NOTE: This article was published in the January/February 2025 Mormonism Researched newsletter, a free publication. To subscribe, please visit the registration site.

On November 19, 2017 apostles M. Russell Ballard and Dallin H. Oaks (later to become a member of the First Presidency) addressed an audience of young members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Sitting side-by-side on the stage across from two college-aged students, Ballard attempted to instill confidence in the audience by telling them that, despite claims to the contrary, the church of which he and Oaks are general authorities, do not hide information from its members.

As an example, he pointed to the First Vision, an event that modern members are led to believe took place in the spring of 1820 when Joseph Smith, confused as to which church is true, retreated to the local woods to ask God about the matter in prayer.

Ballard stated that “some are saying that the church has been hiding the fact that there is more than one version of the First Vision, which is not true.” He supported that conclusion by noting that Dr. James B. Allen, an LDS historian and founder of the Mormon History Association, “produced an article for the church magazines explaining all about the different versions of the First Vision.”

One of the magazines Mr. Ballard was referring to was The Improvement Era (April 1970, 4). That issue commemorated the 150th anniversary of the First Vision. Technically, you could say that Ballard was telling the truth. However, does it not seem out of place that he had to reach back nearly a half century to come up with an example? In 1970, the church’s membership was just shy of 3 million people.

When Ballard made this comment in 2017, membership had just surpassed 16 million members. How many during that span of time knew about Allen’s article is anyone’s guess; I do think it is safe to say, though, that the vast majority of Latter-day Saints had no clue about Allen’s research.

Ballard then went on to say: “The fact is, we don’t study; we don’t go back and search what has been said on the subject.” Watching the video as Ballard said this, I at first wondered if he might be referring to himself, or perhaps other leaders in the church; however, it seems more likely that Ballard was offering criticism of church members for not doing their due diligence.

If so, why would we assume that a member should even see the need to do a study on this topic, since only Joseph Smith’s 1838 account was given prominence during that time? And if a lay member did wonder if Smith gave other accounts of this First Vision, would they even know where to look for the answers? After all, computers and the ability to do word searches were still many years away.

After Ballard mentioned Allen’s 1970 article, Oaks chimed in and asked, “How long ago was that article?” Ballard responded by saying, “That was back in 1970.” Oaks replied, “We’ve been hiding that for quite some time!” The audience responded to the obvious sarcasm with laughter.

It is troubling that these two men would take the accusation of suppressing information lightly, given the fact that there is evidence showing that the church has, in its past, hidden information from its members and the general public. If this were not the case, the efforts of researchers Jerald and Sandra Tanner and their small organization called Modern Microfilm (later to become the Utah Lighthouse Ministry) would not have filled a need among those interested in knowing more about Mormonism’s past that could not be found anywhere else.

In their landmark book Mormonism: Shadow or Reality, the Tanners described the suppression of Joseph Smith’s 1832 handwritten account of Smith’s encounter with “the Lord.” In this account Smith is motivated to pray in some nearby woods because he is concerned about his personal forgiveness.

However, no mention is made of God the Father being present. The church apparently sees the connection with Smith’s official 1838 account because it conflates some of the details in a film shown daily at the church’s history museum across Temple Square.

Omitting the presence of God the Father seems peculiar. Normally when a spectacular event takes place, we can readily remember where we were when we first personally experienced it or heard the news. I remember vividly getting ready to enter my elementary school cafeteria on November 22, 1963 when the principal told my teacher that President John F. Kennedy had been shot. Am I really expected to believe that Joseph Smith had an encounter with God when he failed to mention it when recounting this event?

Continuing his dialogue with Oaks, Ballard went on to say “this idea that the church is hiding something, which we would have to say as, as two apostles who have covered the world and know the history of the church and know the integrity of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve from the beginning of time… There has been no attempt, on the part, in any way, of the church leaders, trying to hide anything from anybody” (ellipsis mine).

Going back to the First Vision, there is evidence to show that Joseph Fielding Smith, at the time serving as the LDS Church’s historian, came upon Joseph Smith’s 1832 diary account and then cut the section out, placing it in his office vault. There it lay hidden for about 30 years.

Let me say that if Oaks and Ballard really “know the history of the church,” would they not be aware of this? Would they not also know that this event could not have happened in the spring of 1820? In Joseph Smith History, a portion of LDS scripture included in the Pearl of Great Price, Smith claimed that in his fifteenth year there was “in the place where we lived an unusual excitement on the subject of religion” (1:5).

Smith mentions that the local Methodists, Baptists, and Presbyterians were “zealous in endeavoring to establish their own tenets and disprove all others” (1:9). Smith described the bad feelings that ensued when various converts “began to file off” to the various churches.

The details he provided allow us to pinpoint precisely the “religious excitement” he is referencing. Being born in December 1805, Smith would have been 14 in the spring of 1820, yet the revival he described took place in 1824. How can this be accounted for?

Ballard’s advice is simple. He said,

“Just trust us, wherever you are in the world, and you share this message with anyone else who raises the question about the church not being transparent. We’re as transparent as we know how to be in telling the truth. We have to do that. It’s the Lord’s way.”

I think the takeaway concerning his comment can be found in his statement: “We’re transparent as we know how to be in telling the truth.” In Mormonism, transparency and truth has limitations. This is why the church is compelled to incessantly repeat the false date of 1820, for if leaders used the correct date of 1824, this would mean the Angel Moroni, who allegedly appeared to Smith in 1823, becomes Smith’s first vision.

Contrary to the assurances by Oaks and Ballard, transparency has not been a consistent trait of the LDS Church.