The fourth and final volume of Saints: The Story of the Church of Jesus Christ in the Latter Days was published today. This newest book, Sounded in Every Ear, tells the story of the Latter-day Saints from 1955 to 2020, bringing the history up nearly to the present day. It discusses an era in which conversion rates exploded in South America, the Pacific islands, eastern Asia, and Africa. The 1978 revelation that ended the priesthood and temple ban was an important event enabling that growth. Temple construction to support membership across the world became a big deal, with the number of temples jumping from 9 functioning temples in 3 countries in 1955 to 197 dedicated temples in scores of countries today.
As with previous entries in the series, Saints 4 has a lot of different goals, sources, and subjects to juggle. As an institutional history, it needs to inspire faithfulness and belief in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
- First, this includes a focus on Jesus Christ and the impact involvement in the Church has on the lives of those who embrace it as well as sustaining the positions the Church takes on hot-button social issues. It also has to work to cultivate a positive image of the Church for any non-members who happen to read the books.
- Second, it is a historical work that has positioned itself as a true account of the history of the Church, with painstaking efforts to research and present that history accurately. On this account, it needs to hold up under the scrutiny of the academic fields of history and religious studies.
- Third, it tries to present that historical information in an engaging, narrative format that is appealing to people across many different education levels.
- Fourth, this volume is about history that people who are alive and remember experiencing the events described within (historians aren’t usually writing about subjects that can talk back at them).
Those goals don’t always fit nicely together and create some tensions in what they were aiming to achieve. But Saints 4 does a good job of balancing and compromising between them while achieving the core of each of the goals.
The history does very well at representing members of the Church around the world who go through a variety of circumstances. I was impressed to find that issues like depression, infertility, displacement as refugees during wartime, and lifechanging injuries received during missions were discussed in an authentic way that also provided good modeling on how to handle those situations. They also include a lot of very inspiring stories of faith in face of tribulation, conversion, missionary work, and service. Humanitarian efforts of the Church were an important theme throughout. These types of stories are what I think the book does best (even in comparison to other volumes in Saints, which seemed to get better at doing this with each volume) and will make it a great resource for teaching and preaching in the Church.
As far as narrative goes, it does okay at keeping the book engaging. One concern I have shared about these later volumes is that as the Church continues to expand, there becomes more and more threads to follow, leading to less focus in the narrative. They didn’t do quite as well in Volume 4 at this as they did in Volume 3. There were a lot of people that they followed, and it got to be too much to keep track of. They did include reminders each time someone resurfaced to help jog the memory on what they were doing last time they showed up, which helped. Some characters carried over from Volume 3, such as Henry Burkhardt in East Germany, Gordon B. Hinckley, and the Vojkuvková/Vojkuvka family in Czechoslovakia. Surprisingly, Neal A. Maxwell didn’t feature as a main character, even though he was a notable person in Volume 3. There was a new cast of families and people who did come to the fore, including the following, to name a few:
- Darius Gray (African American member in Utah)
- Ardeth Kapp (Utah)
- Angela Peterson Fallentine (United States)
- The Osmond family
- Emma Acosta Hernandez (Guatemala)
- Jeff and Silvia Allred (Guatemala, San Salvador)
- Joseph William Billy Johnson (Ghana)
- Willy Binene (Democratic Republic of the Congo)
- Helio de Rocha (Brazil)
- Marco Villavicencio (Brazil/Ecuador)
- Juliet and Iliesa Toro (Fiji)
- Hwang Keun Ok (South Korea)
- Nguyen Van The (Vietnam)
There were a lot of powerful and important stories, but there was also too much going on to follow easily.
