FAIR - User contributions [en]

Criticism of Mormonism/Websites/MormonThink/Lying for the Lord

2012-10-11T17:11:54Z

Awyatt: /* */

{{Articles FAIR copyright}} {{Articles Header 1}} {{Articles Header 2}} {{Articles Header 3}} {{Articles Header 4}} {{Articles Header 5}} {{Articles Header 6}} {{Articles Header 7}} {{Articles Header 8}} {{Articles Header 9}} {{Articles Header 10}}
__NOTOC__
{{FAIRAnalysisHeader
|title=[[../|MormonThink]]
|author=Anonymous
|noauthor=
|section=Lying for the Lord
|previous=[[../The Temple|The Temple]]
|next=[[../Tithing|Tithing]]
|notes=
}}
==A FAIR Analysis of MormonThink page "Lying for the Lord"==

==== ====
{{Website response summary|date=3 May 2012}}

{{MormonThinkSummaryHeader|Lying for the Lord}}
The positions that this MormonThink article appears to take are the following:
*The critics conclude that lying is "standard operating procedure for Church leaders" from Joseph Smith's time to the present, and that pretty much every thing that the Church does is somehow related to deception (this is a standard position taken by many ex-Mormons after their disaffection with the Church).

==== ====
{{Website response label}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=
*The critics claim that the official story of the First Vision constitutes deception.
|think=
*Yet, the Church discusses the various first vision accounts on lds.org and in the ''Ensign''.
|quote=
<blockquote>
During a 10-year period (1832–42), Joseph Smith wrote or dictated at least four accounts of the First Vision. These accounts are similar in many ways, but they include some differences in emphasis and detail. These differences are complementary. Together, his accounts provide a more complete record of what occurred. The 1838 account found in the Pearl of Great Price is the primary source referred to in the Church.<br>
—[http://lds.org/study/topics/accounts-of-the-first-vision?lang=eng ''Accounts of the First Vision''], Gospel Study, Study by Topic, located on lds.org. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
Joseph's vision was at first an intensely personal experience—an answer to a specific question. Over time, however, illuminated by additional experience and instruction, it became the founding revelation of the Restoration.''
<br>
—[http://classic.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=aec2515e04f5e110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD Dennis B. Neuenschwander, “Joseph Smith: An Apostle of Jesus Christ,” Ensign, Jan 2009, 16–22]
<br><br>
I am not worried that the Prophet Joseph Smith gave a number of versions of the first vision anymore than I am worried that there are four different writers of the gospels in the New Testament, each with his own perceptions, each telling the events to meet his own purpose for writing at the time. I am more concerned with the fact that God has revealed in this dispensation a great and marvelous and beautiful plan that motivates men and women to love their Creator and their Redeemer, to appreciate and serve one another, to walk in faith on the road that leads to immortality and eternal life.<br>
—“God Hath Not Given Us the Spirit of Fear,” Gordon B. Hinckley, ''Ensign'', Oct 1984, 2 {{link|url=http://www.lds.org/ensign/1984/10/god-hath-not-given-us-the-spirit-of-fear?lang=eng}}
</blockquote>
|response=
|link=Joseph Smith's First Vision/Accounts
|subject=Joseph's accounts of the First Vision
|summary=Joseph Smith gave several accounts of the First Vision. Critics charge that differences in the accounts show that he changed and embellished his story over time, and that he therefore had no such vision.
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=
*The critics claim that during Moroni's visit that his siblings would have been awakened, and that Church artwork portraying this event are deceptive.
|think=
*The argument is refuted by the Bible, the Book of Mormon, and artwork presented by the Church itself.
*''Some'' Church artwork does indeed portray Joseph as being alone—this is simply an artistic interpretation. The August 2009 ''Ensign'', page 54, however, shows a painting of Joseph sitting in his bed looking at Moroni. Next to Joseph one can see three of his siblings in the same bed...sound asleep. (May be viewed here: [http://www.ldscompanion.org/index.php?op=art&page=author&artist=50&off=18&id=304 Artwork by Liz Lemon Swindle]) ''Even the official LDS web site'' has a painting that shows one of Joseph's siblings asleep in bed during Moroni's visit. See: [http://www.josephsmith.net/josephsmith/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=c08679179acbff00VgnVCM1000001f5e340aRCRD The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ].
|quote=
|response=
|link=Moroni's visit/Siblings remained asleep
|subject=Why didn't Joseph's siblings wake up when Moroni appeared?
|summary=Critics claim that when Moroni appeared to Joseph Smith in his room on September 21, 1823, his siblings who were sleeping in the same room should have woken up. They claim that this is evidence that Joseph's story is false.
|link2=Moroni's visit/Moroni would have struck his head on the ceiling
|subject2=Moroni would have struck his head on the ceiling?
|summary2=Some critics claim that Moroni could not have stood "above the floor" because the ceiling would have been too low and he would have hit his head. Photos disprove this assertion.
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=
*The critics claim that the Church deceptively claims that the History of the Church was written by Joseph Smith himself.
|think=
*Though the ''History of the Church'' speaks in the first person as if Joseph were writing, these words are put in his mouth by admirers, often after his martyrdom. Thus, small details of Joseph's "personality" in the ''History'' are less likely to be accurate.
|quote=
|response=
|link=Mormonism and history/History of the Church/Authorship
|subject=Authorship of the History of the Church
|summary=I've heard that the History of the Church, though credited to Joseph Smith, was not actually authored by him. What can you tell me about this, and what does this mean for the History's accuracy?
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=
*The critics claim that the "Rocky Mountain Prophecy" is deceptive.
|authorsources=
*Tanner, ''The Changing World of Mormonism'', p. 406
|think=
*Many other Church members later wrote about Joseph's discussion of the Rocky Mountains area. To accept a "forgery" theory, we must accept that all of these people who remembered Joseph speaking about the Rocky Mountains were lying or fabricating their experience.
*Furthermore, we must also accept that Joseph was sending explorers to the west with no real expectation of moving, and the discussion of heading west by both members and enemies was all idle talk.
|quote=
|response=
|link=One_Nation_Under_Gods/Use_of_sources/Forged_Rocky_Mountain_prophecy
|subject=Forged prophecy about Saints in Rocky Mountains?
|summary=Critics Jerald and Sandra Tanner claim that a prophecy from Joseph about the Saints' move to the Rocky Mountains was forged after the fact and inserted into the History of the Church.
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=
*The critics claim the using the name "Moroni" for the angel that visited Joseph Smith was deceptive and that the name was originally Nephi.
|authorsources=
*Tanner, ''The Changing World of Mormonism''
*Tanner, ''Mormonism-Shadow or Reality?'' p.136
|think=
*This is not an example of Joseph Smith changing his story over time, but an example of a detail being improperly recorded by someone other than the Prophet, and then reprinted uncritically. Clear contemporary evidence from Joseph and his enemies—who would have seized upon any inconsistency had they known about it—shows that "Moroni" was the name of the heavenly messenger BEFORE the 1838 and 1839 histories were recorded.
|quote=
|response=
|link=Moroni's visit/Nephi or Moroni
|subject=Nephi or Moroni
|summary=The Church teaches that Moroni was the heavenly messenger which appeared to Joseph Smith and directed him to the gold plates. Yet, some Church sources give the identity of this messenger as Nephi. Critics claim that this shows that Joseph was 'making it up as he went along.' In fact, a single misprint was reprinted a few times. But, earliest sources (even hostile ones) give the name as "Moroni".
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=
*The critics claim that Joseph Smith's drinking and use of tobacco is deliberately hidden.
|authorsources=
*Tanner, ''Changing World of Mormonism'', pages 413-414
|think=
*The Word of Wisdom was enforced differently in the 19th century than today. It was not the strict test of fellowships that it is for the modern member. Members and leaders struggled with its application
*Critics count on "presentism"—they hope readers will judge historical figures by the standards of ''our'' day, instead of ''their'' day.
|quote=
|response=
|link=Word of Wisdom/Almon Babbitt followed Joseph
|subject=Almon Babbitt followed Joseph in violating the Word of Wisdom
|summary=Critics charge that Joseph Smith violated the Word of Wisdom, and that another member (Almon W. Babbitt) followed his example.
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=
*The critics claim that the Church deliberately hides its history.
|think=
*Church historians and church hierarchy are fully aware of its history, yet they maintain strong testimonies of the authenticity and authority of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Problems arise when faithful members can't reconcile a perfect Savior and his church being led by imperfect people. Developing an understanding that all people, even prophets of the Lord make mistakes. Only Jesus Christ himself was perfect.
|quote=
|response=
|link=Mormonism and history/Censorship and revision
