Reading Church History - An Ex-Mormon Response to Dallin H. Oaks

 

Dallin H. Oaks’s talk “Reading Church History” reflects a defensive stance toward the discipline of history. Rather than encouraging open historical inquiry, Oaks frames church history as something to be read through faith, not skepticism. 

He warns against what he calls “secular” or “critical” readings that might lead believers to doubt prophetic authority. His argument assumes that divine purpose supersedes historical context and that imperfect records should not shake testimony. There are several issues with his approach.

---

1. Scientific Uncertainties

Oaks opens by discussing how media coverage around church history can be unreliable because of incomplete scientific evidence—clearly referring to the Mark Hofmann forgery scandal then unfolding. He warns against assuming early reports are accurate. Fair point. The irony is that he was right for the wrong reasons: Hofmann’s documents were forgeries, but his warning served more to defend the church than to protect truth.

---

2. Lack of Context

He argues that news media often fail to include context and therefore distort history. Again, true to an extent. But it’s used here to tell members that secular reporting about the church can’t be trusted—a theme that repeats throughout.

---

3. Truths and Half-Truths

Oaks warns that Satan spreads half-truths mixed with lies. Then he says, “Some things that are true are not edifying or appropriate to communicate.” In other words, even true history can be wrong to share if it isn’t “faith-promoting.” This is the same man who just said telling half-truths is Satanic. The contradiction speaks for itself.

---

4. Bias

He tells listeners to watch for bias—religious or irreligious—and implies that critical books by supposed “faithful” members may be deceitful. He quotes Joseph Smith: “It is in vain to try to hide a bad spirit from the eyes of them who are spiritual.”
In practice, this means any member who questions the church can be dismissed as having “a bad spirit.” Critics are automatically liars, no matter what evidence they bring.

---

5. Balance

Here’s the famous line again:

“Balance is not to be expected in either official Mormon or avowedly anti-Mormon literature.”

The problem? He then says only objective sources should be trusted—but also warns that those pretending to be objective may secretly be anti-Mormon. So what’s left? Church-approved material, which he just said isn’t balanced. It’s a perfect loop that keeps believers inside the church’s information bubble.

He compares criticism of Joseph Smith’s treasure-digging to bringing up a general’s childhood shoplifting—implying it’s irrelevant. But it’s not. Smith’s treasure-seeking methods directly tie to how he claimed to translate the Book of Mormon.

---

6. Evaluation

Oaks ends by telling members to pray about what they read. Fair enough—until he adds that “the Spirit of the Lord will not guide us if our attitude is one of fault-finding.” Then he quotes Jude 8: “Evil speaking of the Lord’s anointed is in a class by itself.”

He concludes that even if criticism of church leaders is true, it’s still wrong to share. That’s the key message: loyalty over truth.

---

Final Thoughts

If you’ve ever been told not to read something “anti-Mormon,” this talk explains why. Oaks teaches members that all criticism comes from Satan, that truth can be harmful, and that even verified facts about leaders should be silenced if they weaken faith.

If you think I’ve misrepresented him, the full 45-minute talk is linked below. Listen for yourself. But don’t forget his own rule: “Balance is not to be expected in official Mormon literature.”

---

Links to resources:

• Audio for "Reading Church History" (Thanks to @thoughtsonthingsandstuff974  )

• PDF of "Reading Church History" from the Internet Archive

  
  

Check Your Understanding:

Test how well you understand the main critiques of Oaks’s approach to church history.

1. What is the central argument of this article about Oaks’s talk?

Oaks encourages full academic transparency in church history
Oaks believes secular historians should guide members’ faith
Oaks frames history as something to read through faith rather than skepticism
Oaks rejects all spiritual interpretation of history

2. How does the article interpret Oaks’s warnings about scientific uncertainty?

As a sincere attempt to promote academic caution
As a defensive move tied to the Hofmann forgery scandal
As unrelated to church image or authority
As evidence of Oaks rejecting religious belief

3. According to the article, how does Oaks use the idea of “bias”?

To admit that the church is sometimes deceptive
To encourage church members to read critics carefully
To recommend secular historians as neutral sources
To dismiss critics by implying they have a “bad spirit”

4. What contradiction does the article highlight in Oaks’s statements about truth?

He says half-truths are Satanic, then says even true history may be wrong to share
He claims the church has no official history
He denies that prophets ever make mistakes
He teaches that the media always tells the truth

5. Why does the article say Oaks’s comparison about Joseph Smith’s treasure digging is flawed?

Because Smith never practiced treasure digging
Because shoplifting was common among early generals
Because Smith’s treasure-digging is directly relevant to his translation claims
Because Oaks denies that Smith ever translated anything

6. What loop does the article say Oaks creates when discussing sources?

Trust secular historians, distrust church leaders
Trust critics only if they praise the church
Trust no source under any circumstances
Church sources are not balanced, but outside sources are biased, leaving only church-approved material

7. According to the article, what is Oaks’s final message about criticism of leaders?

That even true criticism should not be shared
That members should evaluate leaders like any historical figure
That the church welcomes open critique
That historical truth always takes priority

8. What does the article claim Oaks’s framework ultimately reinforces?

Scholarly independence
Loyalty over truth and the maintenance of an information bubble
Neutral academic debate
The importance of external peer review