The history brought up and addressed many of the controversial issues in this era of history. A lot of my predictions came true from my post last year. We can turn to that list for easy reference:
- Priesthood ban / revelation: They covered the basics of the topic, discussing some of the problems it caused with establishing missions in Africa, ordination and temple work in South Africa and Brazil, etc., then discussed Spencer W. Kimball and the Twelve seeking and receiving revelation to lift the ban in 1978. This is history embraces the idea that God is real and interacts with people, so it differs from more secular histories like Second Class Saints in how it discusses the revelation occurring, since it allows the Holy Spirit to have a direct role in the process. It also differs, however, in that it avoids discussion of conflicts like Hugh B. Brown’s efforts to lift the ban in the 1960s, etc. (which Second Class Saints does a much better job at discussing). In addressing the church’s establishment in Africa following the ban, they focused on congregations of unbaptized converts led by men. In doing so, they avoided any discussion of the congregations led by women and the marginalization those women leaders experienced once missionaries and priesthood leadership arrived. So, it gets through the most important points, but doesn’t delve into the full details of this history.
- ERA and Women’s Rights: The Equal Rights Amendment was a hot topic in the 1970s, with Church leaders coming out in direct opposition to the efforts to guarantee women’s rights. They only briefly discussed this as an issue, focusing on Spencer W. Kimball’s stance on the topic and the efforts of one woman in Washington D.C. to share that standpoint with some important figures. Sonia Johnson and her conflict with church leaders made no appearance at all, which is a glaring absence in any history of the church during that era. Responses to teachings about a mother in heaven in the early 1990s or the Ordain Women movement in the 2010s were completely absent, though they did discuss Rusell M. Nelson and Dallin H. Oaks’s efforts to re-expand the role of women in the church and their relationship to priesthood authority.
- LGTBQ+: This an important topic during the era covered in Saints 4, with aspects of it surfacing in things like The Family Proclamation, Prop 8 in 2008 California, and the policy of exclusion that lasted from 2015–2019. They mostly discussed this issue in Saints 4 in the context of Prop 8, framing it as the church standing up for its belief in traditional families while putting emphasis on the church’s teachings about treating people respectfully and the condemnation of bullying LGTBQ+ individuals. The policy of exclusion was not mentioned, and no viewpoint characters were individuals who were navigating church membership and being part of the LGTBQ+ community. As a no-win topic, however, I think they handled it pretty well.
- Ezra Taft Benson’s politics: Ezra Taft Benson is infamous for his right-wing political activity, including his open support for the John Birch Society and opposition to the Civil Rights movement. He was probably the most ignored of the presidents of the Church relative to his activities as a church leader in the book, however, with the discussion about him revolving almost completely around his emphasis on the Book of Mormon and Jesus Christ rather than politics. Which makes sense in that they were trying to make the history less U.S.-centric and putting the Church in a good light.
- Leonard Arrington’s History Department: The efforts to professionalize historian’s work in the Church being first embraced and then shut down by Church leaders during Leonard Arrington’s tenure as Church Historian was a topic that wasn’t addressed beyond a passing reference to Joseph Fielding Smith professionalizing the church’s departments. The Saints series has had little focus on Latter-day Saint historiography, so this wasn’t surprising at all. Oddly, however, they did bring up historiography in the form of talking about Truman Madsen and his associates researching the First Vision in response to critical historical works on the topic (which is where the only passing reference to Arrington came up). It was an opportunity to discuss the multiple accounts of the First Vision, which is probably why they brought it up, but it felt odd since they’ve avoided historiography outside of that discussion.
- Mark Hofmann: They brought this up and addressed it.
- September Six: Perhaps one of the most significant moments of the Church’s history in the 1990s was the excommunication or disfellowshipment of six high-profile intellectuals within one month in 1993 and the shockwaves it sent through the intellectual Latter-day Saint community. This didn’t come up at all in Saints. Notably, that is in line with the church’s general sensitivity towards talking about disciplinary action (which could also explain Sonia Johnson’s absence in the volume).
- Indian Placement Program: From 1954–1996, the Church developed a program that brought Native American children into Euro-American homes in an effort to convert and assimilate Native Americans, especially from among the Diné. While the general concept was well-intended, it proved controversial, since it was essentially a colonizing effort that weakened ties to their ancestral cultures. It also provided an environment wherein some of the children involved were subjected to abuse of various kinds. This was discussed, though the story shared was a best-case scenario, where the Diné woman lived with a family that supported her and set her up for success in life while also encouraging her to remain connected to her Diné roots and family. This served to bring the issue up while minimizing other stories that didn’t turn out quite as well.
