Thanks for raising these points, James, it’s a fascinating discussion.

New plural marriages in the US were relatively rare after the start of the Utah Raid in 1880. With a small handful of exceptions LDS plural marriages would each be in at least their thirtieth anniversary by 1910. How many of those members in good standing can we believe were still unlawfully cohabiting as they entered their fifties?

By way of example, I have two prominent polygamists among my direct line ancestors who were alive during the Utah Raid. One of them (who had entered into six plural marriages) was sent to jail for the practice during the 1880s. However, none of their children, the earliest of whom would have come of age about 1870, entered into plural marriages as far as I know.

As such it is hard to believe that US members in good standing who were still cohabiting after 1910 were anything but a bizarre anomaly. Same for those members in Mexico and Canada, except delayed ten or fifteen years. That is not to say that those members didn’t live or maintain non-intimate relationships for many years after that of course.

Then, there’s Transubstantiation. At what point did the Reformers toss that away? How many of them still believed it?

Not trying to hijack this, but why is so much blame about the Jewish Holocaust put on the Catholics? What about the Lutherans? About half of Germans are Lutheran, so what was their part in all this? Yet, I do know that a number of Danish Lutherans did save a number of Danish Jews by sneaking them to Sweden. And what about some of the Eastern Orthodox churches? I know the Russian Orthodox Church would be fair game for Nazi persecution, but were none of the other Orthodox churches appalled about Nazi atrocities? Did they comply or resist extermination? It’s hard to blanket say who’s innocent, resistive, or complicit in this abomination.

While doing my Family History, I’ve seen original documents urging harsh official action by the State church of the Isle of Man, which was under under the Anglican Diocese of York, against Quakers. I have ancestors on another line that were first Inghamite, a group that had some popularity in the mid 1700′s in England, then later became Baptist. They were looked down upon in society, but it was not like the persecution of the Quakers. Or, the Huguenots.

As we see, the reformation was certainly not all enlightenment and goodness and progression and the dark ages were not as oppressive and unbearable as Preach My Gospel might lead one to believe. An investigator who understands such will quite possibly be turned off if these are the sort of anecdotes we are tossing around. I think it would be a shame to have what is actually and truly the gospel of the Lord unattainable to those who care, simply because we are too engrained culturally to shake off what is certainly not the most important part of the restoration.

Raymond (#11): I agree—how history played out IS how the Lord did it (or what the Lord worked with to bring this dispensation about). The fact that Joseph Smith was called in early 19th century, Protestant, European-descended America is the starting point. This isn’t trivial. What I’m calling into question is the narrative we tell of when and how God was involved, and the historical facts we base them on. I also agree that starting the Reformation in medieval Europe would not have been a cake walk (just as it wasn’t a cake walk in 19th century America).

Dane (#13): Yes, I think there’s got to be a third route, or perhaps a route that acknowledges both 1 & 2. If we decided to endorse your speculations, however, I think I’d call Joseph and the Restoration “leaven” rather than a virus—helps with the PR.

Erin & Coffinberry (#14 & #18): Amen. We don’t need technical GC addresses. And such isn’t needed in order to adapt our narrative. You two bring up one of the major reasons we ought to adjust how we tell things: the internationalization of the Church. Not only were the “dark ages” gleaming in some places, but I think it’s important that we begin to tell a narrative that doesn’t leave out the rest of the world. Silence that implies a sort of dispensational limbo amongst most of the population of the world for at least a couple of millennia is sure to be an obstacle. And as Steve (#5) is perhaps alluding to, taking sides in a historical polemic that doesn’t directly involve us can likewise be an unnecessary obstacle. Faithfully exploring other ways of historical appropriation could be very fruitful. This is MUCH more the reason behind my writing than specific details of certain Reformation groups or speculation on whether or how God could’ve/would’ve initiated the Restoration in medieval times.

None of my comments on the current narrative are meant to be condemnatory. It wasn’t the earlier converts’ fault that they came from a Protestant background. It’s not Talmage’s fault that the scholarship on the history of Christianity during his day was thoroughly dominated by German Protestants. Nor is it our fault that until the latter part of the last century, most of our membership fit nicely into a narrative that only took in Europe and America. From where we stand today, however, I think we have an obligation to critically analyze and where needed adjust and add to our story.

Mark D. and Steve F. (#15, #16 and #20): Courses at BYU would certainly help. I think a conference of LDS and non-LDS scholars hosted at BYU would also be great and perhaps get the attention of those who could most help to change the narrative. Perhaps most effective for the church overall would be a series of Ensign articles. As Marc Bohn and Steve F. both note, given how ingrained our narrative is, it’ll be hard. The trick in each case is to present the material without flatly refuting (at least in a tactless or faithless way) what has been the content of numerous GC talks and church publications. We’ve successfully done this in a number of other areas (e.g., Mountain Meadows Massacre). We ought to be able to do it here.

Coffinberry & Steve F. (#18 and #20): I agree with Steve that our readings of I Nephi 12-13 & passages in certain chapters in II Nephi seem problematic much more because of the preconceived understanding we bring to them. I think the current issue is analogous to how we used to naturally read the great & abominable church as the Catholic church. Perhaps I’m overly optimistic, but I think that bringing a new narrative to bear on these chapters will not only NOT pose problems, but will in fact greatly enrich our reading.