Historian Keith Erekson’s book teaches Latter-day Saints how to separate fact from fiction regarding faith-promoting stories. For example, he gives readers the tools needed to assess the accuracy of a purported photograph of Joseph Smith—or identify the myth about Brigham Young miraculously leaving space in the Salt Lake Temple for future elevators. In this interview, he explains how Latter-day Saints can gauge the accuracy of church history stories.
Sign up to be notified when we publish new content, like articles about Joseph Smith, Elvis and the Book of Mormon, and the White Horse Prophecy.
What is the backstory for Real vs. Rumor: How to Dispel Latter-day Myths?
The long backstory is that before I came to Church employment, I was a history professor who researched, published, consulted, and taught history. I spent many years thinking about what it means to think historically, whether in commemoration activities, public history, or school classrooms.
The shorter backstory is that after arriving in the Church History Library, I regularly encountered situations that would have been much easier if people had known how to think historically. So I hope the book can help.
What are some of the most common Latter-day Saint myths you encounter?
I think the word “myth” can describe three things:
- There are errors of fact that people often debunk in a “myth vs. fact” way.
- There are big sweeping stories—mythic, epic stories—that give meaning to life no matter how accurate the facts are.
- Some mental shortcuts and blindspots shape the way we encounter the world.
My book uses examples of the first and second types to get at the third.
These “myths within us,” as I call them, are everywhere—we think we know everything, we don’t ask for evidence, we assume, we fail to see the interpretations made by others, we limit our options, and we get distracted by insignificant details.
Perhaps the most common and most problematic is a simplistic binary view of the world that sees everything as “either/or” options—good or evil, members or nonmembers, Democrats or Republicans, Black citizens or White police, faith or doubt (see chapter 5).
Why are church history rumors so appealing?
The “myths within us” succeed because they are shortcuts that substitute for thinking. They are tidy, they feel good, and they are like comfort food for our brains. By default, our brains prefer not to think. Brains develop habits and patterns that they follow on autopilot.
Athletes try to harness this by developing “muscle memory” through practiced repetition. We can cultivate intelligent thinking similarly, so each chapter introduces “Thinking Habits” as antidotes to the myths and rumors around us.
What are the dangers of sharing church history stories before you know if they’re true?
I’ll start by saying that I don’t think inaccurate stories can be truly “faith-promoting.” But it depends on what you assume “faith” to be. If faith is just some gooey abstract thing, then, sure, you might try to promote it with silly stories or tear-jerker films.
But if faith is an action, if it involves mental exertion, if it is (as President Hinckley described it) like a muscle, then it is promoted by work, resistance, and training. In cognitive terms, it is promoted by conscientiously developing effective thinking habits.
What should we do before repeating a faith-promoting church history story to others?
In Chapter 11, I introduce a thinking habit for tracing stories to sources.
- Find Details: Identify specific details in the story. Specific details are most helpful for narrowing your search.
- Identify Sources: Follow those details to specific sources.
- Assess Credibility: Evaluate the accuracy and authenticity of the sources. Determine the reliability of the story. The criteria of accuracy, authenticity, and reliability are developed respectively in chapters 9, 10, and 11.
Do you need to be a historian to fact-check rumors?
No. The same internet, which helps spread errors quickly, is also an extremely powerful resource for verifying information. Throughout the book, I present several “Best Resources” sections that identify websites useful for tracing and evaluating information. In addition to accuracy, authenticity, and reliability, I encourage fairness (chapter 12) and comprehensiveness (chapter 13) as helpful criteria for knowing which sources to trust.
Instead of asserting that everyone should become a historian, I encourage people to watch for sniff tests or clues that something just isn’t right. You need not become an expert on every subject to recognize when good thinking is not used.
What did Richard Bushman say about Joseph Smith’s Wikipedia page?
Richard Bushman made an insightful observation. He noted that the Wikipedia article for Joseph Smith contains accurate facts that can be traced to nineteenth-century documents. Several content studies of the online encyclopedia bear this out as its accuracy approaches that of Encyclopedia Britannica.
However, he also notes that the entry on Joseph Smith also “lacks scope.”
Bushman explained:
It just picks its way along from one little fact to another little fact. . . . It . . . isn’t inaccurate, but it sort of lacks depth. It ends up being shallow.
Richard Bushman on Joseph Smith’s Wikipedia page
This is an important insight because, so often, fact-checking exercises focus very narrowly on specific facts.
But as I develop early in the book, “facts don’t speak for themselves” (chapter 4). They are always incomplete and, therefore, must be interpreted. And it’s this shallow interpretation that makes true facts ring hollow or be twisted out of context.
How can expecting perfection from Church leaders make us susceptible to false rumors?
First, the idea that a Church leader should be or even could be perfect is inaccurate. There is no scripture, no teaching anywhere, that proclaims that Church leaders are perfect. And those who have carried the burden of the role have always been the first to declare their weaknesses.
Assuming prophetic perfection makes us susceptible to errors.
