Today, Cornell University Press releases an exciting new book featuring fourteen essays that track changes in the ways Americans have perceived the Latter-day Saints since the 1830s. From presidential politics, to political violence, to the definition of marriage, to the meaning of sexual equality—the editors and contributors place Latter-day Saints within larger American histories of territorial expansion, religious mission, Constitutional interpretation, and state formation. These essays also show that the political support of the Latter-day Saints has proven valuable to other political groups at critical junctures.
The volume includes chapters by Keith A. Erekson, Adam Jortner, Spencer W. McBride, Benjamin E. Park, Natalie K. Rose, Amy S. Greenberg, Thomas Richards Jr., Brent M. Rogers, Stephen E. Smith, Matthew C. Godfrey, Matt Mason, Rachel St. John, J. B. Haws, and Patrick Q. Mason. It was was edited by Spencer W. McBride, Brent M. Rogers, and Keith A. Erekson.
Visit the book’s page on my website to learn more, download a chapter, or purchase copy.
Episode Summary: Keith Erekson is the director of the Library Division of the Church History Department. In this week’s episode we explore the cooperative movement of the Church. We also learn about a visit by Joseph Smith III to Utah Territory.
Listen to Episode 24: An Immense Labor.
The cover of Contingent Citizens features a photograph of the Salt Lake Temple draped in an enormous American flag. We thought this juxtaposition—church and state, piety and patriotism, sacred and secular—captured the complex and contradictory ways that Latter-day Saints have been perceived in American politics. In the book we tease out the tensions clustered around authority and mobilization, power and sovereignty, and unity and nationalism. But the image prompts other interesting questions about the flag itself and how it ended up on the side of the Church’s most well-known Temple.
Why such a large flag?
The flag was created to celebrate Utah’s admission as a state in 1896. With dimensions of 132 feet by 74 feet, it was designed to be “the largest flag in history” and it held that title until 1923. U.S. President Grover Cleveland signed the proclamation admitting Utah on January 4 and on January 6 an inauguration ceremony was held in the Tabernacle on Temple Square. The flag covered most of the ceiling and at the specified moment in the program a switch was flipped to illuminate Utah’s new 45th star on the flag.
Why was it hung that way?
The flag remained in the Tabernacle for several months, but as plans developed to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the arrival of the pioneers in 1897, the large flag needed to find a new home. Over the next six years, until around 1903, it hung on the south side of the temple for appropriate holidays.
No records survive to document why the flag was hung in this way, but contextual information provides some clues. The flag would have fit on the north or south sides of the Temple, and they chose the south. The flag had two sides (the side with the blue union on the left hung in the Tabernacle), so they chose the side with the union on the right. Placement on the south side of the Temple made the flag visible to the more numerous city streets to the south. The Temple’s tallest towers on the east (with the angel Moroni at center) serve symbolically as the flagpole, with the colors thus flying in the breeze as it moves forward to the east. It was not until 1942 that the U.S. Congress adopted the United States Flag Code, with its prescriptions for flag hanging. Thus, there were no official instructions in 1897, but a circular from the U.S. War Department’s adjutant general issued in 1917 recommended that flags hung flat on walls should be oriented with the union to the north or east.
It is okay that the past was different?
Of course. As we seek to make sense of the pieces of the past and the stories told about it, we discover people, places, experiences, and traditions different from our own. The hanging of the flag “backwards” was not intended as a sign of disrespect or defiance. It did not preemptively break a flag code that would be passed half a century later. It was an appropriate part of its own time and place.
One artist who painted the scene as a romanticized pastoral landscape, felt no qualms about removing of all of the buildings and other signs of urban life, but nevertheless felt the need to explain: “This image accurately depicts how the flag was hung. There was no flag-displaying protocol at that time.”
Perhaps suspecting that its modern readers would be embarrassed, a magazine catering to the lives of Latter-day Saints inverted the image, a move made obvious by the presence of foothills in downtown Salt Lake City on the left edge of the photo.
Sources
The image on the cover of Contingent Citizens comes from the George W. Reed Photograph Collection the at the University of Utah’s J. Willard Marriott Library’s Special Collections.
For more on the history of this and other large flags, see John M. Hartvigsen, “Utah’s Mammoth Statehood Flag,” Raven: A Journal of Vexillology 19 (2012): 27–56. (Vexillology is the study of flags, their designs, histories, and uses.)
How do you detect and avoid a hoax? It’s difficult, and the better the hoax the tougher it is to detect. There is not a single “answer” or “trick” or “secret.”