These and a few other issues were brought up and addressed in a way that put the Church in the most favorable light possible while still remaining historically accurate (though the discussion was usually not as deep as, say, American Zion).
Again, the delicate dance that historians had to do while working on this institutional history made it incredibly difficult and complex to handle. I have immense respect, appreciation and sympathy for the historians involved in the project. I believe that they did an impressive job at navigating those tensions and providing a useful and inspiring history of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. As I said with Volume 3, I loved this volume of Saints. If I had my way, every member of the Church would familiarize themselves with this series. They provide important historical information that illuminates why the Church is the way it is today, but (more importantly) they also provide spiritual nourishment. I found that my belief in God and His influence in guiding people through the Holy Spirit was strengthened, as was my love of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, by reading Saints: The Story of the Church of Jesus Christ in the Latter Days, Volume 4: Sounded in Every Ear, 1955-2020.
For my reviews for earlier volumes of Saints, follow the links below:
For other resources related to Saints, follow the links below:
- Landing page: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/learn/history/saints
- Saints Stories landing page: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/learn/history/saints-stories
- YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@latter-daysaintsstories
There was also talk of the baptisms of Baseball, but they did not leave President Moyle in a bad light. It leaves implicit the disagreement between the prophet and the one who takes charge of the missionary work. “whoso readeth, let him understand”
Thanks for the review Chad. Looking forward to reading it. I am convinced that this series was written for the youth to expose them to some of the “oddities” of our history to normalize it and keep them in the church ultimately. This thinking is based on the role-out being tied to meetings with the youth of the church and leaders/historians. The church kind of pushed this series on the youth and the adults really didn’t read it at all. (or were targeted to, like the youth, to read it)
Any of the “intellectuals” here able to share the true background of the project? (not guessing like I am doing) For all I know some of you here wrote the books!
As an avid study of our history, it was interesting to see some of the “nuggets” they published in books 1-3.
I also will never see the “ban lifting” deal as revelation. It was a needed business move with Kimball working the Q12 like any other corp move. IMO. If the Q12 can question the “prophets” decisions then why the heck do the members not question them? I get leaders (prophets) all have different styles and that is a pivotal part of the ban story. Thinking every word that these guys say is from God just because they said/printed them in GC/church pubs is not healthy. Again, just my opinion. You do you! :)
REC911, I feel like the ban lifting followed the pattern that church leaders teach – looking at all the facts, thinking things through to come to a decision, and then praying for confirmation. The confirmation part is still revelation, but I think there was a lot more thinking things through that happened than most church members are aware of. One thing with volume 4 of Saints that was kind of depressing, however, was seeing how much opportunity was wasted in Africa by waiting that long to lift the ban.
I’m not at all surprised the September Six wasn’t mentioned. It may have sent shockwaves through the intellectual community, but I doubt the vast majority of the church even knew it happened. I live in Texas, and I didn’t even hear about it until years later.
At the launch meeting, they did say that the primary audience was “the rising generation”.
Is the rising generation going to read four volumes?
Chad, thanks for your review. I did a quick search for Mark E. Petersen, and it appears the story about him being purposely sent out to South America when President Kimball announced the revelation to the rest of the First Presidency and Q12 didn’t make the cut. It would be interesting to see Church writers handle in a faithful manner Elder Petersen’s continued antagonism to ending the ban and President Kimball outmaneuvering him.
Ezra Taft Benson’s politics is infamous to some American latter-day saints–but probably not to most. I could never be a Bircher–but, still, I’d like to think that the saints might follow Benson’s example and get a little more involved (as individuals) in the political arena.
Not a Cougar, I don’t know if he was purposefully sent away, or if he just happened to be away and Pres. Kimball conveniently (serendipitously? purposefully?) chose that day. For me, the keys to me were (1) Pres. Kimball purposefully mover the brethren in that direction, and (2) the assembled brethren were able to pray with unanimity — and God honored the unanimity. Up to that day, they never had unanimity in the room.
