The Troubled History of the LDS Church

Learning from History

Every religious institution has historical episodes it would rather forget. Christianity itself has dark chapters—the Crusades, the Inquisition, religious wars, and more. We should examine our own history honestly before pointing to others'. Nevertheless, examining the history of the LDS church is relevant for evaluating its truth claims.

The LDS church claims to be led by prophets who receive direct revelation from God. If this claim is true, we might expect the church's history to reflect divine guidance—not perfection, but a discernible pattern of truth and righteousness. What we actually find is more troubling: episodes of violence, systematic deception, doctrinal reversals, and institutional cover-ups that raise serious questions about prophetic leadership.

The Mountain Meadows Massacre

What Happened

On September 11, 1857, a group of approximately 120-140 emigrants from Arkansas and Missouri were traveling through southern Utah on their way to California. At a place called Mountain Meadows, they were attacked by a combination of local Mormon militia (the Nauvoo Legion) and Paiute Indians recruited by Mormon leaders.

After a five-day siege, the emigrants were promised safe passage if they surrendered their weapons. They agreed. Mormon militiamen then escorted them from their defensive position. At a signal, the militiamen turned on the defenseless emigrants and systematically murdered them—men, women, and older children. Only seventeen children, those considered too young to testify, were spared.

This was one of the worst massacres of civilians in American history prior to the Civil War. It was not committed by a fringe group but by members of the local Mormon community, acting under orders from their ecclesiastical and military leaders.

Context and Causes

The massacre occurred during the Utah War, a period of tension between the Mormon territory and the federal government. President Buchanan had sent an army to Utah to replace Brigham Young as governor. Mormons feared invasion and prepared for war, with inflammatory rhetoric from the pulpit encouraging resistance.

The Arkansas emigrants had the misfortune of traveling through Utah at this volatile moment. Local leaders, including Isaac Haight and John D. Lee, decided to attack the wagon train—partly from war hysteria, partly from greed for the emigrants' considerable livestock, and partly from the belief that Missourians deserved punishment for past persecution of Mormons.

Brigham Young's Involvement

The extent of Brigham Young's involvement remains debated. The massacre proceeded after Young allegedly sent a message to let the emigrants pass—but that message arrived too late (or so the story goes). Whether Young ordered, permitted, or merely failed to prevent the massacre is historically contested.

What is clear is that Young and the church engaged in decades of cover-up afterward. Only one man—John D. Lee—was ever prosecuted, and not until twenty years later. He was excommunicated (but later posthumously reinstated). Other participants, including higher-ranking leaders, were never punished. Young consistently blamed the massacre on Indians, a story the church maintained for generations.

In 2007, the LDS church finally issued a statement expressing "profound regret" for the massacre—150 years after the fact.

Blood Atonement

The Doctrine

During the turbulent 1850s, Brigham Young and other LDS leaders taught a doctrine called blood atonement. According to this teaching, certain sins were so serious that Christ's blood could not cover them; the sinner's own blood must be shed to atone for the sin.

Brigham Young preached: "There are sins that men commit for which they cannot receive forgiveness in this world, or in that which is to come, and if they had their eyes open to see their true condition, they would be perfectly willing to have their blood spilt upon the ground, that the smoke thereof might ascend to heaven as an offering for their sins."

Sins warranting blood atonement included murder, adultery, apostasy, interracial marriage, and covenant-breaking. The implication was clear: the faithful might need to kill sinners as an act of mercy, giving them a chance at forgiveness through the shedding of their blood.

Was It Practiced?

Historians debate whether blood atonement was actually practiced or merely preached as rhetorical intimidation. Several mysterious deaths in territorial Utah have been attributed to blood atonement, though direct evidence is limited. What is certain is that the doctrine created a climate of fear and contributed to episodes like the Mountain Meadows Massacre.

The modern LDS church disavows blood atonement, calling it a theoretical doctrine that was never actually practiced. However, the original sermons of Brigham Young and others make clear they were not speaking theoretically. They believed certain sinners deserved death and that killing them would be an act of love.

Race and the Priesthood

The Priesthood Ban

From Brigham Young's era until 1978, the LDS church prohibited Black men from holding the priesthood and excluded Black men and women from temple ordinances. This was not merely a cultural practice but was taught as doctrine—Black people were less valiant in the pre-existence and bore the curse of Cain and Ham.

Brigham Young taught: "Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so."

This ban meant that Black members could not be sealed to their families for eternity, could not receive the temple endowment necessary for exaltation, and could not hold any priesthood office. They were, in effect, second-class members who could never achieve the full blessings of the gospel—through no fault of their own.

The 1978 Reversal

In 1978, President Spencer W. Kimball announced a revelation lifting the priesthood ban. The official declaration, now canonized as Official Declaration 2, states that "all worthy male members of the Church may be ordained to the priesthood without regard for race or color."

This reversal came amid mounting pressure: the civil rights movement had made the ban increasingly embarrassing, BYU athletics faced boycotts, and the church's growth in Brazil (where racial ancestry is difficult to verify) created practical problems. Whether the change came from genuine revelation or institutional necessity remains debated.

The Church's Current Position

In 2013, the LDS church published an essay acknowledging that the priesthood ban was wrong and disavowing the racial theories used to justify it. The essay states: "Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects unrighteous actions in a premortal life."