A magician writing in a Cold-War era manual for international spies explained that “practically every popularly held opinion on how to deceive, as well as how to safeguard one’s self from being deceived, is wrong in fact as well as premise.” The hand is not quicker than the eye and “there is never a single secret for any trick.” Rather, “a trick does not fool the eye but fools the brain.” Thus, the antidote involves careful observation, thinking, and analysis. We must become aware of human limitations and perpetrator methods and we must employ thoughtful counter-strategies and helpful tools.
Awareness of Your Own Human Limitations
Perpetrators exploit the weaknesses of human thinking and observation. First, there are social limitations. We seem to have an innate sense of trust; we assume that what we experience is true. The existence of society is predicated on our trust that parents are kind, leaders are just, and neighbors are friendly. Because it is not humanly possible or feasible to verify everything, our minds create shortcuts for evaluating the world around us—we trust if it comes with experts and endorsements, if it contains scientific formulas or graphs or photos of scientists, if we feel pleasant emotions.
We also possess mental limitations. We are more likely to remember things that have a memorable story or pattern. Our minds tend to imbue patterns with intention and meaning, and we can end up seeing patterns or messages in randomness (pareidolia). Our minds prefer information that is easier to process—whether because of high contrast, rhyming, or simplicity. We remember things that align with what we already believe (confirmation bias) and ignore information that runs counter to our existing beliefs (motivated reasoning). Increased familiarity with things gives us the illusion of validity (illusory truth effect). Once we form inaccurate beliefs, they become heard to eradicate, even after clear correction (continuing influence effect). Sometimes, we cannot see our own incompetence (Dunning-Kruger Effect).
Awareness of Perpetrator Methods
Researchers have identified several common principles employed by perpetrators in a variety of schemes. They can distract you into focusing on something that grabs your interest so that you miss everything else (common in magic tricks). They count on social compliance, or the way that most people are trained by society not to question authority (employed in social engineering or phishing). The herd principle describes the way that most people follow everyone around them (used in auctions with a planted bidder or in social media aliases). The dishonesty principle expects that each person has a little larceny on the inside (people may be willing to rationalize the purchase stolen goods if they are a “good deal”). The kindness principle accepts that most people are fundamentally nice and willing to help (exploited in scam requests for disaster aid). Con artists exploit need and greed, because our deeper drives, moods, and pain shape what we really want (often paired with distraction). Finally, the time principle recognizes that people make worse choices under pressure (when presented with a “limited time offer”).
These general principles work with a variety of tactics. Perpetrators of hoaxes and scams might present fake experts and anonymous sources (such as non-traditional news outlets and amateur publications), appeal to ancient wisdom or alternative options (secret knowledge), deny the conclusiveness of evidence (“we can’t be sure”), seek only for evidence that supports their position (cherry picking), emphasize only strange things (anomaly hunting), present a large quantity of information (proof by verbosity), set criteria that no one could meet (impossible expectations), or change the requirements (moving the goalposts).
Thoughtful Counterstrategies
To avoid being tricked by a hoax or scam you will need more than common sense. You will need more than the usual simple tricks. You cannot simply trust websites that end in .org (hoaxers use them because most people trust them).
Sam Wineburg and the Stanford History Education Group recommend a practice they call “lateral reading.” Instead of down a webpage to review its official-looking logo or domain name, you should learn to leave the page and look around it on the internet. Open up a new browser window and search for situational details—Who hosts the site? What can you find from other sources about the site owner? Who links to the site? (Here are curriculum materials for teaching these skills to students)
After you’ve determined something is a hoax, how do you persuade others who still believe? You must provide factual alternatives (not just vague statements). You must refute misinformation by explaining why the myth is false and why the facts are true (not just state that something is incorrect). Where possible, present information in a way that affirms a person’s worldview and is congruent with their values. And foster healthy skepticism.
Tools and Resources
Here are our top 10 free online tools for detecting hoaxes:
- Snopes.com fact checks urban legends, hoaxes, and folklore.
- Hoax-Slayer exposes email and social media hoaxes as well as current internet scams.
- The Internet has an official registry in which to search for a website’s owner and creator.
- Google’s reverse image search can be used to find where an image appears elsewhere on the web.
- Tin Eye searches the web for images and offers a “compare” feature that highlights any differences caused by cropping, resizing, skewing, or other manipulation.
- FotoForensics reveals if an image has been modified.
- Jeffrey’s Image Metadata Viewer reveals information about the creation of specific digital images.
- Amnesty International has created the YouTube Data Viewer that reveals when a video was originally posted and extracts image thumbnails that can be reverse searched
- WolframAlpha offers a powerful knowledgebase for checking all kinds of information
- Wikimapia hosts maps with all kinds of interesting geographic information
After you’ve identified a hoax, use these tools to analyze it!