I never expect church curriculum to declare the above as truth, even if it is, because the church thinks it is critically important to (1) paint a picture that the leaders of the church never disagree on any matter, and (2) make God the sole actor and deny any active role to Pres. Kimball.
When I was growing up I bought some of Benson’s political writings in a Church-related media shop in DC. I was heartbroken to find that I, in my teenage wisdom, disagreed with him on some matters, and it lead to some soul-searching about just what “follow the prophet” meant and how my mind factored into it. I honestly credit that experience with preparing me to be a little more supple and less rigid when it came to my doctrinal preconceptions, which has enabled a richer and more resilient faith imo. As time has gone on, actually, I’ve started to see wisdom in his thoughts (like the danger of overreliance on the military vs. cultivation of national character) which had frankly offended me as a youth. Funny how things like that work sometimes. I think I still have those pamphlets in a box somewhere, might go take a look again.
I guess this is a long way of saying that those things for which Benson is “infamous” are things that have blessed my life, and as a public servant he is one of my role models.
ji, Matt Harris indicated that he had some pretty strong sources who confirmed that Mark E. Peterson was sent away on purpose.
Chad, Thanks for the insight. I don’t know Matt Harris, but I accept the possibility that Elder Peterson was purposefully sent away. That would re-affirm my assertion that Pres. Kimball drove the matter to resolution.
Sending an apostle to a foreign land to get him out of the way? I suppose it’s possible–but I’m doubtful. I’ve seen too many critics reduce the workings of the apostles to mere politics. I’d need to see hard evidence to believe it.
Regarding Santos being for the emerging generation… it’s sad to say but yes.
Some time ago, while talking to a recently returned missionary, he was very excited because he had read Saints cover to cover several times and it was considered that he knew the history of the Church well. When I was in high school there was a book of history anecdotes and at the time as a child I read it because it extolled the attributes of national heroes. Obviously it was just a book of anecdotes… it caught my attention that a classmate presented an assignment based on that book… the professor caught his attention strongly and obviously he got just the right grade to pass. Listening to that young returned missionary, I was reminded of that experience.
Jack, what would constitute hard evidence for you? I doubt Spencer W. Kimball would explicitly spell something like that out in his journal. But while critics tend to go too far in removing inspiration in Church leadership, any human organization is going to involve politics in its leadership. It’s how things get done and decisions get made. It’s not something that should just be ignored if you want to understand the decisions made in the past.
I believe I read that Kimball was “away” when the Indian Placement Program was discontinued. If that is true, its not a stretch that being “sent away” is a thing. Anyone here know about this?
I wonder in a Zoom age if being sent away on assignment would still do the trick.
REC911:
Kimball died in 1985. The Indian Placement program was limited in scope in 1990. So I guess he was “away” when the Indian Placement program was discontinued.
To those who doubt the story about President Kimball zending Elder Petersen to South America (specifically Ecuador), it was repeated on this very blog in Chad’s post about the 1978 revelation on the priesthood which quoted from an interview with Matthew Harris who wrote Second Class Saints:
https://www.timesandseasons.org/index.php/2024/07/the-1978-priesthood-revelation-process/
You might have still have doubts about whether a Church president would send an apostle out of the country to prevent that apostle from blocking a decision, but I trust Harris’s research.
Chad,
So far as we know, Elder Petersen approved of the revelation wholeheartedly–once he knew about it, that is. And even though it could be argued that, had he been present, he might’ve gotten in the way of actually receiving the revelation–we don’t see the other so called “hardliners” getting in the way. Elders Benson and McConkie, for example, were thrilled by the revelation. So with that in mind, I’d need to see some good evidence that he would have responded differently than Benson and McConkie before I buy into the idea that he was purposefully sent away.