However, the essay does not explain how prophets speaking in God's name could have taught false doctrine for over a century. If Brigham Young was wrong about race—and the church now admits he was—how do members know current prophets aren't also wrong? The problem is not merely that prophets made mistakes but that they taught their mistakes as divine doctrine.

The Troubled History of Polygamy

Joseph Smith's Secret Practice

As noted in an earlier lesson, Joseph Smith practiced polygamy secretly while publicly denying it. He married perhaps 30-40 women, including teenagers as young as 14 and women already married to other men. He used his prophetic authority to pressure reluctant women, promising exaltation for compliance and destruction for refusal.

The secrecy and deception surrounding Smith's polygamy is troubling. He lied publicly about the practice. He taught his followers to lie about it. When a newspaper threatened to expose the practice, he ordered the press destroyed. This is not the behavior of a transparent prophet of God.

The Utah Period

Under Brigham Young, polygamy became public and institutionalized. Young had over fifty wives. Other leaders had dozens. The practice was taught as essential for exaltation—monogamy was a degraded, worldly institution while polygamy was the celestial order of marriage.

Federal pressure eventually forced the church to abandon the practice. The 1890 Manifesto declared an end to new plural marriages, though the doctrine remained and some leaders continued practicing polygamy secretly for years afterward. What had been an eternal, essential principle was set aside under government pressure.

The Doctrinal Problem

The reversal on polygamy illustrates the malleability of Mormon doctrine. Prophets taught for decades that plural marriage was essential for exaltation—that without it, one could not achieve the highest degree of glory. Then, under external pressure, this "eternal" requirement was dropped. If prophets could be wrong about something as significant as marriage requirements for exaltation, what else might they be wrong about?

Financial Controversies

Lack of Transparency

The LDS church is one of the wealthiest religious organizations in the world, but it provides no financial transparency. Unlike most major denominations, it does not publish financial statements or allow independent audits. Members who pay ten percent of their income in tithing have no way to know how their contributions are used.

In 2019, a whistleblower revealed that the church had accumulated over $100 billion in a reserve fund called Ensign Peak Advisors. This fund, built from member tithing, had apparently not been used for charitable purposes for over twenty years. The church had told members that tithing was used for buildings, education, and welfare— not that vast sums were being invested in the stock market.

Business Empire

Beyond its investment funds, the LDS church owns a vast business empire: the largest cattle ranch in the United States, shopping malls, media companies, insurance companies, and extensive real estate holdings. The church operates as a corporate conglomerate while claiming tax-exempt status as a religious organization.

The disconnect between official emphasis on tithing sacrifice and the church's enormous accumulated wealth troubles many members. Widows and struggling families are counseled to pay tithing even if it means going without necessities—while the church sits on billions in investment funds.

Historical Honesty

The Problem of Sanitized History

For generations, the LDS church presented a sanitized version of its history in official materials. Difficult episodes were minimized or omitted. Joseph Smith was portrayed as a simple, honest farm boy rather than a treasure-seeking practitioner of folk magic. The translation of the Book of Mormon was depicted with plates and interpreters rather than a stone in a hat. Polygamy was acknowledged but its troubling details were suppressed.

This created a crisis when members discovered the full history. Many felt deceived—not only about specific facts but about the trustworthiness of the institution. If the church misled them about history, what else might it be misleading them about?

Recent Efforts at Transparency

To its credit, the LDS church has recently made efforts at greater historical transparency. The Gospel Topics essays, published on the church's website, address many difficult issues: multiple First Vision accounts, the translation process, plural marriage, race and the priesthood, and more. The Joseph Smith Papers project has made primary sources available to researchers.

However, these resources are not prominently featured in church curriculum. Many members remain unaware of them. And the essays themselves often raise as many questions as they answer—acknowledging problems while offering explanations that strain credulity.

Implications for Witness

Using History Wisely

Historical information can be powerful in gospel witness, but it must be used wisely. Dumping historical problems on a Mormon friend usually backfires—it triggers defensive reactions and shuts down conversation. Better to ask questions that encourage them to investigate for themselves: "Have you ever looked into the Mountain Meadows Massacre?" "What do you make of the priesthood ban reversal?"

Be prepared to walk with people through painful discoveries. Many who learn this history experience genuine grief—the loss of a worldview, the betrayal by trusted institutions. They need compassion, not triumphalism.

Pointing to Christ

Ultimately, historical problems serve to undermine trust in the LDS institution, but they don't automatically point people to Christ. Someone who loses faith in Mormonism may become an atheist, a spiritual-but-not- religious seeker, or anything else. Our goal is not merely to tear down false faith but to build genuine faith in the true Christ.

Emphasize that Christianity doesn't depend on institutional perfection. We don't trust the church; we trust Christ. The Bible is honest about the failures of God's people—David's adultery, Peter's denial, the Corinthian church's dysfunction. We don't claim sinless institutions; we claim a sinless Savior.

Truth and Love

The troubled history of the LDS church—the violence, the racism, the deception, the doctrinal reversals—is not irrelevant to evaluating its truth claims. A church claiming ongoing prophetic guidance should show evidence of that guidance in its history. The evidence is troubling.

Yet we must handle this information with care. Behind the historical facts are real people whose faith may be shaken by what they discover. Our goal is not to wound but to heal—not to tear down but to build up faith in the true Christ who alone can save.

May we speak the truth in love, sharing difficult information with compassion, walking with those in crisis, and always pointing beyond historical problems to the historical Christ who rose from the dead and offers life to all who trust in him.