Hoaxes come in all shapes and sizes, but they employ the same basic elements—a perpetrator (with a motive), a target constituency (with an unmet desire), and a fabrication (with a provenance). Hoaxes also follow a common lifecycle—they play off their setting, are introduced or “discovered,” grow through comment and debate, and then endure or fade away.
The Elements
1. The Perpetrator. Perpetrators of hoaxes frequently possess charisma, attention to detail, and commitment to their cause. They may be motivated by fame, money, or power. They may want to show off, draw attention, push an agenda, exact revenge, or just “mess around.” Some may be sociopaths who are both anti-social and without conscience. My students added another motive to the list—to become savvy citizens in the 21st century.
2. The Target Constituency. Victims of hoaxes often possess reasons for not disbelieving—they are proud, indifferent, ignorant, or superstitious. If you think you can’t be conned, then you’re just the person a con artist wants to meet! Deep down, sometimes not even fully known to themselves, targets also possess an unmet desire that encourages them to believe—vanity, pride, or validation; personal prejudices or chauvinism; longing for financial gain, entertainment, or vicarious thrills. Even the inventor of Sherlock Holmes, the author Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, was tricked by photographs of fairies.
3. A Fabrication. Every hoax must fabricate something—an artifact or item, an entity or person, facts or information. We call the fabrication a forgery if the perpetrator manufactured the entire new work. We call it a fake if an authentic object is altered, with the addition of a forged signature or something like that. But neither a forgery or a fake can simply spring out of nowhere, so the most important part of a fabrication is its provenance, or the story of where it came from and how it arrived on the scene today.
Con artist-turned-reality-TV-star R. Paul Wilson asserts that the formula for tricking any person is simple. X + Y = Z. People will believe any lie (Y) so long as it relates to a fact (X) and leads to a deep desire (Z). For example, it is true that eating healthy matters (X), so I can sell you an unproven “dietary supplement” (Y) if you desire easy results guaranteed (Z)!
The Process
A. Setting. Hoaxes play of their time and place. They are more common:
- in times of stress and upheaval (less common in times of stability),
- when there are clear divisions between us/them (less common with unity),
- when migration is restricted (less common with easier flow),
- when cultural authority wanes (less common when church and state align),
- during periods of scientific and technological change (less common when consensus).
B. Introduction/Discovery. After a perpetrator has manufactured a fabrication and courted a target constituency, the hoax begins when a “discovery” of the fabrication. In time its invented provenance comes out.
C. Comment and Debate. The “best” hoaxes are not too perfect or complete but have wiggle room to grow in public comment and debate. The debate galvanizes supporters and detractors as people take sides. Additional “supporting” evidence can be added to the conversation. Participants become invested as they contribute to the dialogue. Often an “unsuspecting champion” emerges who is also a target/victim of the perpetrator and has good credentials within the target community.
D. Duration/Longevity. Some hoaxes garner brief attention and then disappear quickly. Others endure to become persistent parts of the community or culture.
Putting the Pieces Together
Here’s a look at how the elements and process came together with the Elvis Presley Book of Mormon forgery.
1. Perpetrator (with a motive)
Unknown
2. Target Constituency (with an unmet desire)
Latter-day Saints who desired
- A story of individual change and redemption (Elvis from sinner to saint)
- A story of collective redemption and legitimacy (validation from a celebrity)
- An “inspiring” story to tell (to “promote faith”)
3. Fabrication (with provenance)
A copy of the Book of Mormon with forged annotations purportedly made by Elvis Presley (that surfaced through an Elvis fan who joined the Church in 1976)
A. Setting
- Late 1980s
- Elvis Presley and his parents have died (no one to contradict the story)
- Not a lot of Elvis memorabilia on the market yet (hard to verify)
B. Introduction/Discovery
- Attempt 1: Fan tries to sell book to a dealer who declines
- Attempt 2: Fan tells Osmond family that Elvis wanted them to have the book
C. Comment and Debate
- Osmond family becomes first victim/unsuspecting champion
- Book donated to the Church in 1989
- Accepted with little scrutiny by archivists or journalists
D. Duration
- Widely reported by speakers, writers, journalists for 30 years
- Inspired a movie in 2007
- Analysis of context and handwriting reveals forgery in 2018
You Try It
- One of the new corona virus hoaxes
- A recent hoax from 2018
- Something from the Museum of Hoaxes
Published by the History News Network on March 15, 2020.