Most Latter-day Saints will happily state that Jesus lived the only perfect life. Yet, at some deeper level, we have elevated Wilford Woodruff’s observation that the Lord will not permit a prophet to lead the people astray (see Official Declaration 1) into a hidden belief that prophets cannot make mistakes.
If we read the scriptures, we’ll find scriptural stories about prophets who denied knowing Jesus or betrayed Him, resisted the Lord’s calls, disagreed publicly with each other, failed and brought suffering on their followers, fell into follies and errors (repeatedly), and were chastised or punished by God.
This assumption of prophetic perfection makes us susceptible to errors in two ways.
- The temptation to exaggerate: On the one hand, it opens us to accepting exaggerations of perfection, for example, that Brigham Young miraculously left space in the Salt Lake Temple for elevators to be added later (see chapter 3 for more info, including that elevators, were invented 100 years before the temple).
- The challenge of being disappointed: On the other hand, this assumption also sets people up for a hard fall whenever they eventually learn that Joseph Smith and every other prophet made a mistake.
Is it possible for prophets to be deceived?
Of course, it is. There is no teaching in any scripture that grants prophets immunity from deception. When the 116 manuscript pages were stolen, the Lord told Joseph point-blank: “You cannot always tell the wicked from the righteous” (D&C 10:37).
Not “you’ll learn later” or “keep trying.” Just a simple “cannot.” And so there were other times later in his life when Joseph trusted people who later betrayed him.
The scriptures contain similar stories. Isaac’s son Jacob came disguised as his brother Esau to receive the birthright blessing, and Jacob later interpreted animal blood on his son Joseph’s coat as evidence of his son’s death (see Gen. 27:6–10; 37:31–34).
Tell us about the girl’s camp quote taken out of context.
This is a great example of how young people can lead the way in thinking clearly. Leaders of a stake young women’s camp took a scripture passage (2 Ne. 24:14) out of context, twisting the ambitious words of Satan into a chipper slogan to “Aim High.”
Young women at the camp chose to read the entire chapter and realized that the slogan—which had been plastered all over t-shirts, water bottles, banners, and study journals—reflected Satan’s inner aspirations.
They took the finding to their leaders, who sheepishly admitted that they, too, had figured it out, but only after they had paid for all the swag. The leaders asked the girls not to tell anyone else.
The preferred response would have been to change the slogan during the planning process as soon as someone figured it out, accepting the previous purchases as sunk costs.
How might Joseph Smith respond to faith-promoting rumors if he were living today?
I cannot presume to speak for him. Still, I will note that his history begins with the observation that there were “many reports” that had “been put in circulation by evil-disposed and designing persons” such that he felt “induced to write this history, to disabuse the public mind, and put all inquirers after truth in possession of the facts” (JS-H 1:1). Later, in the body of that history, we find the observation that “rumor with [its] thousand tongues [is] all the time employed in circulating falsehoods” (JS-H 1:61).
So, I do feel confident in saying that Joseph was thoroughly invested in combating rumors and false reports. Doing so clears the way for the truth.
The quest for faith necessarily involves rooting out myths and rumors.
One part of Alma 32 that often goes under-noticed is that while the “experiment” is, on one level, a “test” of the seed, it is also a test of the soil—our hearts and minds. The experiment only works “if ye do not cast it out by your unbelief, that ye will resist the Spirit of the Lord” (Alma 32:28). We can be led to disbelieve or to resist the Spirit of the Lord because of rumors, myths, big lies, errors, falsehoods, legends, family lore, false quotes, misleading misinformation, and deliberately distorted disinformation.
The quest for faith necessarily involves rooting out myths and rumors so that we can see things as they really are, as they really were, and as they really will be.
About the Interview Participant
Keith A. Erekson is the director of historical research and outreach for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. He is the author of several books and articles about Latter-day Saint history, including Real vs. Rumor: How to Dispel Latter-Day Myths, Making Sense of Your Patriarchal Blessing, and Mormon Women’s History.
Further Reading
- Did Moroni Dedicate the Manti Temple Site?
- Was There a Coverup at Mountain Meadows?
- What Was Wilford Woodruff’s Vision of the Founding Fathers?
- What Was the White Salamander Letter?
- What Did It Mean to ‘Shake Off the Dust of Thy Feet?’
Latter-day Saint Historian Keith Erekson Resources
- Real vs. Rumor: How to Dispel Latter-Day Myths (Deseret Book)
- About Keith A. Erekson (Personal Website)
- Questions and Doubt, Answers and Peace (Church Audio Collections)
- Real vs. Rumor: An Interview with Dr. Keith Erekson (Church History Matters Podcast)
- Church History and Why It Matters: A Conversation with Keith Erekson (Widtsoe Foundation)
Citation Information
This post was originally published on August 16, 2021. The most recent update on February 7, 2025, includes new resources, relevant links, and an improved online reading experience.
One reply on “Keith Erekson Tackles Church History Myths and Rumors”
“Several content studies of the online encyclopedia bear this out as its accuracy approaches that of Encyclopedia Britannica.” Unfortunately, Britannica also has errors. Several years ago, their entry on the Church was an absolute mess. It’s better now.