|subject=Censorship and revision
|summary=Critics claim that the church has "whitewashed" some of the information about its origins to appear more palatable to members and investigators. Some feel that this is done intentionally to hide negative aspects of church history. Others feel that it is done to focus on the good, but that it causes problems for believing members when they encounter these issues outside of church curriculum.
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=
*The critics claim that when Joseph Smith edited revelations found in the Doctrine and Covenants, that it was for deceptive purposes.
|think=
*If Joseph could receive the Doctrine and Covenants by revelation, then he could also receive revelation to improve, modify, revise, and expand his revelatory product. The question remains the same—was Joseph Smith a prophet? If he was, then his action is completely legitimate. If he was not, then it makes little difference whether his pretended revelations were altered or not.
*The Saints have never believed in inerrant prophets or inerrant scripture. The editing and modification of the revelations was never a secret; it was well known to the Church of Joseph's day, and it has been discussed repeatedly in modern Church publications, as well as extensive studies in Masters' and PhD theses at BYU.
|quote=
|response=
|link=Doctrine and Covenants/Textual changes
|subject=Textual changes
|summary=Joseph Smith and others made revisions, additions, and deletions to his early revelations when preparing them for publication. Critics claim that revelations from God are inerrant and should never be changed, and this proves that Joseph Smith did not receive revelation.
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=
*The critics claim that the Church has removed references to "Joseph Smith's activities as a professional con man" from its history, such as his arrest and trial for being a "glass looker."
|think=
*Claims that Joseph was a "juggler," or "conjurer" were a common 19th century method of dismissing his prophetic claims via ''ad hominem''. Modern-day claims about him being found to be a "con man" are simply the same attack with updated language, usually bolstered by a misunderstanding or misrepresentation of Joseph's 1826 court hearing.
*Joseph's tendency to assume the best of others, even to his own repeated detriment, also argues for his sincerity. One might legitimately claim that Joseph was ''mistaken'' about his prophetic claims, but it will not do to claim that he was cynically, knowingly deceiving others for his own gain.
|quote=
|link=Joseph Smith/Legal issues/Trials/1826 glasslooking trial
|subject=1826 trial for "glasslooking"
|summary=Joseph Smith was brought to trial in 1826 for "glasslooking." Didn't Hugh Nibley claim that if this trial record existed that it would be "the most damning evidence in existence against Joseph Smith?"
|link2=Joseph Smith/Legal issues/Trials/1826 glasslooking trial/Con man
|subject2=Was Joseph found guilty of being a "con man"?
|summary2=Critics claim that Joseph was a "con man," and that he was found guilty of being such in a court of law. This refers to the 1826 trial.
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=
*Critics note that Elder Packer stated that "some truths are not very useful."
|think=
*This does not accurately reflect Elder Packer's remarks, however, since Elder Packer was not speaking to "Mormon historians"—he was, rather, speaking to members of CES, the Church Educational System. Elder Packer makes his intended audience clear:
<blockquote>
You seminary teachers and some of you institute and BYU men will be teaching the history of the Church this school year. This is an unparalleled opportunity in the lives of your students to increase their faith and testimony of the divinity of this work. Your objective should be that they will see the hand of the Lord in every hour and every moment of the Church from its beginning till now.
</blockquote>
*CES consists of Church employees who have been hired by the Church to teach its doctrine and promote faith in its young people. Surely it is well within the Church's purview to insist that the perspective on Church history taught in its religion classes will be supportive of, and not destructive of, faith? Surely the CES's study of history is not merely an academic exercise, but also has a spiritual goal?
|quote=
|response=
|link=Mormonism and history/Boyd K. Packer's talk: "The Mantle is Far, Far Greater Than the Intellect"
|subject="Some things that are true are not very useful."
|summary=Elder Packer gave an address to religious educators called "The Mantle is Far, Far Greater Than the Intellect." The following quote is a favorite of critics who wish to demonstrate that the Church wishes to suppress its history and independent thought: "There is a temptation for the writer or the teacher of Church history to want to tell everything, whether it is worthy or faith promoting or not. Some things that are true are not very useful."
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=
*Critics claim that the Church obscures Joseph's use of a seer stone by using the term "Urim and Thummim."
|think=
*Early members of the Church tended to use the term "Urim and Thummim" to refer to both the seer stone and the Nephite interpreters. *The Nephite interpreters were never called "Urim and Thummim" by the Book of Mormon text; the label is a modern application.
*The term "Urim and Thummim" was only applied to the seer stone and Nephite interpreters several years after the Book of Mormon was published.
|quote=
|response=
|link=Joseph Smith/Seer stones
|subject=Joseph as seer and his use of seer stones
|summary=What do we know about Joseph's seer stone? What is its relation to the "Urim and Thummim"? Did Joseph place his seer stone in his hat while he was translating the Book of Mormon?
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=
*The critics claim that the Church is being deceptive by claiming that the Three and Eight Witnesses actually saw the gold plates.
|think=
*The witnesses were men considered honest, responsible, and intelligent. Their contemporaries did not know quite what to make of three such men who testified of angels and gold plates, but they did not impugn the character or reliability of the men who bore that testimony.
|quote=
|response=
|link=Book of Mormon/Witnesses/Character
|subject=What was the character of the witnesses?
|summary=Critics charge that the witnesses cannot be trusted, or are unreliable, because they were unstable personalities, prone to enthusiasm and exaggeration. Evidence amply demonstrates that the formal witnesses of the Book of Mormon were men of good character and reputation, and were recognized as such by contemporary non-Mormons.
|link2=Book of Mormon/Witnesses/Martin Harris repeatedly sought empirical proof
|subject2=Martin Harris repeatedly sought empirical proof
|summary2=Critics claim that Martin Harris was a gullible believer in the supernatural. But, in fact, Martin repeatedly performed empirical tests to confirm Joseph Smith's claims. He came away convinced.
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=
*Critics note that the Book of Mormon translation occurred using Joseph's seer stone and that the plates didn't need to be present.
|think=
*It is important to remember that what we ''do'' know for certain is that the translation of the Book of Mormon was carried out "by the gift and power of God." These are the only words that Joseph Smith himself used to describe the translation process.
*We do not know the exact method of translation, other than Joseph employed instruments designated for that purpose: The Nephite interpreters and his own seer stone. Many have offered their own opinions about how these devices "functioned" in the process, but it should be kept in mind that these opinions are given by people who never performed the translation process itself: They can only report on what they observed the Prophet doing at the time.
*Historical sources also indicate that at some later point in time, both the Nephite interpreters and Joseph's seer stone were referred to using the term "Urim and Thummim." Whether Joseph used the "original" Urim and Thummim (i.e. Nephite interpreters or "spectacles") or his own seer stone to perform this sacred task is beside the point, and it does not diminish the power of the resulting work.
|quote=
|response=
|link=Book_of_Mormon/Translation/Method
|subject=Description of translation method and circumstances
|summary=Friendly and unfriendly accounts of those who witnessed and heard about the translation of the Book of Mormon
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=
*The critics claim that Fanny Alger was "[o]ne of Joseph Smith's first experiments with adultery "
|think=
*The Fanny Alger marriage illustrates many of the difficulties which the historian encounters in polygamy. There is little information available, much of it is second hand, and virtually all of it was recorded "after the fact." Even the dates are unclear, and subject to debate.
*It seems clear, however, that Joseph, Fanny's family, Levi Hancock, and even hostile witnesses saw their relationship as a marriage, albeit an unorthodox one. The witness of Chauncey Webb and Ann Eliza Webb Young make it untenable to claim that only a later Mormon whitewash turned an affair into a marriage.
|quote=
|response=
|link=Polygamy book/Introduction of eternal marriage
|subject=Fanny Alger: Marriage or affair?
|summary=Critics charge that Joseph Smith's early plural marriage(s) cannot have been "real" marriages, since the doctrine of "eternal marriage" (i.e., marriages which last beyond the grave) was not introduced until 1841.
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=
