I love this, Jacob. I’ve suggested to some of my therapy clients, particularly those who are struggling to find a sense of identity and/or community, to get to know their ancestors through family history. And I’ll never forget standing near the childhood home of my great-great-grandfather in Milnthorpe, Westmorland, England—it was as if a puzzle piece that I didn’t even know was missing had settled quietly in my heart. I haven’t thought about connecting ancestors to our faith journeys in quite the way you described, so I appreciate your insights so beautifully shared here.
You're such a good writer. I love our pioneer stories and the pioneers. I revere them too.
Of course, I'm curious who you're talking about here: "Yet it’s one thing to ask important and challenging questions – and quite another to dismiss the faith and courage of an entire generation as morally condemnable, portraying them as cartoonish villains driven entirely by pleasure and power."
Are people really doing this? If so, I'd like to fight them ;). In any case, I think there is some irony in using the same sized brush (broad) to reduce critics of the church to angry, bitter caricatures. Then again, maybe there is some specific group of people who embrace extreme suspicion and cynicism. Of my friends who have left the church and are critical of it, I think all of them admire and respect their pioneer ancestors. Their courage and faith were heroic--even if their faith was misplaced. I think you'd say similar things about the Pilgrims while acknowledging that they were misled in material ways on key points of doctrine.
I really appreciate your point of view regarding the importance of family history. I've pondering that for a lot of reasons in my own life and recently touched on the subject in my own blog. If you decide to look at it, please scroll down to "Raising the Dead" section. https://libertyprincipia.com/2023/06/08/simple-gifts/
Overall, this was a very touching article. As another descendant of John W. Hess (through his first wife Emeline Bigler), I enjoyed seeing him mentioned.
Having said that, the title and final points of this article go further than ancestral reverence, and as a person who loves Family History and also has left the LDS church, there are additional points I feel compelled to address.
First of all- One does NOT have to have the same beliefs as one's ancestors in order to honor them. Did our pioneer ancestors abandon their heritages when they joined the church and left their homelands? Some of them may have come to America at great cost for another Christian faith- was leaving the faith of their fathers an act of rebellion, or one of living their lives according to the truth, so far as they could decipher? I would argue that we can still appreciate our heritage with new perspectives, different perspectives than our ancestors may have had. I haven’t abandoned my heritage since leaving the church. If anything, I can relate more to those who were true to their convictions and left the faith of their ancestors because I have experienced it as well. And it’s hard, not because I regret my new beliefs, but because it is hard for those left behind to understand my motives. Fortunately, many of the family estrangements that some of my friends have experienced when they left the church hasn’t been an issue for us, and I’m extremely grateful for that.
Second point- you talk about knowing something is true when it brings you peace. I don’t agree, in fact I think this is a dangerous ideology. There are a lot of people in the political and social spheres these days who talk about “living your truth”. They say “This is my truth” and they do so because whatever that “truth” may be is what resonates with them. There are many people who believe different things, and those things may bring them peace. When these things run counter to other people’s beliefs, can they both be true? There is no “my truth” or “your truth”. There is only “the truth”. Very often the truth is very hard to bear. Seeking truth wouldn’t be the virtue and act of integrity that it is if it was as simple as following the path that feels most comfortable. Seeking truth isn’t about seeking a good feeling. It is about searching, studying, and taking action. But if I were to honestly answer your question of if my path now brings me peach and joy, I would have to answer in the affirmative. There is no peace I felt as a member of the church that is devoid in my life today. Regardless, objective truth doesn’t care about our feelings.
