Joseph Fielding Smith, a towering figure in the 20th-century Latter-day Saint landscape, is often remembered as a theologian and Church leader. But his long tenure as Church Historian also positioned him as a key interpreter of Mormon history, an area where his approach offers a fascinating case study in the relationship between faith, perspective, and the writing of the past. Our recent discussion drawing from the sources explored this complex legacy, highlighting Smith’s contributions alongside critical insights into the nature of historical objectivity and bias.
Church Historian
When Joseph Fielding Smith became Church Historian, he faced the significant challenge of organizing sprawling, uncatalogued collections. He initiated processes that professionalized the church archives, particularly after World War II, by creating finding aids, dividing materials into collections, making lists, and microfilming documents.
However, from the perspective of a professional academic historian, Smith’s method of engaging with historical sources differed markedly. He treated certain documents, like the Bible and those produced by figures he considered revelators such as Joseph Smith Jr. and Joseph F. Smith, as entirely reliable and didn’t subject them to critical interrogation. This lack of “suspicion of sources”—the practice of asking who wrote a document, when, and what biases they might have—is highlighted as a key distinction between Smith and professional academics. His influential book, Essentials in Church History, exemplifies this approach, treating “official LDS sources” uncritically, yet it became a foundational text shaping LDS understanding of their history for decades.
This brings us to a core concept in academic historical study: the non-existence of “objective history.” Writing academic history itself is considered a bias. The aim for professional historians is not to eliminate bias, which is seen as impossible, but rather to be acutely aware of bias—both in the sources they use and in their own perspectives—and to account for it in their work. This requires adhering to methods and principles developed over generations of scholarship. Mature scholarship involves being frank about one’s own point of view and how it might influence interpretations. Trying to pretend one is objective is seen as a mistake. Richard Bushman is presented as an example of a scholar who openly discusses his background and how it might shape his work.
RLDS Polygamy Skeptics
The sources also reveal how bias can influence not just conclusions, but the very questions a historian thinks to ask—or doesn’t ask. While “motivated reasoning” (steering sources to a predetermined conclusion) exists, it might be less common than bias manifesting in the kinds of questions that arise from a historian’s background and positionality. The discussion used the example of Richard and Pamela Price’s hypothesis regarding the influence of Cochranites on the Quorum of the Twelve and the practice of polygamy. While the Prices found evidence of contact between the groups, they reportedly don’t account for the significant chronological gap between this contact and the public announcement of polygamy. This failure to ask about or explain this gap is suggested as stemming from their predisposition to believe the Quorum of the Twelve were the originators of polygamy.
Most Influential Writer
Joseph Fielding Smith was a prolific writer. Beyond Essentials in Church History, other notable works include The Way to Perfection, a narrative history of humanity from pre-existence to afterlife, where he explicitly stated his views on race. He also authored Man His Origin and Destiny (1954), which he considered his most important book, responding to higher criticism of the Bible and the theory of evolution. Perhaps his most widely read work during his lifetime was his “My Question” column in the Improvement Era church magazine, where he answered diverse questions with authority, reaching a vast monthly audience. After his death, these columns and other writings were compiled into influential reference works like Answers to Gospel Questions and Doctrines of Salvation.
Smith is considered the most influential LDS theologian of the 20th century. While Bruce R. McConkie was also highly influential, he is seen as primarily a popularizer and systematizer of Smith’s ideas, possessing an encyclopedic mind focused on organization compared to Smith’s narrative bent. McConkie turned Smith’s writings into topical reference collections. Smith’s influence also extended to being a prominent defender and exponent of the church’s racial restrictions, articulating the theory that people of African descent were less righteous in the pre-existence in The Way to Perfection.
In conclusion, Joseph Fielding Smith’s legacy is multifaceted. He contributed to the professionalization of church archives while simultaneously employing a historical method rooted in faith rather than academic skepticism. His voluminous writings and interpretations profoundly shaped 20th-century Mormon thought and doctrine, including controversial areas like the church’s racial restrictions. His work continues to underscore critical questions about how personal beliefs, institutional roles, and inherent biases interact in the construction and understanding of history.
Do you agree with Matt that Joseph Fielding Smith is the most important LDS theologian of the 20th century? Who is the most influential in the 21st century so far? Will the Church move away from JFS’s defensive posture on science, especially evolution?
Don’t miss our other conversations about this book! https://gospeltangents.com/lds_people_historical/joseph-fielding-smith/
Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 30:58 — 28.5MB) | Embed
Subscribe: Email | | More