*Critics note that the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants promoted monogamy while polygamy was secretly being practiced.
|think=
*The statement itself was not changed between the 1835 and 1844 editions of the D&C. In fact, the statement remained in the D&C until the 1876 edition, even though plural marriage had been taught since at least 1831, practiced in secret since 1836, and practiced openly since 1852. The matter of not removing it in 1852 was simply due to the fact that a new edition of the D&C was not published until 1876.
|quote=
|response=
|link=Mormonism and polygamy/1835 Doctrine and Covenants denies polygamy
|subject=1835 Doctrine and Covenants denies polygamy
|summary=The 1835 edition of the D&C contained a statement of marriage which denied the practice of polygamy. Since this was published during Joseph Smith's lifetime, why might the prophet have allowed it to be published if he was actually practicing polygamy at that time?
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=
*Critics claim that Joseph lied when he stated the "spiritual wifery" was "absolutely false and the doctrine an evil and unlawful thing."
|think=
*Joseph distinguished "spiritual wifery," a term used by John C. Bennet, from the doctrine of plural marriage.
|quote=
|response=
|link=Polygamy book/John C. Bennett
|subject=John C. Bennett
|summary=John C. Bennett material is in three draft chapters. Given their length and difficulty of converting them to wiki format, they are presented here in downloadable PDF.
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=
*Critics note that Joseph took wives without Emma's consent, contrary to the requirement that the first wife needed to give consent.
|think=
*Emma was aware of plural marriage; it is not clear at exactly what point she was made aware, partly due to there being relatively few early sources on the matter. Emma was generally opposed to the practice of plural marriage, and did much to try and thwart it. There were times, however, when Emma gave permission for Joseph's plural marriages, though she soon changed her mind. Emma was troubled by plural marriage, but her difficulties arose partly from her conviction that Joseph was a prophet.
|response=
|link=Joseph Smith/Polygamy/Emma Smith/Sealing
|subject=Sealing required Emma's consent
|summary=Critics contend that although Emma Hale Smith was Joseph's first wife, that Joseph was sealed to other wives before being sealed to Emma. The assumption follows that Emma was not in a position to consent to Joseph's other marriages, since she was not longer the "first wife."
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=
*Critics note that Joseph wrote a letter to Sarah Ann Whitney telling her to come when Emma was not present.
|think=
*Critics would have us believe that this is a private, secret "love letter" from Joseph to Sarah Ann, however, Joseph wrote this letter to the Whitney's, addressing it to Sarah's parents. The "matter" to which he refers is likely the administration of ordinances rather than the arrangement of some sort of private tryst with one of his plural wives. Why would one invite your bride's parents to such an encounter? Joseph doesn't want Emma gone because he wants to be alone with Sarah Ann—a feat that would be difficult to accomplish with her parents there—he wants Emma gone either because she is opposed to plural marriage (the contention that would result from an encounter between Emma and the Whitney's just a few weeks after Joseph's sealing to Sarah Ann would hardly be conducive to having the spirit present in order to "git the fulness of my blessings sealed upon our heads"), or because she may have been followed or spied upon by Joseph's enemies, putting the Whitneys in danger.
|quote=
|response=
|link=Joseph Smith/Polygamy/"Love letters"
|subject=Did Joseph write secret "love letters" to any of his polygamous wives?
|summary=Critics claim that on 18 August 1842 Joseph Smith wrote a “love letter” to Sarah Ann Whitney requesting a secret rendezvous or "tryst." Joseph had been sealed to Sarah Ann three weeks prior to this time. What does this letter actually say?
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=
*Joseph publicly denied plural marriage while secretly practicing it.
|think=
*It is true that Joseph hid the practice of plural marriage.
|quote=
A contemporary journal describes the reaction to Joseph's attempt to teach this doctrine:
<blockquote>
When the prophet “went to his dinner,” [Joseph Lee] Robinson wrote, “as it might be expected several of the first women of the church collected at the Prophet’s house with his wife [and] said thus to the prophet Joseph O mister Smith you have done it now it will never do it is all but Blassphemy you must take back what you have said to day is it is outrageous it would ruin us as a people.” So in the afternoon session Smith again took the stand, according to Robinson, and said “Brethren and Sisters I take back what we said this morning and leave it as though there had been nothing said.” (Richard S. Van Wagoner, ''Mormon Polygamy: A History'' (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1986),48; citing Robinson, Journal, 23–24.)
</blockquote>
|response=
|link=Joseph Smith/Polygamy/Hiding the truth
|subject=Hiding the truth about polygamy
|summary=It is true that Joseph did not always tell others about plural marriage. He did, however, make some attempt to teach the doctrine to the Saints. It is thus important to realize that the public preaching of polygamy—or announcing it to the general Church membership, thereby informing the public by proxy—was simply not a feasible plan. Critics of Joseph's choice want their audience to ignore the danger to him and the Saints.
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=
*Critics claim that the Church histories "deceive readers by failing to point out that Joseph exercised poor judgment."
|think=
*Church histories are full of examples of Joseph Smith exercising poor judgment and the consequences that resulted from it. Some examples include:
**The Kirtland Safety Society—Consequence: apostasy of many Church leaders, including two of the three witnesses.
**The destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor printing press—Consequence: the martyrdom of Joseph Smith.
|quote=
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=
*Joseph's polyandrous marriages were not published in Church manuals.
|think=
*Church manuals don't say much of anything about any type of plural marriage at all, not just those that were polyandrous.
|quote=
|response=
|link=Joseph Smith/Polygamy/Polyandry
|subject=Joseph Smith and polyandry
|summary= Joseph Smith was sealed to women who were married to men who were still living. Some of these men were even active members of the Church.
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=
*Plural marriages were performed after the Manifesto was issued in 1890.
|think=
*Some Church members unfamiliar with the history behind the aggressive Federal anti-polygamy movement have been troubled by critics who try to portray Church members’ and leaders’ choices as dishonest and improper. It is important to realize that this is a point on which modern enemies of the Church would be impossible to satisfy. If the Church had acquiesced to government pressure and stopped polygamy completely in 1890, the Church would then be charged with having “revelations on demand,” or with abandoning something they claimed was divine under government pressure. In fact, prior to the Manifesto, the attorney prosecuting Elder Lorenzo Snow for polygamy “predicted that if Snow and others were found guilty and sent to prison church leaders would find it convenient to have a revelation setting aside the commandment on polygamy.”
|quote=
|response=
|link=Mormonism and polygamy/Practiced after the Manifesto
|subject=Practiced after the Manifesto
|summary= limited number of plural marriages were solemnized after Wilford Woodruff's Manifesto of 1890 (Official Declaration 1). Some of these marriages were apparently sanctioned by some in positions of Church leadership. Critics claim that this demonstrates that the Manifesto was merely a political tactic, and that the "revelation" of the Manifesto was merely a cynical ploy. They also claim that Post-Manifesto marriages demonstrate the LDS Church's contempt for the civil law of the land.
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=
*Critics claim that the Church is deceptive in its practices for ensuring that Baptism for the Dead is not performed for Holocaust victims or celebrities.
|think=
*{{antispeak|mutually exclusive}} The Church has made great efforts to prevent such baptisms from being performed. Critics want to the Church to exercise some form of control over members who persist in submitting such names. At other times these same critics complain that the Church exercises too much control over its members.
*While work toward the complete removal of all Holocaust victims' names from the Church's database continues, controversy and frustration may well continue to surface. It is important to remember that progress has been made, and that as temple approval safeguards become more sophisticated, one can hope that misguided individuals will be much less able to violate the agreement.
*The Church has now flagged Holocaust-related names in the database so that if an attempt is made to perform ordinance work for them, the user's account will be locked.
|quote=
|response=
|link=Mormonism and temples/Work for Holocaust victims
|subject=Work for Holocaust victims
|summary=In 1995, after it was learned that a substantial number of Holocaust victims were listed in the Church's temple records as having been baptized, an agreement was signed between the Church and leading Jewish authorities which officially ended baptizing Jewish Holocaust victims posthumously.
}}

