historian Alan Taylor writes of early America as “a context where treasure-seekers were neither fools nor deceivers, where treasure-seeking was part of an attempt to recapture the simplicity and magical power associated with apostolic Christianity.”  Despite the materialistic nature of treasure-seeking, it was also a spiritual search.  The Second Great Awakening that spurred the same revivals that enticed young Joseph Smith to search for the correct church also enticed him to embrace the supernatural in his ability as a treasure-seer.

Is it possible for Latter-day Saints to retain their view of the Prophet of the Restoration as God’s anointed servant and simultaneously understand his treasure-seeking activities as a young man?  Can we see him the same when we realize that during the years after he had his First Vision and in the middle of his yearly interviews with Moroni, he was peering into a seer-stone at night to direct a band of men in the search for buried gold?  Of course we can.  Perhaps part of the struggle comes from our thinking that he immediately understood his prophetic future in 1820, when in reality he was still trying to grasp it as late as the 1829.  Joseph later understood that his future was not in searching for earthly treasures; according to Martin Harris, the angel Moroni later commanded Joseph to “quit the company of the money-diggers.”  But what Latter-day Saints should realize and be thankful for is that, in many ways, treasure-seeking helped prepare the minds of the Smiths for the visions of young Joseph and the coming forth of the Book of Mormon.  LDS Historian Richard L. Bushman has actually called this aspect of their lives “a preparatory gospel.”

Latter-day Saints should remember that Joseph of Palmyra was not Jesus of Nazareth.  He was not immune to social, cultural, or religious pressures which inevitably shaped his person, nor should we arrogantly expect him to be.  Because we are so far separated from the culture in which he grew up, we should refrain from passing presentist judgments.  Joseph Smith was a prophet—and both he and God worked with what they had in western New York in bringing about the Restoration of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

His early prototypes of the temple practice we know today started in Kirtland, where they were much different.  Participants would fast for a day or two, attend to ritual washings and annointings to symbolically cleanse and purify themselves, and then participate in intense prayers, blessings, and expressions of spiritual gifts.  The goal was to have a transcendent vision of the divine.  It seemed that Joseph wanted many people to tap into what he was experiencing.  People who participated described him trying to get it all just write, to set groups participating in proper order, kind of feeling his way through to getting people into that mystical state.

I recently ran across this paragraph that made such a good summary:

Endowment, Joseph’s name for the temple ceremony, connected it to promises made long before his encounter with Freemasonry. In early revelations, the word “endowment” referred to seeing God, a bequest of Pentecostal spiritual light. The use of the word “endowment” in Nauvoo implied that the goal of coming into God’s presence would be realized now through ritual rather than a transcendent vision. This transition gave Mormonism’s search for direct access to God an enduring form. David Hume, the eighteenth-century empiricist and critic of “enthusiastic” religion, had observed that outbursts of visions and revelations soon sputtered out. They lacked form to keep them alive. They could not endure because they had “no rites, no ceremonies, no holy observances, which may enter into the common train of life, and preserve the sacred principles from oblivion.” To remain in force, “enthusiasm” had to be embodied in holy practice. Ann Taves, a modern scholar of religion, has added that “direct inspiration survives only when it is supported by a sacred mythos embedded in sacred practices.” The Mormon temple’s sacred story stabilized and perpetuated the original enthusiastic endowment.

-Richard Bushman, “Rough Stone Rolling“ pg 450-451

The temple became a focal point, a place to seek a connection to the divine.  Sure, it is plain that God does not need a temple to communicate with humankind.  Some of the greatest interactions with God recorded in scripture happened in wilderness settings — no temple or building was required.  But how would one stabilize this experience for a large, growing religion; one that could endure past the life of the mystic founder?  Members of the LDS Church today often go to the temple when they have a pressing personal need to connect with the divine, when they seek answers or feel they need spiritual help and guidance.

