Erasing Church History: The New Book of Mormon Introduction

If we can't admit our strange history and still be "true," then we were never "true" to begin with.

UPDATE, 12/8: This blog was originally posted on Exponent II on 12/6 and I intended to share it today here. However, as of this morning, the church has reverted the new introduction on the Book of Mormon app back to the original introduction. This is a very curious move. In my experience, when the church makes these silent changes after an uproar it only fuels gaslighting and confusion. I’m still posting it here as originally written in hopes that it will stand as proof of the change and add to the important conversation around changing church history.

This fall, the church published a new Introduction to the Book of Mormon on the Book of Mormon app, aimed at investigators. (Or should I say "friends?") So far it's only launched on the BoM app as a missionary tool, clearly aimed at introducing those unfamiliar with Mormonism to the book of scripture. I haven't found any indication that this new introduction will be on the Gospel Library app or new print BoMs, but you never know these days with the church.

On the surface, this update is a simple rewriting to introduce the book to newbies in a less intimidating way. From a PR perspective, it seems like a smart move. As a lifelong member, however, I have questions. And feelings. More feelings than I imagined I would.

A few thoughts immediately jumped out at me:

-The tone shift. The original BoM introduction was written in the 1980s and it reads like an extension of scripture. The new introduction has a much more congenial tone, like what you hear in an inspirational video (or from a very savvy salesperson). I can't parse out if this feels positive or slimy to me.

-Less historical focus. The original BoM intro declares the book to be an ancient record of the early Americas, and describes the book's history and the story of Joseph Smith. But the new intro doesn't even mention Joseph Smith's name. It briefly states that there are ancient records and the location of one was revealed by an angel in 1823 and translated into the BoM. I feel the church wants to move away from their fantastical Mormon roots to fit in more with mainstream Christianity, but I don't agree this is the best move.

-It's all male. This will surprise absolutely no one, but it still makes me sad. Instead of taking the opportunity to mention Heavenly Mother or at least Heavenly Parents, the new intro only discusses Heavenly Father. If we leaned into Heavenly Mother, wouldn't we attract more interest in a modern world? But I guess that would require breaking down too much patriarchy for all the old white men to stomach. The intro also mentions "faithful, courageous people" in the BoM, but let's be real: there's only men in the BoM; it's male stories told from a male perspective about male courage and male faithfulness.

-The word "translated" always makes me itchy. This might just be a personal grievance, but I get uncomfortable when we say the BoM was translated. I guess technically it's correct in that it went from one language to another, if you believe the gold plates were real. But it's not like Joseph was doing an academic study. He was literally just speaking out loud whatever was in his head when he stuck his face in a hat. Or what he saw on the peep stone? Heard from God? No one really knows. Calling it a translation implies a false image that leaves many feeling deceived when they learn the truth.

-The new testimony of Joseph Smith includes non-KJV scripture. In the Appendix of the BoM app, you'll find Joseph Smith's testimony has also changed from the original version. The Gospel Library version quotes Joseph Smith describing the visits of Moroni. The new version is in third person. Again, it makes sense being geared towards non-members who didn't grow up hearing this story a million times. But what strikes me as noteworthy is the choice to include a non-King James version of James 1:5: "One day he read in the Bible, 'If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask God, who gives to all generously and without reproach, and it will be given to him' (James 1:5; NASB)." This is probably to find familiar ground with other Bible readers, but after a lifetime of being told the KJV is the only correct version of the Bible, it's a little odd. Could the church be moving towards adopting a new Bible translation, one that isn't outdated with confusing language?

I recognize that these are smaller things that might not bother some members. But at the heart of these changes are real frustrations and questions worth exploring.

At what point does smart marketing turn into deception? Where is the line between presenting a better PR image and a bait-and-switch? Why can't the church present a more honest and open look at their history and religious quirks?

I've thought many times about what it might be like to meet the missionaries as a "friend" these days. You get love-bombed by sweet 19 year olds and told all about Jesus Christ and probably feel awesome. But what happens when you actually start attending church and hear so much about temples, covenants, conditional love, and prophet-worship? How many people do you know that joined the church and within a year were gone as they learned about the reality of things like garments and the true history of Joseph Smith? I've personally known individuals like this, scared off when they realize the church isn't really just about Jesus or loving others. This new BoM introduction certainly reads much friendlier and easier to comprehend. But without any real "Joseph-Smith-stuck-his-head-in-a-hat-and-said-words-inspired-by-a-magic-rock" context, how many converts will ultimately feel duped by the missionaries and the church? I'm not saying the church needs to air out all our dirty laundry in an introduction by any means, but increasingly trying to cover it up is not doing us any favors in the long run.

Continually watering down or pushing aside church history because it doesn't sound great to other Christians doesn't make people like us more and it certainly doesn't make the history just disappear. We are an American born and bred church, straight out of the Second Great Awakening with magic peep stones, treasure digging, and mysticism. No amount of distance or ignorance will change that reality. I'm not saying the problematic parts of our history are something to celebrate. But they shouldn't be hidden if we want long term growth and change. Only sunlight can get out those dark spots.

Instead of trying to just suddenly drop all our weirdness, we should arm new members (and old members!) with knowledge and understanding. I would love to see more church curriculum laying it all out, the good, the bad, and the ugly. Put these materials directly into the hands of members, not hidden on the website or only accessible to those who visit a Deseret Book store. Encourage potential members to learn it all, even make it part of the missionary discussions. If we can't admit our strange history and still be "true," then we were never "true" to begin with.

What do you think of the new Book of Mormon Introduction? Do you feel the church is moving away from its history?