Criticism of Mormonism/Websites/MormonThink/Lying for the Lord

2012-10-11T17:08:53Z

Awyatt: /* */

{{Articles FAIR copyright}} {{Articles Header 1}} {{Articles Header 2}} {{Articles Header 3}} {{Articles Header 4}} {{Articles Header 5}} {{Articles Header 6}} {{Articles Header 7}} {{Articles Header 8}} {{Articles Header 9}} {{Articles Header 10}}
__NOTOC__
{{FAIRAnalysisHeader
|title=[[../|MormonThink]]
|author=Anonymous
|noauthor=
|section=Lying for the Lord
|previous=[[../The Temple|The Temple]]
|next=[[../Tithing|Tithing]]
|notes=
}}
==A FAIR Analysis of MormonThink page "Lying for the Lord"==

==== ====
{{Website response summary|date=3 May 2012}}

{{MormonThinkSummaryHeader|Lying for the Lord}}
The positions that this MormonThink article appears to take are the following:
*The critics conclude that lying is "standard operating procedure for Church leaders" from Joseph Smith's time to the present, and that pretty much every thing that the Church does is somehow related to deception (this is a standard position taken by many ex-Mormons after their disaffection with the Church).

==== ====
{{Website response label}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=
*The critics claim that the official story of the First Vision constitutes deception.
|think=
*Yet, the Church discusses the various first vision accounts on lds.org and in the ''Ensign''.
|quote=
<blockquote>
During a 10-year period (1832–42), Joseph Smith wrote or dictated at least four accounts of the First Vision. These accounts are similar in many ways, but they include some differences in emphasis and detail. These differences are complementary. Together, his accounts provide a more complete record of what occurred. The 1838 account found in the Pearl of Great Price is the primary source referred to in the Church.<br>
—[http://lds.org/study/topics/accounts-of-the-first-vision?lang=eng ''Accounts of the First Vision''], Gospel Study, Study by Topic, located on lds.org. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
Joseph's vision was at first an intensely personal experience—an answer to a specific question. Over time, however, illuminated by additional experience and instruction, it became the founding revelation of the Restoration.''
<br>
—[http://classic.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=aec2515e04f5e110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD Dennis B. Neuenschwander, “Joseph Smith: An Apostle of Jesus Christ,” Ensign, Jan 2009, 16–22]
<br><br>
I am not worried that the Prophet Joseph Smith gave a number of versions of the first vision anymore than I am worried that there are four different writers of the gospels in the New Testament, each with his own perceptions, each telling the events to meet his own purpose for writing at the time. I am more concerned with the fact that God has revealed in this dispensation a great and marvelous and beautiful plan that motivates men and women to love their Creator and their Redeemer, to appreciate and serve one another, to walk in faith on the road that leads to immortality and eternal life.<br>
—“God Hath Not Given Us the Spirit of Fear,” Gordon B. Hinckley, ''Ensign'', Oct 1984, 2 {{link|url=http://www.lds.org/ensign/1984/10/god-hath-not-given-us-the-spirit-of-fear?lang=eng}}
</blockquote>
|response=
|link=Joseph Smith's First Vision/Accounts
|subject=Joseph's accounts of the First Vision
|summary=Joseph Smith gave several accounts of the First Vision. Critics charge that differences in the accounts show that he changed and embellished his story over time, and that he therefore had no such vision.
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=
*The critics claim that during Moroni's visit that his siblings would have been awakened, and that Church artwork portraying this event are deceptive.
|think=
*The argument is refuted by the Bible, the Book of Mormon, and artwork presented by the Church itself.
*''Some'' Church artwork does indeed portray Joseph as being alone—this is simply an artistic interpretation. The August 2009 ''Ensign'', page 54, however, shows a painting of Joseph sitting in his bed looking at Moroni. Next to Joseph one can see three of his siblings in the same bed...sound asleep. (May be viewed here: [http://www.ldscompanion.org/index.php?op=art&page=author&artist=50&off=18&id=304 Artwork by Liz Lemon Swindle]) ''Even the official LDS web site'' has a painting that shows one of Joseph's siblings asleep in bed during Moroni's visit. See: [http://www.josephsmith.net/josephsmith/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=c08679179acbff00VgnVCM1000001f5e340aRCRD The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ].
|quote=
|response=
|link=Moroni's visit/Siblings remained asleep
|subject=Why didn't Joseph's siblings wake up when Moroni appeared?
|summary=Critics claim that when Moroni appeared to Joseph Smith in his room on September 21, 1823, his siblings who were sleeping in the same room should have woken up. They claim that this is evidence that Joseph's story is false.
|link2=Moroni's visit/Moroni would have struck his head on the ceiling
|subject2=Moroni would have struck his head on the ceiling?
|summary2=Some critics claim that Moroni could not have stood "above the floor" because the ceiling would have been too low and he would have hit his head. Photos disprove this assertion.
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=
*The critics claim that the Church deceptively claims that the History of the Church was written by Joseph Smith himself.
|think=
*Though the ''History of the Church'' speaks in the first person as if Joseph were writing, these words are put in his mouth by admirers, often after his martyrdom. Thus, small details of Joseph's "personality" in the ''History'' are less likely to be accurate.
|quote=
|response=
|link=Mormonism and history/History of the Church/Authorship
|subject=Authorship of the History of the Church
|summary=I've heard that the History of the Church, though credited to Joseph Smith, was not actually authored by him. What can you tell me about this, and what does this mean for the History's accuracy?
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=
*The critics claim that the "Rocky Mountain Prophecy" is deceptive.
|authorsources=
*Tanner, ''The Changing World of Mormonism'', p. 406
|think=
*Many other Church members later wrote about Joseph's discussion of the Rocky Mountains area. To accept a "forgery" theory, we must accept that all of these people who remembered Joseph speaking about the Rocky Mountains were lying or fabricating their experience.
*Furthermore, we must also accept that Joseph was sending explorers to the west with no real expectation of moving, and the discussion of heading west by both members and enemies was all idle talk.
|quote=
|response=
|link=One_Nation_Under_Gods/Use_of_sources/Forged_Rocky_Mountain_prophecy
|subject=Forged prophecy about Saints in Rocky Mountains?
|summary=Critics Jerald and Sandra Tanner claim that a prophecy from Joseph about the Saints' move to the Rocky Mountains was forged after the fact and inserted into the History of the Church.
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=
*The critics claim the using the name "Moroni" for the angel that visited Joseph Smith was deceptive and that the name was originally Nephi.
|authorsources=
*Tanner, ''The Changing World of Mormonism''
*Tanner, ''Mormonism-Shadow or Reality?'' p.136
|think=
*This is not an example of Joseph Smith changing his story over time, but an example of a detail being improperly recorded by someone other than the Prophet, and then reprinted uncritically. Clear contemporary evidence from Joseph and his enemies—who would have seized upon any inconsistency had they known about it—shows that "Moroni" was the name of the heavenly messenger BEFORE the 1838 and 1839 histories were recorded.
|quote=
|response=
|link=Moroni's visit/Nephi or Moroni
|subject=Nephi or Moroni
|summary=The Church teaches that Moroni was the heavenly messenger which appeared to Joseph Smith and directed him to the gold plates. Yet, some Church sources give the identity of this messenger as Nephi. Critics claim that this shows that Joseph was 'making it up as he went along.' In fact, a single misprint was reprinted a few times. But, earliest sources (even hostile ones) give the name as "Moroni".
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=
*The critics claim that Joseph Smith's drinking and use of tobacco is deliberately hidden.
|authorsources=
*Tanner, ''Changing World of Mormonism'', pages 413-414
|think=
*The Word of Wisdom was enforced differently in the 19th century than today. It was not the strict test of fellowships that it is for the modern member. Members and leaders struggled with its application
*Critics count on "presentism"—they hope readers will judge historical figures by the standards of ''our'' day, instead of ''their'' day.
|quote=
|response=
|link=Word of Wisdom/Almon Babbitt followed Joseph
|subject=Almon Babbitt followed Joseph in violating the Word of Wisdom
|summary=Critics charge that Joseph Smith violated the Word of Wisdom, and that another member (Almon W. Babbitt) followed his example.
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=
*The critics claim that the Church deliberately hides its history.
|think=
*Church historians and church hierarchy are fully aware of its history, yet they maintain strong testimonies of the authenticity and authority of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Problems arise when faithful members can't reconcile a perfect Savior and his church being led by imperfect people. Developing an understanding that all people, even prophets of the Lord make mistakes. Only Jesus Christ himself was perfect.
|quote=
|response=
|link=Mormonism and history/Censorship and revision