Would we be the same church if our method was to fast and hermitage in a cave, or travel out in the wilderness?  Perhaps it is possible, but the temple provides a place of focus for a growing and diverse community within the Church.  It is still a place we see as a source for the transcendent mystical experience.  Participants can experience the ritual and ceremony on many levels, with different views about the purpose depending on their own place of faith.  It can be literal to one person.  It can be symbolic to another.  It can be both and none.  Indeed it has endured past Joseph, the original mystic of our foundation, even if our experience today is not exactly the same as back in the time of Nauvoo or Kirtland.  It serves the same purpose over time.

]]> http://mormonmatters.org/2008/12/24/temple-ceremony-the-stabilizer-for-mystical-enthusiasm/feed/ 7 http://mormonmatters.org/2008/11/24/the-problem-of-history-first-a-fake-example/ http://mormonmatters.org/2008/11/24/the-problem-of-history-first-a-fake-example/#comments Mon, 24 Nov 2008 07:00:30 +0000 Bruce Nielson http://mormonmatters.org/?p=2995 In my past posts I discussed the impossibility of knowing what really happened in history as well as the problem that, believe or disbelieve, we all have much riding on how Mormon history is interpreted. Either way, it’s your personal religion at stake. 

The problem with me saying that is that, well, we all know it’s true — for other people. But due to the narrative fallacy, we think we’re the exception not the rule.

To prove that, at times, we’re all the rule, I am forced to start with a fake example because it is the only way to not derail the conversation immediately.

When Family History and Church Collide

I was studying my family history about an ancestor named Isaac Washington Pierce, Sr. Around the same time I was reading History of the Church. Imagine my surprise when I realized that the two connected; my ancestor is mentioned in History of the Church.

Isaac Pierce was part of the Kirtland camp that left Kirtland to follow Joseph Smith to Missouri. He is listed as being part of the camp on page 93 of History of the Church, Vol 3.

But more importantly the death of his baby, which happened while making the journey to Missouri, is recorded.

Under the Saturday, September 15 entry it states:

“Here T.P. Pierce’s child died, and was buried on Sunday, near Elder Keeler’s house.” (History of the Church, Vol. 3)

But now we have a bit of a problem, the name recorded is “T.P. Pierce” but there is no T.P. Pierce in my family. So could this be another Pierce? Perhaps. But there is no other “Pierce” family listed amongst the Kirtland camp even though History of the Church Vol 3, p 91 – 93 give a full list of the members of the camp.

Our best guess is that T.P. Pierce is Isaac’s wife, whose name is actually Phebe Baldwin Pierce.

But wait, it gets even more messy; my family’s records show the death of Isaac and Phebe’s baby as September 13, 1838, not September 15, 1838. But the Kirtland camp recorder records no deaths on September 13.

Could this be two different Pierce families with two different babies that happened to die two days apart? Well, while we can’t rule out the possibility entirely, the odds are very low. The fact that there is only one I.W. Pierce family listed as being part of the camp on the camp’s constitution and the fact that the initials are close to right – at least they got the “P” right even if it’s in the wrong position – and the fact that there is only one baby’s death recorded twice but within 2 days of each other makes it very likely that this is the same family and same baby’s death we are recording.

And yet we have two dates for the baby’s death. How could this happen? Well, it’s not hard to see that a mistake was obviously made. But which is the mistake? Is it History of the Church or is it my family’s history?

But is this really a concerning discrepancy? Of course not. Discrepancies like this happen all the time in the historical record. Historians must deal with such inconsistencies.

What If It Were Miraculous?

Though this discrepancy is unconcerning, let’s pretend for a moment that we’re dealing with something miraculous rather than mundane. For the sake of argument, pretend like the death of this child connected to a miraculous truth claim of a religion. Let’s get really crazy and let’s pretend that the son of Isaac Washington Pierce Sr. (named Isaac Washington Pierce, Jr.) went on to found the Completely Reformed and Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (CRRLDS) and that his foundational miracle was the visit of an angel and a dictated revelation from the angel that in parts states:

“I come to deliver these truths to you on the 13^th of September, the very date of the death of your father’s child when part of the Kirtland camp traveling to Missouri. For God is mindful of your family.”