Final point (I have other thoughts on this article but have narrowed it down to three I wish to address here). You mention the defamatory actors who made up things about Joseph Smith during his lifetime to make him look bad, and dismiss those things based on their lack of foundation. I would agree, in principle. But without being specific, does it really mean anything? Who were these actors, and what were they saying? John Bennett is the most prominent one that comes to mind, and his rhetoric was that Joseph Smith was seducing young women into polygamous marriages. He was excommunicated for it. Anti-Mormon statements of the day primarily dealt with the rhetoric that Joseph Smith was an adulterer, by legal definition. Were these statements true, or weren’t they? And who is it today that is persisting and promoting Bennett’s statements? Is it not the LDS apologists? Certainly, anti-Mormons aren’t going to stand in their way. But if you read such works as “Rough Rolling Stone” by Richard Bushman, or “Joseph Smith’s Polygamy” by Brian Hales, you will find these kinds of statements are given credence again and again, despite Joseph Smith’s passionate campaign against them. It’s all well and good to say “Anti-Mormons made up bad stuff about Joseph Smith” when it is a generic statement. But if we are unwilling to be specific about what was said, by whom, and under what context, how meaningful is it? What early-anti-Mormon statements are being rejected in statements like this?
Through deep study I have come to the view that Joseph Smith was never a polygamist, that he was no adulterer, and that he was speaking the truth when he fought against it. Does that mean that I am fighting an uncomfortable truth in that instance? Or does the evidence support my views? Am I rejecting my polygamist heritage because I don’t believe that what they practiced came from God? Or are there other possibilities? “Joseph Smith Fought Polygamy” by Richard and Pamela Price was one of the most eye-opening book series I have ever read, and I didn’t just read the books, I followed through and looked at their sources, some of which have only come to light to the general public after the books publications through the Joseph Smith Papers project.
There are many arguments against leaving the church that I have read that align with some of the sentiments shared in your closing arguments. I do think you come from a good place, that you are doing the best you can to understand why people leave, and to address it from, to coin the phrase, “your truth”. But without walking a mile in the shoes of someone who has left, the rhetoric feels rather empty to me. The reasons many people leave the church are not the reasons that those who stay may suppose, leaving them floundering to come up with reasons of their own that align with their beliefs. It is often much easier to counter arguments that were never made, views that are not actually held, than to look into the reasons people really leave. To me this is what your closing statements feel like, and they are more aggressive than they need to be, which is why I felt compelled to share my thoughts.
On a lighter note, you may be interested to know that I did indeed enjoy my bowl of ice cream yesterday. 😉
I love this, Jacob. I’ve suggested to some of my therapy clients, particularly those who are struggling to find a sense of identity and/or community, to get to know their ancestors through family history. And I’ll never forget standing near the childhood home of my great-great-grandfather in Milnthorpe, Westmorland, England—it was as if a puzzle piece that I didn’t even know was missing had settled quietly in my heart. I haven’t thought about connecting ancestors to our faith journeys in quite the way you described, so I appreciate your insights so beautifully shared here.
Warmed my heart! I now have a greater desire to learn more about my own family. Thank!
You're such a good writer. I love our pioneer stories and the pioneers. I revere them too.
Of course, I'm curious who you're talking about here: "Yet it’s one thing to ask important and challenging questions – and quite another to dismiss the faith and courage of an entire generation as morally condemnable, portraying them as cartoonish villains driven entirely by pleasure and power."
Are people really doing this? If so, I'd like to fight them ;). In any case, I think there is some irony in using the same sized brush (broad) to reduce critics of the church to angry, bitter caricatures. Then again, maybe there is some specific group of people who embrace extreme suspicion and cynicism. Of my friends who have left the church and are critical of it, I think all of them admire and respect their pioneer ancestors. Their courage and faith were heroic--even if their faith was misplaced. I think you'd say similar things about the Pilgrims while acknowledging that they were misled in material ways on key points of doctrine.
I really appreciate your point of view regarding the importance of family history. I've pondering that for a lot of reasons in my own life and recently touched on the subject in my own blog. If you decide to look at it, please scroll down to "Raising the Dead" section. https://libertyprincipia.com/2023/06/08/simple-gifts/
Overall, this was a very touching article. As another descendant of John W. Hess (through his first wife Emeline Bigler), I enjoyed seeing him mentioned.
Having said that, the title and final points of this article go further than ancestral reverence, and as a person who loves Family History and also has left the LDS church, there are additional points I feel compelled to address.