|subject=Censorship and revision
|summary=Critics claim that the church has "whitewashed" some of the information about its origins to appear more palatable to members and investigators. Some feel that this is done intentionally to hide negative aspects of church history. Others feel that it is done to focus on the good, but that it causes problems for believing members when they encounter these issues outside of church curriculum.
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=
*The critics claim that when Joseph Smith edited revelations found in the Doctrine and Covenants, that it was for deceptive purposes.
|think=
*If Joseph could receive the Doctrine and Covenants by revelation, then he could also receive revelation to improve, modify, revise, and expand his revelatory product. The question remains the same—was Joseph Smith a prophet? If he was, then his action is completely legitimate. If he was not, then it makes little difference whether his pretended revelations were altered or not.
*The Saints have never believed in inerrant prophets or inerrant scripture. The editing and modification of the revelations was never a secret; it was well known to the Church of Joseph's day, and it has been discussed repeatedly in modern Church publications, as well as extensive studies in Masters' and PhD theses at BYU.
|quote=
|response=
|link=Doctrine and Covenants/Textual changes
|subject=Textual changes
|summary=Joseph Smith and others made revisions, additions, and deletions to his early revelations when preparing them for publication. Critics claim that revelations from God are inerrant and should never be changed, and this proves that Joseph Smith did not receive revelation.
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=
*The critics claim that the Church has removed references to "Joseph Smith's activities as a professional con man" from its history, such as his arrest and trial for being a "glass looker."
|think=
*Claims that Joseph was a "juggler," or "conjurer" were a common 19th century method of dismissing his prophetic claims via ''ad hominem''. Modern-day claims about him being found to be a "con man" are simply the same attack with updated language, usually bolstered by a misunderstanding or misrepresentation of Joseph's 1826 court hearing.
*Joseph's tendency to assume the best of others, even to his own repeated detriment, also argues for his sincerity. One might legitimately claim that Joseph was ''mistaken'' about his prophetic claims, but it will not do to claim that he was cynically, knowingly deceiving others for his own gain.
|quote=
|link=Joseph Smith/Legal issues/Trials/1826 glasslooking trial
|subject=1826 trial for "glasslooking"
|summary=Joseph Smith was brought to trial in 1826 for "glasslooking." Didn't Hugh Nibley claim that if this trial record existed that it would be "the most damning evidence in existence against Joseph Smith?"
|link2=Joseph Smith/Legal issues/Trials/1826 glasslooking trial/Con man
|subject2=Was Joseph found guilty of being a "con man"?
|summary2=Critics claim that Joseph was a "con man," and that he was found guilty of being such in a court of law. This refers to the 1826 trial.
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=
*Critics note that Elder Packer stated that "some truths are not very useful."
|think=
*This does not accurately reflect Elder Packer's remarks, however, since Elder Packer was not speaking to "Mormon historians"—he was, rather, speaking to members of CES, the Church Educational System. Elder Packer makes his intended audience clear:
<blockquote>
You seminary teachers and some of you institute and BYU men will be teaching the history of the Church this school year. This is an unparalleled opportunity in the lives of your students to increase their faith and testimony of the divinity of this work. Your objective should be that they will see the hand of the Lord in every hour and every moment of the Church from its beginning till now.
</blockquote>
*CES consists of Church employees who have been hired by the Church to teach its doctrine and promote faith in its young people. Surely it is well within the Church's purview to insist that the perspective on Church history taught in its religion classes will be supportive of, and not destructive of, faith? Surely the CES's study of history is not merely an academic exercise, but also has a spiritual goal?
|quote=
|response=
|link=Mormonism and history/Boyd K. Packer's talk: "The Mantle is Far, Far Greater Than the Intellect"
|subject="Some things that are true are not very useful."
|summary=Elder Packer gave an address to religious educators called "The Mantle is Far, Far Greater Than the Intellect." The following quote is a favorite of critics who wish to demonstrate that the Church wishes to suppress its history and independent thought: "There is a temptation for the writer or the teacher of Church history to want to tell everything, whether it is worthy or faith promoting or not. Some things that are true are not very useful."
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=
*Critics claim that the Church obscures Joseph's use of a seer stone by using the term "Urim and Thummim."
|think=
*Early members of the Church tended to use the term "Urim and Thummim" to refer to both the seer stone and the Nephite interpreters. *The Nephite interpreters were never called "Urim and Thummim" by the Book of Mormon text; the label is a modern application.
*The term "Urim and Thummim" was only applied to the seer stone and Nephite interpreters several years after the Book of Mormon was published.
|quote=
|response=
|link=Joseph Smith/Seer stones
|subject=Joseph as seer and his use of seer stones
|summary=What do we know about Joseph's seer stone? What is its relation to the "Urim and Thummim"? Did Joseph place his seer stone in his hat while he was translating the Book of Mormon?
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=
*The critics claim that the Church is being deceptive by claiming that the Three and Eight Witnesses actually saw the gold plates.
|think=
*The witnesses were men considered honest, responsible, and intelligent. Their contemporaries did not know quite what to make of three such men who testified of angels and gold plates, but they did not impugn the character or reliability of the men who bore that testimony.
|quote=
|response=
|link=Book of Mormon/Witnesses/Character
|subject=What was the character of the witnesses?
|summary=Critics charge that the witnesses cannot be trusted, or are unreliable, because they were unstable personalities, prone to enthusiasm and exaggeration. Evidence amply demonstrates that the formal witnesses of the Book of Mormon were men of good character and reputation, and were recognized as such by contemporary non-Mormons.
|link2=Book of Mormon/Witnesses/Martin Harris repeatedly sought empirical proof
|subject2=Martin Harris repeatedly sought empirical proof
|summary2=Critics claim that Martin Harris was a gullible believer in the supernatural. But, in fact, Martin repeatedly performed empirical tests to confirm Joseph Smith's claims. He came away convinced.
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=
*Critics note that the Book of Mormon translation occurred using Joseph's seer stone and that the plates didn't need to be present.
|think=
*It is important to remember that what we ''do'' know for certain is that the translation of the Book of Mormon was carried out "by the gift and power of God." These are the only words that Joseph Smith himself used to describe the translation process.
*We do not know the exact method of translation, other than Joseph employed instruments designated for that purpose: The Nephite interpreters and his own seer stone. Many have offered their own opinions about how these devices "functioned" in the process, but it should be kept in mind that these opinions are given by people who never performed the translation process itself: They can only report on what they observed the Prophet doing at the time.
*Historical sources also indicate that at some later point in time, both the Nephite interpreters and Joseph's seer stone were referred to using the term "Urim and Thummim." Whether Joseph used the "original" Urim and Thummim (i.e. Nephite interpreters or "spectacles") or his own seer stone to perform this sacred task is beside the point, and it does not diminish the power of the resulting work.
|quote=
|response=
|link=Book_of_Mormon/Translation/Method
|subject=Description of translation method and circumstances
|summary=Friendly and unfriendly accounts of those who witnessed and heard about the translation of the Book of Mormon
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=
*The critics claim that Fanny Alger was "[o]ne of Joseph Smith's first experiments with adultery "
|think=
*The Fanny Alger marriage illustrates many of the difficulties which the historian encounters in polygamy. There is little information available, much of it is second hand, and virtually all of it was recorded "after the fact." Even the dates are unclear, and subject to debate.
*It seems clear, however, that Joseph, Fanny's family, Levi Hancock, and even hostile witnesses saw their relationship as a marriage, albeit an unorthodox one. The witness of Chauncey Webb and Ann Eliza Webb Young make it untenable to claim that only a later Mormon whitewash turned an affair into a marriage.
|quote=
|response=
|link=Polygamy book/Introduction of eternal marriage
|subject=Fanny Alger: Marriage or affair?
|summary=Critics charge that Joseph Smith's early plural marriage(s) cannot have been "real" marriages, since the doctrine of "eternal marriage" (i.e., marriages which last beyond the grave) was not introduced until 1841.
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=