We now have a miraculous event tied to one of the two dates in question, which means that the inconsistency just took on a whole new level of importance. What before was clearly just the natural inconsistency of the historical record now becomes the basis for denying the truth claims of the CRRLDS.

So let’s imagine we are anti-CRRLDS’s making an argument that the revelation in question was fraudulent.

The Anti-CRRLDS for September 13 Date Being Wrong

The CRRLDS is clearly making up their founding revelation. The revelation claims to have been delivered on 13 of September, 1838, the date of the death of the Sr. Pierce’s child. But the Kirtland camp recorded keeper gives us the truth date as 15^th of September.

Let’s consider this rationally, what are the odds that the camp record keeper in the Kirtland camp, who was keeping a daily journal, got this date wrong? Pierce Jr. fabricated this revelation on the date he thought the child died, but we know he used the wrong date. My guess is that angels don’t make mistakes like this.

The Apologist Response for September 13 Date

There are two dates recorded, but we feel that the parent’s personal records in question are more likely to be correct. We all know that daily journals sometimes get written days later with retro dates and this could easily be a mistake.

What I find interesting is that the Anti-CRRLDS argument really seems like a good argument. It would cause me to pause and wonder at the possibility that the foundational revelation for the CRRLDS is a fabrication.

And I also have to admit that the apologist response seems weak; it seems like a lame reaction to an obvious factual problem. (“Is that the best you can do?” I think to myself.) Given that I’m not really a fan of the CRRLDS I think this would be a sufficient argument to make me simply dismiss their truth claims out of hand.

But wait! Let’s switch the dates around and try this again! Pretend that the revelation had the date that is listed in History of the Church instead of the date in the family records.

The Anti-CRRLDS for September 15 Date Being Wrong

The CRRLDS is clearly making up their founding revelation. The revelation claims to have been delivered on September 15, 1838, the date of the death of the Sr. Pierce’s child, as recorded and published in History of the Church. . However, we know from family records that the real date of the death of his child was September 13, 1838.

Let’s consider this rationally, what are the odds that the family remembered the death of their own child wrong? Pierce Jr. fabricated this revelation on the date he thought his father’s child died, but we know he used the wrong date. My guess is that angels don’t make mistakes like this.

The Apologist for the CRRLDS for September 15 Date

There are two dates recorded, but we feel that the Kirtland camp recorders date is more likely to be correct. After all, camp recorders often record right on the very day whereas family records are probably recorded later.

Oh my goodness! The Anti-CRRLDS statement still seems strong to me. And the apologist rebuttal still seems weak. I know myself well enough to know I’m still going to dismiss the CRRLDS out of hand based on this attack.

But how could this be? How can either way seem like a legitimate attack and in both cases the apologist rebuttal seems weak?

Two Improbables

The reason both attacks seems strong and both rebuttals seem weak is because the odds of either date being wrong is highly improbable. It makes little sense to our minds that a daily note keeper could record a death on the wrong day but it makes no more sense to us that a family could mis-remember the death of a baby and record it wrong. Yet one of these two improbables happened. The apologists must defend an improbable event to a skeptical audience either way.

When there is nothing miraculous involved with the inconsistent dates, there is really no reason to worry about the improbability of either event, so our minds fill in the gaps without effort. When there is something miraculous at stake, our natural skepticism – and by this I mean our natural bias – kicks in and suddenly the inconsistency seems like a counter proof to the miraculous event.

The Illusion of Information

But does the date discrepancy tell us something meaningful about whether or not the CRRLDS revelation is made up or not?

Since we know this is a real non-miraculous historical discrepancy, and since we know there is no such thing as the CRRLDS, we know this is a made up foundational revelation. But that fact – that this foundational revelation is made up – is literally unrelated to the date issue. It’s like trying to determine the stock market using astrology. The inconsistency of the dates tells us nothing about whether or not this foundational revelation of the CRRLDS is made up.