Two hoaxes surfaced on the Internet in late November and early December 2019. The hoaxes drew interest and comment, prompted clicks and reposts, and fooled both the unsuspecting and the highly trained. The hoaxes did not spark widespread panic or promise essential health cures; they were not created by marketing bots or Russian spies. The hoaxes were designed, planned, and launched by my undergraduate students at the University of Utah as part of their preparation to become savvy citizens in the twenty-first century.
One hoax announced the “discovery” of a wedding ring in Frisco, Utah, bearing the inscription “Etta Place – Chubut, 1904.” A photograph of the ring was enough to excite Facebook users to fill in the gaps. “Etta Place was the girlfriend of Henry Longbaugh aka the Sundance Kid,” wrote one. “Chubut is the province in Argentina where the couple settled,” added another. “I thought I knew pretty much all of the legends of Butch and his companions,” observed a third, “I’m looking forward to the rest of the story.” This ruse met its match in a museum professional who pointed out that the dirt in the photo did not reflect the composition of soil from southern Utah and that a gold ring would not have fractured like the tungsten ring in the photo.
The second hoax “uncovered” a document in the university archive with implications for a collegiate rivalry. A first-year graduate student “found” an architectural sketch indicating that the statue of Brigham Young on his namesake campus in Provo was originally intended to fill a pedestal that remains empty to this day on the campus of the University of Utah. Then an ardent “fan” created an online petition calling for the return of a statue with a Twitter hashtag to #BringBrighamBack! BYU fans seemed amused, while a Utah fan retorted “Please keep the name and the statue!” One reader knowingly stated that he’d “already heard” this as an urban myth and was glad the answer was finally found in the archives. A professor from one of the schools read the petition, clicked through to the faked study, and then reposted the underlying study.
Why teach students to create hoaxes? First and foremost, we need citizens with the skills and perspective to survive in “the golden age of hoaxes.” Photoshopped images and deep faked videos go viral on social media, cable channels air documentaries about mermaids and monsters, celebrities become politicians, and politicians call the media “fake.” And yet, what circulates so quickly on the Internet today also circulated in other forms in the past—forged diaries and documents, a mermaid body washed up on shore, photographs of fairies or Lincoln’s ghost, and tales of life on the moon.
Teaching about hoaxes also represents good professional practice. I taught the course as a night class at a university, but by day I am the director of an archive/research library where I am responsible both to share information and preserve its integrity for perpetuity. My library joins the Smithsonian among the countless victims of the most notorious murderer-forger in history. We follow the best practices of the archival profession for providing secure access in our reading room. Our IT professionals constantly monitor for phishing, social engineering, or outright hacking. One way to protect the historical record is to understand how it can be stolen, manipulated, modified, or erased.
Teaching with hoaxes also presented an opportunity for engaging pedagogy. In designing the course, I took cues from psychologists who examine abnormal mental dysfunction to promote better mental health, from police officers who experience tasers and K-9 takedowns before being authorized to use them, and from athletes who run the plays of opponents in order to beat them. If we are to avoid being fooled by bad information, we must understand how it works. How better to understand how it works than by creating our own hoaxes? We began by exploring the history and methods of past hoaxers, frauds, and forgers. We sought usable lessons by developing skills in the historical method to identify and debunk false claims and by seeking to understand how digital misinformation and disinformation circulate today.
The students succeeded in creating hoaxes that fooled some in their target audiences, but our creations faced stiff competition on the worldwide web of misinformation. Both hoaxes ran for about two weeks before we came clean. Those weeks also witnessed presidential impeachment hearings by the House Judiciary Committee, a rumor about the height of Disney’s most famous animated snowman, and a Facebook hoax about women being abducted in white vans. One of the takeaways noted by my students was that it was hard to get people’s attention in an environment in which they are constantly bombarded by misinformation.
The experience also prompted increased respect for actual professional expertise. The group working on the fake ring explicitly targeted baby boomers, thinking they’d be an easy target. That intergenerational spite dissipated after their best effort was so effortlessly debunked by someone with more experience.
Other lessons learned came out of the ongoing classroom discussions about the ethics of our activities. After all, it’s not every day that one gets assigned to forge a historical document, photoshop an image, create fake social media accounts, and spread deception on the Internet. We drew a line that prohibited the forgery of medical claims, soliciting money, public harm, or anything that would get any of us arrested, fired, or expelled. That left us free to experiment with information, history, and emotional appeal.
The discipline of history has much to offer our present age of misinformation in terms of subject matter and analytical methods. Here’s hoping for a future in which we recognize the flood of misinformation around us, acknowledge the value of expertise, and develop the thinking skills necessary to survive our century.
Keith A. Erekson is an author, teacher, and public historian who taught a night class on “Hoaxes and History” at the University of Utah in the fall 2019 semester. Learn more at keitherekson.com.