*Critics note that the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants promoted monogamy while polygamy was secretly being practiced.
|think=
*The statement itself was not changed between the 1835 and 1844 editions of the D&C. In fact, the statement remained in the D&C until the 1876 edition, even though plural marriage had been taught since at least 1831, practiced in secret since 1836, and practiced openly since 1852. The matter of not removing it in 1852 was simply due to the fact that a new edition of the D&C was not published until 1876.
|quote=
|response=
|link=Mormonism and polygamy/1835 Doctrine and Covenants denies polygamy
|subject=1835 Doctrine and Covenants denies polygamy
|summary=The 1835 edition of the D&C contained a statement of marriage which denied the practice of polygamy. Since this was published during Joseph Smith's lifetime, why might the prophet have allowed it to be published if he was actually practicing polygamy at that time?
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=
*Critics claim that Joseph lied when he stated the "spiritual wifery" was "absolutely false and the doctrine an evil and unlawful thing."
|think=
*Joseph distinguished "spiritual wifery," a term used by John C. Bennet, from the doctrine of plural marriage.
|quote=
|response=
|link=Polygamy book/John C. Bennett
|subject=John C. Bennett
|summary=John C. Bennett material is in three draft chapters. Given their length and difficulty of converting them to wiki format, they are presented here in downloadable PDF.
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=
*Critics note that Joseph took wives without Emma's consent, contrary to the requirement that the first wife needed to give consent.
|think=
*Emma was aware of plural marriage; it is not clear at exactly what point she was made aware, partly due to there being relatively few early sources on the matter. Emma was generally opposed to the practice of plural marriage, and did much to try and thwart it. There were times, however, when Emma gave permission for Joseph's plural marriages, though she soon changed her mind. Emma was troubled by plural marriage, but her difficulties arose partly from her conviction that Joseph was a prophet.
|response=
|link=Joseph Smith/Polygamy/Emma Smith/Sealing
|subject=Sealing required Emma's consent
|summary=Critics contend that although Emma Hale Smith was Joseph's first wife, that Joseph was sealed to other wives before being sealed to Emma. The assumption follows that Emma was not in a position to consent to Joseph's other marriages, since she was not longer the "first wife."
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=
*Critics note that Joseph wrote a letter to Sarah Ann Whitney telling her to come when Emma was not present.
|think=
*Critics would have us believe that this is a private, secret "love letter" from Joseph to Sarah Ann, however, Joseph wrote this letter to the Whitney's, addressing it to Sarah's parents. The "matter" to which he refers is likely the administration of ordinances rather than the arrangement of some sort of private tryst with one of his plural wives. Why would one invite your bride's parents to such an encounter? Joseph doesn't want Emma gone because he wants to be alone with Sarah Ann—a feat that would be difficult to accomplish with her parents there—he wants Emma gone either because she is opposed to plural marriage (the contention that would result from an encounter between Emma and the Whitney's just a few weeks after Joseph's sealing to Sarah Ann would hardly be conducive to having the spirit present in order to "git the fulness of my blessings sealed upon our heads"), or because she may have been followed or spied upon by Joseph's enemies, putting the Whitneys in danger.
|quote=
|response=
|link=Joseph Smith/Polygamy/"Love letters"
|subject=Did Joseph write secret "love letters" to any of his polygamous wives?
|summary=Critics claim that on 18 August 1842 Joseph Smith wrote a “love letter” to Sarah Ann Whitney requesting a secret rendezvous or "tryst." Joseph had been sealed to Sarah Ann three weeks prior to this time. What does this letter actually say?
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=
*Joseph publicly denied plural marriage while secretly practicing it.
|think=
*It is true that Joseph hid the practice of plural marriage.
|quote=
A contemporary journal describes the reaction to Joseph's attempt to teach this doctrine:
<blockquote>
When the prophet “went to his dinner,” [Joseph Lee] Robinson wrote, “as it might be expected several of the first women of the church collected at the Prophet’s house with his wife [and] said thus to the prophet Joseph O mister Smith you have done it now it will never do it is all but Blassphemy you must take back what you have said to day is it is outrageous it would ruin us as a people.” So in the afternoon session Smith again took the stand, according to Robinson, and said “Brethren and Sisters I take back what we said this morning and leave it as though there had been nothing said.” (Richard S. Van Wagoner, ''Mormon Polygamy: A History'' (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1986),48; citing Robinson, Journal, 23–24.)
</blockquote>
|response=
|link=Joseph Smith/Polygamy/Hiding the truth
|subject=Hiding the truth about polygamy
|summary=It is true that Joseph did not always tell others about plural marriage. He did, however, make some attempt to teach the doctrine to the Saints. It is thus important to realize that the public preaching of polygamy—or announcing it to the general Church membership, thereby informing the public by proxy—was simply not a feasible plan. Critics of Joseph's choice want their audience to ignore the danger to him and the Saints.
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=
*Critics claim that the Church histories "deceive readers by failing to point out that Joseph exercised poor judgment."
|think=
*Church histories are full of examples of Joseph Smith exercising poor judgment and the consequences that resulted from it. Some examples include:
**The Kirtland Safety Society—Consequence: apostasy of many Church leaders, including two of the three witnesses.
**The destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor printing press—Consequence: the martyrdom of Joseph Smith.
|quote=
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=
*Joseph's polyandrous marriages were not published in Church manuals.
|think=
*Church manuals don't say much of anything about any type of plural marriage at all, not just those that were polyandrous.
|quote=
|response=
|link=Joseph Smith/Polygamy/Polyandry
|subject=Joseph Smith and polyandry
|summary= Joseph Smith was sealed to women who were married to men who were still living. Some of these men were even active members of the Church.
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=
*Plural marriages were performed after the Manifesto was issued in 1890.
|think=
*Some Church members unfamiliar with the history behind the aggressive Federal anti-polygamy movement have been troubled by critics who try to portray Church members’ and leaders’ choices as dishonest and improper. It is important to realize that this is a point on which modern enemies of the Church would be impossible to satisfy. If the Church had acquiesced to government pressure and stopped polygamy completely in 1890, the Church would then be charged with having “revelations on demand,” or with abandoning something they claimed was divine under government pressure. In fact, prior to the Manifesto, the attorney prosecuting Elder Lorenzo Snow for polygamy “predicted that if Snow and others were found guilty and sent to prison church leaders would find it convenient to have a revelation setting aside the commandment on polygamy.”
|quote=
|response=
|link=Mormonism and polygamy/Practiced after the Manifesto
|subject=Practiced after the Manifesto
|summary= limited number of plural marriages were solemnized after Wilford Woodruff's Manifesto of 1890 (Official Declaration 1). Some of these marriages were apparently sanctioned by some in positions of Church leadership. Critics claim that this demonstrates that the Manifesto was merely a political tactic, and that the "revelation" of the Manifesto was merely a cynical ploy. They also claim that Post-Manifesto marriages demonstrate the LDS Church's contempt for the civil law of the land.
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=
*Critics claim that the Church is deceptive in its practices for ensuring that Baptism for the Dead is not performed for Holocaust victims or celebrities.
|think=
*{{antispeak|mutually exclusive}} The Church has made great efforts to prevent such baptisms from being performed. Critics want to the Church to exercise some form of control over members who persist in submitting such names. These same critics complain that the Church exercises too much control over its members.
*While work toward the complete removal of all Holocaust victims' names from the Church's database continues, controversy and frustration may well continue to surface. It is important to remember that progress has been made, and that as temple approval safeguards become more sophisticated, one can hope that misguided individuals will be much less able to violate the agreement.
*The Church has now flagged Holocaust-related names in the database so that if an attempt is made to perform ordinance work for them, the user's account will be locked.
|quote=
|response=
|link=Mormonism and temples/Work for Holocaust victims
|subject=Work for Holocaust victims
|summary=In 1995, after it was learned that a substantial number of Holocaust victims were listed in the Church's temple records as having been baptized, an agreement was signed between the Church and leading Jewish authorities which officially ended baptizing Jewish Holocaust victims posthumously.
}}