First of all- One does NOT have to have the same beliefs as one's ancestors in order to honor them. Did our pioneer ancestors abandon their heritages when they joined the church and left their homelands? Some of them may have come to America at great cost for another Christian faith- was leaving the faith of their fathers an act of rebellion, or one of living their lives according to the truth, so far as they could decipher? I would argue that we can still appreciate our heritage with new perspectives, different perspectives than our ancestors may have had. I haven’t abandoned my heritage since leaving the church. If anything, I can relate more to those who were true to their convictions and left the faith of their ancestors because I have experienced it as well. And it’s hard, not because I regret my new beliefs, but because it is hard for those left behind to understand my motives. Fortunately, many of the family estrangements that some of my friends have experienced when they left the church hasn’t been an issue for us, and I’m extremely grateful for that.
Second point- you talk about knowing something is true when it brings you peace. I don’t agree, in fact I think this is a dangerous ideology. There are a lot of people in the political and social spheres these days who talk about “living your truth”. They say “This is my truth” and they do so because whatever that “truth” may be is what resonates with them. There are many people who believe different things, and those things may bring them peace. When these things run counter to other people’s beliefs, can they both be true? There is no “my truth” or “your truth”. There is only “the truth”. Very often the truth is very hard to bear. Seeking truth wouldn’t be the virtue and act of integrity that it is if it was as simple as following the path that feels most comfortable. Seeking truth isn’t about seeking a good feeling. It is about searching, studying, and taking action. But if I were to honestly answer your question of if my path now brings me peach and joy, I would have to answer in the affirmative. There is no peace I felt as a member of the church that is devoid in my life today. Regardless, objective truth doesn’t care about our feelings.
Final point (I have other thoughts on this article but have narrowed it down to three I wish to address here). You mention the defamatory actors who made up things about Joseph Smith during his lifetime to make him look bad, and dismiss those things based on their lack of foundation. I would agree, in principle. But without being specific, does it really mean anything? Who were these actors, and what were they saying? John Bennett is the most prominent one that comes to mind, and his rhetoric was that Joseph Smith was seducing young women into polygamous marriages. He was excommunicated for it. Anti-Mormon statements of the day primarily dealt with the rhetoric that Joseph Smith was an adulterer, by legal definition. Were these statements true, or weren’t they? And who is it today that is persisting and promoting Bennett’s statements? Is it not the LDS apologists? Certainly, anti-Mormons aren’t going to stand in their way. But if you read such works as “Rough Rolling Stone” by Richard Bushman, or “Joseph Smith’s Polygamy” by Brian Hales, you will find these kinds of statements are given credence again and again, despite Joseph Smith’s passionate campaign against them. It’s all well and good to say “Anti-Mormons made up bad stuff about Joseph Smith” when it is a generic statement. But if we are unwilling to be specific about what was said, by whom, and under what context, how meaningful is it? What early-anti-Mormon statements are being rejected in statements like this?
Through deep study I have come to the view that Joseph Smith was never a polygamist, that he was no adulterer, and that he was speaking the truth when he fought against it. Does that mean that I am fighting an uncomfortable truth in that instance? Or does the evidence support my views? Am I rejecting my polygamist heritage because I don’t believe that what they practiced came from God? Or are there other possibilities? “Joseph Smith Fought Polygamy” by Richard and Pamela Price was one of the most eye-opening book series I have ever read, and I didn’t just read the books, I followed through and looked at their sources, some of which have only come to light to the general public after the books publications through the Joseph Smith Papers project.
There are many arguments against leaving the church that I have read that align with some of the sentiments shared in your closing arguments. I do think you come from a good place, that you are doing the best you can to understand why people leave, and to address it from, to coin the phrase, “your truth”. But without walking a mile in the shoes of someone who has left, the rhetoric feels rather empty to me. The reasons many people leave the church are not the reasons that those who stay may suppose, leaving them floundering to come up with reasons of their own that align with their beliefs. It is often much easier to counter arguments that were never made, views that are not actually held, than to look into the reasons people really leave. To me this is what your closing statements feel like, and they are more aggressive than they need to be, which is why I felt compelled to share my thoughts.
On a lighter note, you may be interested to know that I did indeed enjoy my bowl of ice cream yesterday. 😉