Q: Is it a sin to disagree with the church’s official history?
A: Well, first we need to answer the question: what is the official church history?
The church’s official history is the collection of historical narratives published in official church venues like the church website and church manuals.
Q: So, is it sin to hold a different view of history than the official one published by the church?
A: Of course not. There is no divine commandment anywhere, to agree with every point of official history published by the church. That said, are there situations where disagreement with the official history can become sinful? Yes. If we define sin as “that which would destroy you spiritually,” then disagreement with the church’s official history can take a number of forms that are sinful. Let’s consider a few examples:
Causing people to stumble
Think of Jesus’s statement about causing people to stumble in their faith. Here in Matthew 18, Jesus refers to “little ones,” meaning simple people. See what he says about causing simple people to stumble in their faith:
If your disagreement with the church’s official history is taking the form of activism that is leading people away from the covenant path and causing them to abandon temple worship and other basic covenant practices, then you are causing them to stumble. Your disagreement has become sinful.
Paul taught in Romans 14 that even behaviors that are perfectly innocent in one context can become sinful in a different context if they are causing other people to stumble:
Working in opposition to Christ
Whenever we study and develop church history, we make choices about what to believe, and what to value. We encounter people’s sins and failures, and we make choices about how to respond to those. Our choices reflect the perspective and intentions of Christ, or they reflect other agendas.
When our choices around history reflect the perspective and intentions of Christ, we envision people’s redemption in Christ. Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, prophets of the distant past, and also people who have opposed God’s work- whenever we discuss any of these people, we understand that Christ suffered and died to redeem them. If our approach to history steers people away from that understanding, it is sinful.
Christ tells us numerous times in scripture that He is our advocate with the father. This is legal language; it portrays Christ as a perfect lawyer who can establish before God that we are redeemed and justified. If our approach to history leads us to become an accuser of Brigham Young or Bruce R. McConkie, or any other figure of church history we personally dislike, then we are taking the prosecutor role in opposition to Christ. To become an accuser of God’s servants is to oppose Christ as He advocates for them before the father. That is sinful.
Q: If those are sinful approaches to church history, then what should we do instead?
A: It depends whether you want to approach history as a Christian, or with some other worldview. If you were to sit down with Christ and ask Him to tell you the story of Brigham Young, you would walk away with a clear picture of how Christ sees Brigham, and it would be way more faith-promoting than anything the church has ever produced.
If your intentions are not Christian – leading people to share in Christ’s view of His servants – then it doesn’t matter how you approach history.
But if your intentions are Christian, you will teach people how to see the past through the mind of Christ. If you point out the sins or mistakes of God’s servants, you will also teach people to practice Christian mourning of those sins and mistakes, just like you mourn your own sins and mistakes. You will give them tools to grow spiritually instead of stumble. Your messaging regarding Christ’s servants will be relentlessly redemption-focused. You will help people to understand that fallibility in God’s servants does not disqualify them from experiencing God’s grace and power, because you know that from personal experience in your own life.
Related post: Dialogue with polygamy truthers