Criticism of Mormonism/Websites/MormonThink/Lying for the Lord

2012-10-11T17:05:44Z

Awyatt: /* */

{{Articles FAIR copyright}} {{Articles Header 1}} {{Articles Header 2}} {{Articles Header 3}} {{Articles Header 4}} {{Articles Header 5}} {{Articles Header 6}} {{Articles Header 7}} {{Articles Header 8}} {{Articles Header 9}} {{Articles Header 10}}
__NOTOC__
{{FAIRAnalysisHeader
|title=[[../|MormonThink]]
|author=Anonymous
|noauthor=
|section=Lying for the Lord
|previous=[[../The Temple|The Temple]]
|next=[[../Tithing|Tithing]]
|notes=
}}
==A FAIR Analysis of MormonThink page "Lying for the Lord"==

==== ====
{{Website response summary|date=3 May 2012}}

{{MormonThinkSummaryHeader|Lying for the Lord}}
The positions that this MormonThink article appears to take are the following:
*The critics conclude that lying is "standard operating procedure for Church leaders" from Joseph Smith's time to the present, and that pretty much every thing that the Church does is somehow related to deception (this is a standard position taken by many ex-Mormons after their disaffection with the Church).

==== ====
{{Website response label}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=
*The critics claim that the official story of the First Vision constitutes deception.
|think=
*Yet, the Church discusses the various first vision accounts on lds.org and in the ''Ensign''.
|quote=
<blockquote>
During a 10-year period (1832–42), Joseph Smith wrote or dictated at least four accounts of the First Vision. These accounts are similar in many ways, but they include some differences in emphasis and detail. These differences are complementary. Together, his accounts provide a more complete record of what occurred. The 1838 account found in the Pearl of Great Price is the primary source referred to in the Church.<br>
—[http://lds.org/study/topics/accounts-of-the-first-vision?lang=eng ''Accounts of the First Vision''], Gospel Study, Study by Topic, located on lds.org. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
Joseph's vision was at first an intensely personal experience—an answer to a specific question. Over time, however, illuminated by additional experience and instruction, it became the founding revelation of the Restoration.''
<br>
—[http://classic.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=aec2515e04f5e110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD Dennis B. Neuenschwander, “Joseph Smith: An Apostle of Jesus Christ,” Ensign, Jan 2009, 16–22]
<br><br>
I am not worried that the Prophet Joseph Smith gave a number of versions of the first vision anymore than I am worried that there are four different writers of the gospels in the New Testament, each with his own perceptions, each telling the events to meet his own purpose for writing at the time. I am more concerned with the fact that God has revealed in this dispensation a great and marvelous and beautiful plan that motivates men and women to love their Creator and their Redeemer, to appreciate and serve one another, to walk in faith on the road that leads to immortality and eternal life.<br>
—“God Hath Not Given Us the Spirit of Fear,” Gordon B. Hinckley, ''Ensign'', Oct 1984, 2 {{link|url=http://www.lds.org/ensign/1984/10/god-hath-not-given-us-the-spirit-of-fear?lang=eng}}
</blockquote>
|response=
|link=Joseph Smith's First Vision/Accounts
|subject=Joseph's accounts of the First Vision
|summary=Joseph Smith gave several accounts of the First Vision. Critics charge that differences in the accounts show that he changed and embellished his story over time, and that he therefore had no such vision.
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=
*The critics claim that during Moroni's visit that his siblings would have been awakened, and that Church artwork portraying this event are deceptive.
|think=
*The argument is refuted by the Bible, the Book of Mormon, and artwork presented by the Church itself.
*''Some'' Church artwork does indeed portray Joseph as being alone—this is simply an artistic interpretation. The August 2009 ''Ensign'', page 54, however, shows a painting of Joseph sitting in his bed looking at Moroni. Next to Joseph one can see three of his siblings in the same bed...sound asleep. (May be viewed here: [http://www.ldscompanion.org/index.php?op=art&page=author&artist=50&off=18&id=304 Artwork by Liz Lemon Swindle]) ''Even the official LDS web site'' has a painting that shows one of Joseph's siblings asleep in bed during Moroni's visit. See: [http://www.josephsmith.net/josephsmith/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=c08679179acbff00VgnVCM1000001f5e340aRCRD The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ].
|quote=
|response=
|link=Moroni's visit/Siblings remained asleep
|subject=Why didn't Joseph's siblings wake up when Moroni appeared?
|summary=Critics claim that when Moroni appeared to Joseph Smith in his room on September 21, 1823, his siblings who were sleeping in the same room should have woken up. They claim that this is evidence that Joseph's story is false.
|link2=Moroni's visit/Moroni would have struck his head on the ceiling
|subject2=Moroni would have struck his head on the ceiling?
|summary2=Some critics claim that Moroni could not have stood "above the floor" because the ceiling would have been too low and he would have hit his head. Photos disprove this assertion.
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=
*The critics claim that the Church deceptively claims that the History of the Church was written by Joseph Smith himself.
|think=
*Though the ''History of the Church'' speaks in the first person as if Joseph were writing, these words are put in his mouth by admirers, often after his martyrdom. Thus, small details of Joseph's "personality" in the ''History'' are less likely to be accurate.
|quote=
|response=
|link=Mormonism and history/History of the Church/Authorship
|subject=Authorship of the History of the Church
|summary=I've heard that the History of the Church, though credited to Joseph Smith, was not actually authored by him. What can you tell me about this, and what does this mean for the History's accuracy?
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=
*The critics claim that the "Rocky Mountain Prophecy" is deceptive.
|authorsources=
*Tanner, ''The Changing World of Mormonism'', p. 406
|think=
*Many other Church members later wrote about Joseph's discussion of the Rocky Mountains area. To accept a "forgery" theory, we must accept that all of these people who remembered Joseph speaking about the Rocky Mountains were lying or fabricating their experience.
*Furthermore, we must also accept that Joseph was sending explorers to the west with no real expectation of moving, and the discussion of heading west by both members and enemies was all idle talk.
|quote=
|response=
|link=One_Nation_Under_Gods/Use_of_sources/Forged_Rocky_Mountain_prophecy
|subject=Forged prophecy about Saints in Rocky Mountains?
|summary=Critics Jerald and Sandra Tanner claim that a prophecy from Joseph about the Saints' move to the Rocky Mountains was forged after the fact and inserted into the History of the Church.
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=
*The critics claim the using the name "Moroni" for the angel that visited Joseph Smith was deceptive and that the name was originally Nephi.
|authorsources=
*Tanner, ''The Changing World of Mormonism''
*Tanner, ''Mormonism-Shadow or Reality?'' p.136
|think=
*This is not an example of Joseph Smith changing his story over time, but an example of a detail being improperly recorded by someone other than the Prophet, and then reprinted uncritically. Clear contemporary evidence from Joseph and his enemies—who would have seized upon any inconsistency had they known about it—shows that "Moroni" was the name of the heavenly messenger BEFORE the 1838 and 1839 histories were recorded.
|quote=
|response=
|link=Moroni's visit/Nephi or Moroni
|subject=Nephi or Moroni
|summary=The Church teaches that Moroni was the heavenly messenger which appeared to Joseph Smith and directed him to the gold plates. Yet, some Church sources give the identity of this messenger as Nephi. Critics claim that this shows that Joseph was 'making it up as he went along.' In fact, a single misprint was reprinted a few times. But, earliest sources (even hostile ones) give the name as "Moroni".
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=
*The critics claim that Joseph Smith's drinking and use of tobacco is deliberately hidden.
|authorsources=
*Tanner, ''Changing World of Mormonism'', pages 413-414
|think=
*The Word of Wisdom was enforced differently in the 19th century than today. It was not the strict test of fellowships that it is for the modern member. Members and leaders struggled with its application
*Critics count on "presentism"—they hope readers will judge historical figures by the standards of ''our'' day, instead of ''their'' day.
|quote=
|response=
|link=Word of Wisdom/Almon Babbitt followed Joseph
|subject=Almon Babbitt followed Joseph in violating the Word of Wisdom
|summary=Critics charge that Joseph Smith violated the Word of Wisdom, and that another member (Almon W. Babbitt) followed his example.
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=
*The critics claim that the Church deliberately hides its history.
|think=
*Church historians and church hierarchy are fully aware of its history, yet they maintain strong testimonies of the authenticity and authority of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Problems arise when faithful members can't reconcile a perfect Savior and his church being led by imperfect people. Developing an understanding that all people, even prophets of the Lord make mistakes. Only Jesus Christ himself was perfect.
|quote=
|response=
|link=Mormonism and history/Censorship and revision
|subject=Censorship and revision
|summary=Critics claim that the church has "whitewashed" some of the information about its origins to appear more palatable to members and investigators. Some feel that this is done intentionally to hide negative aspects of church history. Others feel that it is done to focus on the good, but that it causes problems for believing members when they encounter these issues outside of church curriculum.
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=
*The critics claim that when Joseph Smith edited revelations found in the Doctrine and Covenants, that it was for deceptive purposes.
|think=
*If Joseph could receive the Doctrine and Covenants by revelation, then he could also receive revelation to improve, modify, revise, and expand his revelatory product. The question remains the same—was Joseph Smith a prophet? If he was, then his action is completely legitimate. If he was not, then it makes little difference whether his pretended revelations were altered or not.
*The Saints have never believed in inerrant prophets or inerrant scripture. The editing and modification of the revelations was never a secret; it was well known to the Church of Joseph's day, and it has been discussed repeatedly in modern Church publications, as well as extensive studies in Masters' and PhD theses at BYU.
|quote=
|response=
|link=Doctrine and Covenants/Textual changes
|subject=Textual changes
|summary=Joseph Smith and others made revisions, additions, and deletions to his early revelations when preparing them for publication. Critics claim that revelations from God are inerrant and should never be changed, and this proves that Joseph Smith did not receive revelation.
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=
*The critics claim that the Church has removed references to "Joseph Smith's activities as a professional con man" from its history, such as his arrest and trial for being a "glass looker."
|think=
*Claims that Joseph was a "juggler," or "conjurer" were a common 19th century method of dismissing his prophetic claims via ''ad hominem''. Modern-day claims about him being found to be a "con man" are simply the same attack with updated language, usually bolstered by a misunderstanding or misrepresentation of Joseph's 1826 court hearing.
*Joseph's tendency to assume the best of others, even to his own repeated detriment, also argues for his sincerity. One might legitimately claim that Joseph was ''mistaken'' about his prophetic claims, but it will not do to claim that he was cynically, knowingly deceiving others for his own gain.
|quote=
|link=Joseph Smith/Legal issues/Trials/1826 glasslooking trial
|subject=1826 trial for "glasslooking"
|summary=Joseph Smith was brought to trial in 1826 for "glasslooking." Didn't Hugh Nibley claim that if this trial record existed that it would be "the most damning evidence in existence against Joseph Smith?"
|link2=Joseph Smith/Legal issues/Trials/1826 glasslooking trial/Con man
|subject2=Was Joseph found guilty of being a "con man"?
|summary2=Critics claim that Joseph was a "con man," and that he was found guilty of being such in a court of law. This refers to the 1826 trial.
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=
*Critics note that Elder Packer stated that "some truths are not very useful."
|think=
*This does not accurately reflect Elder Packer's remarks, however, since Elder Packer was not speaking to "Mormon historians"—he was, rather, speaking to members of CES, the Church Educational System. Elder Packer makes his intended audience clear:
<blockquote>
You seminary teachers and some of you institute and BYU men will be teaching the history of the Church this school year. This is an unparalleled opportunity in the lives of your students to increase their faith and testimony of the divinity of this work. Your objective should be that they will see the hand of the Lord in every hour and every moment of the Church from its beginning till now.
</blockquote>
*CES consists of Church employees who have been hired by the Church to teach its doctrine and promote faith in its young people. Surely it is well within the Church's purview to insist that the perspective on Church history taught in its religion classes will be supportive of, and not destructive of, faith? Surely the CES's study of history is not merely an academic exercise, but also has a spiritual goal?
|quote=
|response=
|link=Mormonism and history/Boyd K. Packer's talk: "The Mantle is Far, Far Greater Than the Intellect"
|subject="Some things that are true are not very useful."