That said, I suppose its possible that Elder Petersen’s being in South America–and Elder Stapley being in the hospital–at the time might ‘ve been fortuitous in some way or another. We may yet learn that the heavenly machinations involved in bringing about the revelation included specific “chess moves” having to do with the location of the apostles–and a thousand other things.
I agree with Jack, I would have to see some hard evidence indicating that the President of the Church (instead of the President of the Twelve who makes the assignments) deliberately sent out Elder Petersen, like a letter, journal entry, first hand account of this. With the availability of the Harris book now it shouldn’t be that hard for someone to put out the evidence that Harris has, should it? His book is hardly the first book or article about this so why hasn’t this evidence been brought up before? did it just somehow mysteriously turn up? when? how?
Besides of which it seems odd to me that in 1964 when the aborigines in Australia received the Priesthood, the so called “hardliners” supported that move plus in 1969 Pres. Brown asking for a sustaining vote from the 12 to overturn the ban and the then Elder Lee being the only hold out. Why would both Elders Stapley and Petersen support the partial overturning of the ban in 1964 and then the wholesale removal of it in 1969 but yet less then 10 years later are back to supporting it, that doesn’t add up.
Jack “I could never be a Bircher”
Same here. Birchers were soft on communism.
Chad: “Matt Harris indicated that he had some pretty strong sources”
In other words, he’s saying “trust me.” That’s not a basis for scholarship. At all.
2 Cents, says the person posting anonymously on the internet. It is actually more of an indication that I didn’t have the book on hand to double check. The source he cited in the book was Ed Kimball, Spencer Kimball’s son and biographer. Edward was pretty close to his father and would know better than anyone here what was going on behind the scenes.
Critchlow, as far as I’m aware, Ed Kimball is a second hand account (I’m not sure whether Spencer W. Kimball told him while things were unfolding and he was making decisions or later on), so take it as you will. As far as the other hard liners, it took over four years of work on President Kimball’s part to prepare the way to lift the ban (in addition to them blocking pervious efforts during David O. McKay’s administration). I would consider that to be other people getting in the way. Presodeny Kimball had won over McConkie during that time by having him on assignments in Brazil to understand the impact of the ban first hand and by having McConkie write up a doctrinal analysis on scriptural support for the ban that led him to conclude that there wasn’t sufficient amounts of scriptural support for the policy. He had been working on the others. Benson tried to table the issue during the meeting to prevent Kimball from overturning the ban, but was overridden and then was won over by the Spirit when it happened.
As far as the Australian aborigenies, that was a bit of different, if related, issue. Deciding the ban didn’t apply to them was more a question of deciding to define their racial identity differently than in the past (they had previously believed that they were descendants of Africans because of their skin color). In addition, civil rights for aborigenies was not a hot button issue that Mark E. Peterson was actively campaigning against, like he was with Black rights in America.
As far as the story of Brown almost overturning the ban but being stopped by Lee, I’ve heard that one, but I’ve been digging through books and haven’t been able to find the story from a published source to get the details. All I’ve found is that Harold B. Lee, Mark E. Peterson, Ezra Taft Benson and Alvin Dyer were the major forces who were working to block opening a mission to Nigeria or lifting the ban during the late 1960s.
In any case, the idea that Spencer W. Kimball sent Peterson away on purpose is a relatively minor thing and not a hill on which I want to die. Whatever the cause, he wasn’t there when the revelation happened and supported it after the fact.
Wouldn’t it be nice if we could dispense with “institutional history,” “faithful history,” and “inspiring history” and aspire to write only truthful, complete, and objective history with no intention of advancing an agenda. The church, of course, has no desire to promulgate the full truth and nothing but the truth. Which is one of two reasons why I will never read “The Saints,” the other being that I will never trust an institution that (i) has deliberately misled me in the past regarding its history and the evolution of its doctrine—which deceptions were revealed for all the world to see by the Internet—and (ii) refuses to take ownership for its mistakes.
I forgot to add one thing.
The Joseph Smith Papers project is outstanding. This is the kind of work the church history department should focus on exclusively. No one will accord much deference to an institutional history written by the institution in question.