Let me say it again: Despite what an effective counter argument this seems to be in proving the CRRLDS revelation a fraud, the fact that there is an inconsistency in the dates literally told us nothing about whether or not the CRRLDS revelation was a fraud. Nothing as in zippo, nada, nill, nothing, not a single thing at all.

Both of the “anti” attacks are really just narrative fallacies. Both are 100% information deficient because they convey, in Black Swan terminology, only the illusion of information.

By comparison, the apologists defense really does convey useful information because it concentrates on what we don’t know. It is unfortunate that our brains simply aren’t wired to recognize that the apologists are more factually right then the attackers.

Just the Facts Ma’am

This example will illustrate the problem of history in general and LDS history in particular: so much of it is only the illusion of information. Yet our brains are incapable of identifying the difference between real information and the illusion of information. Yes, there are facts here, but what are they really?

In my made up scenario the undisputed points are: [1]

1. The baby died either on September 13 or September 15.
2. There was a foundational “revelation” for the CRRLDS that mentions one of the two dates.
3. The foundational revelation may or may not be a fraud.

The narrative used by the anti-CRRLDS to “prove” that the foundational revelation is a fraud supplies no information but instead is a good story that helps the information stick in our minds. Our minds, grasping for such a story, can’t help but feel that somehow the narrative conveys additional information that is probably true.

But as we’ve shown, the narrative actually conveys no information at all. All it’s really doing is taking an inconsistency that was naturally supplied by the historical record and then playing off our natural bias against the CRRLDS to help us form a narrative fallacy that explains the data points in an unfriendly way.

Did the Inconsistency Matter In the First Place?

But did this inconsistency even matter at all? I can prove it didn’t. Let’s take our anti-CRRLDS and demand an answer to the one question that really did matter: if the two dates matched would that have convinced them that the revelation was true?

Well, it would seem that fact 1 and fact 3 are unrelated then, because apparently even without an inconsistency, the revelation is still believed to be a fraud. This whole inconsistency never meant a thing to anyone. It’s merely a misdirection to justify a predestined conclusion.

Conclusions

This made up example illustrates the ease with which we can confuse a narrative fallacy that conveys no information at all with real information. It also illustrates that our biases play a substantial role in how we judge narrative fallacies as being meaningful or not – even when they are obviously not meaningful. It also demonstrates that that history is naturally full of improbable inconsistencies and that the existence of these inconsistencies tells us nothing about whether or not the events or related events were fraudulent. It also demonstrates that even if the inconsistencies in the historical record did not exist the probability of fraudulence does not change.

Notes:

[1] I hesitate to even call the above “facts” because in reality the only “facts” we have are that someone said the baby died and died on one of those two days. It’s, of course, possible that baby didn’t die, or that we had two babies, or that both dates are wrong. But since no one is disputing any of that, I’ll stick with my simplified list, even though this list isn’t actually a list of real facts either.

“History is opaque. You see what comes out, not the script that produces events, the generator of history. There is a fundamental incompleteness in your grasp of such events, since you do not see what’s inside the box, how the mechanisms work. …the minds of the gods cannot be read just by witnessing their deeds. You are very likely to be fooled about their intentions.” (The Black Swan, P. 8 )

In a previous post I discussed the realities of The Black Swan, those improbable events that rule our lives but we pretend don’t and can’t happen. I also discussed how in actuality “randomness” is really just incomplete information. And finally I discussed how we feel the need to reverse engineer explanation for historical events — even though it’s impossible — and how, once we do, we have a really hard time realizing that there is more than one viable explanation for the same event. [1]

Which brings me to how this all directly relates to the LDS Church and specifically to the intolerance we show each other on the Bloggernacle at times. It is all directly related to two facts:

1. History is a collection of facts demanding interpretation before we can process them.
2. Thus all history is mostly narrative fallacy.

This means that two people can and will interpret it differently and both will have been fooled by their brains to believe that theirs is the one best way to explain those facts and only an idiot or liar would think otherwise.

It’s not hard to see that this simple explanation explains everything about the relationship between more believing and less believing Mormons. Indeed, it explains the relationship between Mormons and Evagelicals, and Evangelicals and Liberals and… Democrats and Republicans, and Communists and… well… it sort of explains life. Let’s leave it at that.

Why? Because some people have a narrative fallacy in the mind that proves or disproves the truth claims of the LDS Church (or fill in the blank point of view). To those that think they disproved it, it’s just obvious that the LDS Church is not “the one truth church.” Depending on their personal point of view it might also seem “obvious” to them that Joseph Smith was a charlatan, or that he was sincere but misguided, etc. To those that think they have proven it, the same could be said, but in reverse.

Furthermore, anyone that is held bound by a different narrative fallacy must seem like they are being deceptive, or at least brainwashed, by comparison. After all, both of you are being fooled by randomness (i.e. lack of information) on the subject into creating narrative fallacies to explain the outcome. And both of you, having defective brains, can’t help but feel “you’ve figured it all out.”

This is why we need to understand the real limits of history if we are ever to “get along.”

NNT is a huge history buff, so he wanted to treat history and historians well. Unlike financiers, sociologies, and statisticians, which he feels are usually charlatans, the historian’s craft has value even if that value is not actually finding out “what really happened.”

History is useful for the thrill of knowing the past, and for the narrative (indeed), provided it remains a harmless narrative. One should learn under severe caution. History is certainly not a place to theorize or derive general knowledge, nor is it meant to help in the future, without some caution. We can get negative confirmation from history [i.e. find a Black Swan and thereby prove something], which is invaluable, but we get plenty of illusions of knowledge along with it. (p. 199)

NNT’s advice to use history safely is, “Learn to read history, get all the knowledge you can, do not frown on the anecdote, but do not draw any causal links, do not try to reverse engineer too much – but if you do, do not make big scientific claims.” (p. 199)

This seems like obviously good advice, but as NNT points out, it runs counter to the current thinking by modern historians. He quotes historians that are “explicitly pursuing causation as a central aspect of [their] job.” (p. 199) Isn’t that what we’ve always been taught is the whole point of history? Are we not told that historians are to find cause and effect and that this is useful so that we aren’t “doomed to repeat” our mistakes?

His conclusion: “The more we try to turn history into anything other than an enumeration of accounts to be enjoyed with minimal theorizing, the more we get into trouble. Are we so plagued with the narrative fallacy?” (p. 199)

Apologists

Mormon history suffers from an additional issue. It’s inextricably intertwined with religion — on both sides of the divide. Everyone knows that believing Mormons comprehend their history through the filter of their religious beliefs, but disaffected and non-Mormons do as well — and as much.

I believe this is why there are “good” apologists and “bad” apologists. The good apologists will realize the non-rationality of their beliefs (not irrationality, just non-rationality – that their beliefs are not a proven fact) and admit it up front. They will identify their biases clearly to those they address because their goal isn’t to prove. And they will take only a defensive stance (i.e. “you don’t have proof that my beliefs are wrong.”) not an offensive attack. They will never try to prove their beliefs using “reason” – which is really just a series of narrative fallacies – because they will realize there is no proof one way or the others and that rational verification is beyond our reach.

By comparison, the bad apologists will advance their personal narrative fallacies as “proving” their position. They will claim that anyone that does no agree with them, despite having the same facts, is being deceptive or must be intellectually inferior. They will use mockery when confronted with counter facts and will not be able to admit “yes, there is more than one viable way to read these facts, but I read it this way.”

But what is less acknowledged is that we are all apologists, believing or unbelieving. And there are good ones and bad ones on both sides.

So ask yourself, which type of apologist are you? Are you a good apologists or a bad apologist for your belief system?

Notes:

[1] NNT has another excellent quote about this:

The human mind suffers from three ailments as it comes into contact with history, what I call the triplet of opacity. They are:

1. the illusion of understanding, or how everyone thinks he knows what is going on in the world that is more complicated (or random) than they realize;
2. the retrospective distortion, or how we can assess matters only after the fact, as if they were in a rearview mirror (history seems clearer and more organized in history books than in empirical reality); and
3. the overvaluation of factual information and the handicap of authoritative and learned people, particularly when they create categories – when they “Platonify.” (The Black Swan, p. 9)

In the year 2035, how will Mormon beliefs compare to previous generations?

If “progressive” Mormons have their way, Mormon beliefs in 2035 will more closely resemble Mormon beliefs of a century earlier.

Generally speaking, today’s “progressive” Mormons are less-likely to believe obedience to authority comes above one’s own personal preferences, less-likely to believe the LDS Church’s unique Restoration claims, less-likely to be literalistic in interpreting scripture, less-likely to reject birth control, and less-likely to hold to strict traditional observances, such as the Sabbath. So when I recently reviewed a comparison of BYU students’ religious beliefs in 1935 and 1973, I was shocked to discover that BYU students in 1935 were far more “progressive” by today’s standards than their alums in 1973.

The survey data, which is presented in Armand Mauss’s Angel and the Beehive: The Mormon Struggle with Assimilation, is presented for the purpose of demonstrating how Mormon beliefs took on a more “conservative” or “fundamentalist” flavor as the 20th Century progressed. For example, only 38% of BYU students believed that obedience to authority comes above one’s personal preferences in 1935. But that number had jumped to 88% by 1973, indicating that a strong culture of obedience to authority had developed by then.

BYU students also appear to have been less literalistic in their interpretation of scripture in 1935 than they were in 1973. For example, only 38% of survey respondents believed there was a personal devil in 1935. But by 1973, almost all survey respondents (95%) believed there was a personal devil. Indeed, this conversion to the idea of a personal devil was the greatest change in BYU students’ beliefs from 1935 to 1973.

In addition, BYU students were less-likely to hold strict creationist beliefs in 1935 than in 1973. For example, in 1973 the overwhelming majority of BYU students, 81%, believed that the creation did not involve evolution. But in 1935, only 36% believed the creation did not involve evolution, implying that the majority of BYU students in 1935 believed the creation did involve evolution. Similarly, in 1973 roughly a quarter of BYU students (27%) believed the creation did not take millions of years. But in 1935, only 5% held such a belief, implying that approximately 95% of BYU students in 1935 did believe the creation took millions of years.

BYU students were also less-likely to believe the Church’s unique Restoration claims in 1935 than in 1973. For example, in 1973, almost every BYU student believed: that Joseph Smith was a true prophet (99%); that Mormon authorities get revelation today (99%); and that the Mormon church is more divine than others (98%). But in 1935, those beliefs were held by 88%, 76%, and 81% of BYU students, respectively.

BYU students in 1935 were also less-likely to believe in a God who intervened in the natural course of events or who was concerned with matters such as birth control or strict Sabbath observance. In 1935, a strong majority of BYU students (75%) believed that God answers prayers by divine intervention, implying that approximately 25% of BYU students did not hold such a belief. But by 1973, nearly all BYU students (95%) believed that God answers prayers by divine intervention. When it came to rejecting birth control and holding to strict Sabbath observance, only 11% and 14% of BYU students fell into those camps in 1935. But by 1973, those numbers jumped to 42% and 54%, respectively.

In Angel and the Beehive, Mauss points out that the ecclesiastic endorsement requirement, which was added after 1935 but before 1973, might partly explain why BYU students were significantly more conservative in their religious beliefs than their alums in 1935. But even when one accounts for that consideration, these numbers seem to indicate that a conservative revolution took place in the LDS Church between 1935 and 1973, which Mauss attributes to several vocal Church leaders in the 1950′s-1970′s who exercised strong influence over Church curricula, CES, and BYU.

Mauss’ comparison of survey data from 1935 and 1973 raises some interesting questions for speculation. If this survey were conducted today, would it show that BYU students have continued to follow the conservative trend indicated in the 1973 data, or would it show a return to more the more “progressive” views held by BYU students in 1935?

And what does the future hold for the Church? By the year 2035, will Mormons be as conservative or even more conservative than they were in the 1970′s, or will Mormons “progress” in their views to where their great-grandparents were a century earlier?

What’s your prediction and why?