|summary=Elder Packer gave an address to religious educators called "The Mantle is Far, Far Greater Than the Intellect." The following quote is a favorite of critics who wish to demonstrate that the Church wishes to suppress its history and independent thought: "There is a temptation for the writer or the teacher of Church history to want to tell everything, whether it is worthy or faith promoting or not. Some things that are true are not very useful."
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=
*Critics claim that the Church obscures Joseph's use of a seer stone by using the term "Urim and Thummim."
|think=
*Early members of the Church tended to use the term "Urim and Thummim" to refer to both the seer stone and the Nephite interpreters. *The Nephite interpreters were never called "Urim and Thummim" by the Book of Mormon text; the label is a modern application.
*The term "Urim and Thummim" was only applied to the seer stone and Nephite interpreters several years after the Book of Mormon was published.
|quote=
|response=
|link=Joseph Smith/Seer stones
|subject=Joseph as seer and his use of seer stones
|summary=What do we know about Joseph's seer stone? What is its relation to the "Urim and Thummim"? Did Joseph place his seer stone in his hat while he was translating the Book of Mormon?
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=
*The critics claim that the Church is being deceptive by claiming that the Three and Eight Witnesses actually say the gold plates.
|think=
*The witnesses were men considered honest, responsible, and intelligent. Their contemporaries did not know quite what to make of three such men who testified of angels and gold plates, but they did not impugn the character or reliability of the men who bore that testimony.
|quote=
|response=
|link=Book of Mormon/Witnesses/Character
|subject=What was the character of the witnesses?
|summary=Critics charge that the witnesses cannot be trusted, or are unreliable, because they were unstable personalities, prone to enthusiasm and exaggeration. Evidence amply demonstrates that the formal witnesses of the Book of Mormon were men of good character and reputation, and were recognized as such by contemporary non-Mormons.
|link2=Book of Mormon/Witnesses/Martin Harris repeatedly sought empirical proof
|subject2=Martin Harris repeatedly sought empirical proof
|summary2=Critics claim that Martin Harris was a gullible believer in the supernatural. But, in fact, Martin repeatedly performed empirical tests to confirm Joseph Smith's claims. He came away convinced.
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=
*Critics note that the Book of Mormon translation occurred using Joseph's seer stone and that the plates didn't need to be present.
|think=
*It is important to remember that what we ''do'' know for certain is that the translation of the Book of Mormon was carried out "by the gift and power of God." These are the only words that Joseph Smith himself used to describe the translation process.
*We do not know the exact method of translation, other than Joseph employed instruments designated for that purpose: The Nephite interpreters and his own seer stone. Many have offered their own opinions about how these devices "functioned" in the process, but it should be kept in mind that these opinions are given by people who never performed the translation process itself: They can only report on what they observed the Prophet doing at the time.
*Historical sources also indicate that at some later point in time, both the Nephite interpreters and Joseph's seer stone were referred to using the term "Urim and Thummim." Whether Joseph used the "original" Urim and Thummim (i.e. Nephite interpreters or "spectacles") or his own seer stone to perform this sacred task is beside the point, and it does not diminish the power of the resulting work.
|quote=
|response=
|link=Book_of_Mormon/Translation/Method
|subject=Description of translation method and circumstances
|summary=Friendly and unfriendly accounts of those who witnessed and heard about the translation of the Book of Mormon
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=
*The critics claim that Fanny Alger was "[o]ne of Joseph Smith's first experiments with adultery "
|think=
*The Fanny Alger marriage illustrates many of the difficulties which the historian encounters in polygamy. There is little information available, much of it is second hand, and virtually all of it was recorded "after the fact." Even the dates are unclear, and subject to debate.
*It seems clear, however, that Joseph, Fanny's family, Levi Hancock, and even hostile witnesses saw their relationship as a marriage, albeit an unorthodox one. The witness of Chauncey Webb and Ann Eliza Webb Young make it untenable to claim that only a later Mormon whitewash turned an affair into a marriage.
|quote=
|response=
|link=Polygamy book/Introduction of eternal marriage
|subject=Fanny Alger: Marriage or affair?
|summary=Critics charge that Joseph Smith's early plural marriage(s) cannot have been "real" marriages, since the doctrine of "eternal marriage" (i.e., marriages which last beyond the grave) was not introduced until 1841.
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=
*Critics note that the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants promoted monogamy while polygamy was secretly being practiced.
|think=
*The statement itself was not changed between the 1835 and 1844 editions of the D&C. In fact, the statement remained in the D&C until the 1876 edition, even though plural marriage had been taught since at least 1831, practiced in secret since 1836, and practiced openly since 1852. The matter of not removing it in 1852 was simply due to the fact that a new edition of the D&C was not published until 1876.
|quote=
|response=
|link=Mormonism and polygamy/1835 Doctrine and Covenants denies polygamy
|subject=1835 Doctrine and Covenants denies polygamy
|summary=The 1835 edition of the D&C contained a statement of marriage which denied the practice of polygamy. Since this was published during Joseph Smith's lifetime, why might the prophet have allowed it to be published if he was actually practicing polygamy at that time?
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=
*Critics claim that Joseph lied when he stated the "spiritual wifery" was "absolutely false and the doctrine an evil and unlawful thing."
|think=
*Joseph distinguished "spiritual wifery," a term used by John C. Bennet, from the doctrine of plural marriage.
|quote=
|response=
|link=Polygamy book/John C. Bennett
|subject=John C. Bennett
|summary=John C. Bennett material is in three draft chapters. Given their length and difficulty of converting them to wiki format, they are presented here in downloadable PDF.
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=
*Critics note that Joseph took wives without Emma's consent, contrary to the requirement that the first wife needed to give consent.
|think=
*Emma was aware of plural marriage; it is not clear at exactly what point she was made aware, partly due to there being relatively few early sources on the matter. Emma was generally opposed to the practice of plural marriage, and did much to try and thwart it. There were times, however, when Emma gave permission for Joseph's plural marriages, though she soon changed her mind. Emma was troubled by plural marriage, but her difficulties arose partly from her conviction that Joseph was a prophet.
|response=
|link=Joseph Smith/Polygamy/Emma Smith/Sealing
|subject=Sealing required Emma's consent
|summary=Critics contend that although Emma Hale Smith was Joseph's first wife, that Joseph was sealed to other wives before being sealed to Emma. The assumption follows that Emma was not in a position to consent to Joseph's other marriages, since she was not longer the "first wife."
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=
*Critics note that Joseph wrote a letter to Sarah Ann Whitney telling her to come when Emma was not present.
|think=
*Critics would have us believe that this is a private, secret "love letter" from Joseph to Sarah Ann, however, Joseph wrote this letter to the Whitney's, addressing it to Sarah's parents. The "matter" to which he refers is likely the administration of ordinances rather than the arrangement of some sort of private tryst with one of his plural wives. Why would one invite your bride's parents to such an encounter? Joseph doesn't want Emma gone because he wants to be alone with Sarah Ann—a feat that would be difficult to accomplish with her parents there—he wants Emma gone either because she is opposed to plural marriage (the contention that would result from an encounter between Emma and the Whitney's just a few weeks after Joseph's sealing to Sarah Ann would hardly be conducive to having the spirit present in order to "git the fulness of my blessings sealed upon our heads"), or because she may have been followed or spied upon by Joseph's enemies, putting the Whitneys in danger.
|quote=
|response=
|link=Joseph Smith/Polygamy/"Love letters"
|subject=Did Joseph write secret "love letters" to any of his polygamous wives?
|summary=Critics claim that on 18 August 1842 Joseph Smith wrote a “love letter” to Sarah Ann Whitney requesting a secret rendezvous or "tryst." Joseph had been sealed to Sarah Ann three weeks prior to this time. What does this letter actually say?
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=
*Joseph publicly denied plural marriage while secretly practicing it.
|think=
*It is true that Joseph hid the practice of plural marriage.
|quote=
A contemporary journal describes the reaction to Joseph's attempt to teach this doctrine:
<blockquote>
When the prophet “went to his dinner,” [Joseph Lee] Robinson wrote, “as it might be expected several of the first women of the church collected at the Prophet’s house with his wife [and] said thus to the prophet Joseph O mister Smith you have done it now it will never do it is all but Blassphemy you must take back what you have said to day is it is outrageous it would ruin us as a people.” So in the afternoon session Smith again took the stand, according to Robinson, and said “Brethren and Sisters I take back what we said this morning and leave it as though there had been nothing said.” (Richard S. Van Wagoner, ''Mormon Polygamy: A History'' (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1986),48; citing Robinson, Journal, 23–24.)
</blockquote>
|response=
|link=Joseph Smith/Polygamy/Hiding the truth
|subject=Hiding the truth about polygamy
|summary=It is true that Joseph did not always tell others about plural marriage. He did, however, make some attempt to teach the doctrine to the Saints. It is thus important to realize that the public preaching of polygamy—or announcing it to the general Church membership, thereby informing the public by proxy—was simply not a feasible plan. Critics of Joseph's choice want their audience to ignore the danger to him and the Saints.
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=
*Critics claim that the Church histories "deceive readers by failing to point out that Joseph exercised poor judgment."
|think=
*Church histories are full of examples of Joseph Smith exercising poor judgment and the consequences that resulted from it. Some examples include:
**The Kirtland Safety Society—Consequence: apostasy of many Church leaders, including two of the three witnesses.
**The destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor printing press—Consequence: the martyrdom of Joseph Smith.
|quote=
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=
*Joseph's polyandrous marriages were not published in Church manuals.
|think=
*Church manuals don't say much of anything about any type of plural marriage at all, not just those that were polyandrous.
|quote=
|response=
|link=Joseph Smith/Polygamy/Polyandry
|subject=Joseph Smith and polyandry
|summary= Joseph Smith was sealed to women who were married to men who were still living. Some of these men were even active members of the Church.
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=
*Plural marriages were performed after the Manifesto was issued in 1890.
|think=
*Some Church members unfamiliar with the history behind the aggressive Federal anti-polygamy movement have been troubled by critics who try to portray Church members’ and leaders’ choices as dishonest and improper. It is important to realize that this is a point on which modern enemies of the Church would be impossible to satisfy. If the Church had acquiesced to government pressure and stopped polygamy completely in 1890, the Church would then be charged with having “revelations on demand,” or with abandoning something they claimed was divine under government pressure. In fact, prior to the Manifesto, the attorney prosecuting Elder Lorenzo Snow for polygamy “predicted that if Snow and others were found guilty and sent to prison church leaders would find it convenient to have a revelation setting aside the commandment on polygamy.”
|quote=
|response=
|link=Mormonism and polygamy/Practiced after the Manifesto
|subject=Practiced after the Manifesto
|summary= limited number of plural marriages were solemnized after Wilford Woodruff's Manifesto of 1890 (Official Declaration 1). Some of these marriages were apparently sanctioned by some in positions of Church leadership. Critics claim that this demonstrates that the Manifesto was merely a political tactic, and that the "revelation" of the Manifesto was merely a cynical ploy. They also claim that Post-Manifesto marriages demonstrate the LDS Church's contempt for the civil law of the land.
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=
*Critics claim that the Church is deceptive in its practices for ensuring that Baptism for the Dead is not performed for Holocaust victims or celebrities.
|think=
*{{antispeak|mutually exclusive}} The Church has made great efforts to prevent such baptisms from being performed. Critics want to the Church to exercise some form of control over members who persist in submitting such names. These same critics complain that the Church exercises too much control over its members.
*While work toward the complete removal of all Holocaust victims' names from the Church's database continues, controversy and frustration may well continue to surface. It is important to remember that progress has been made, and that as temple approval safeguards become more sophisticated, one can hope that misguided individuals will be much less able to violate the agreement.
*The Church has now flagged Holocaust-related names in the database so that if an attempt is made to perform ordinance work for them, the user's account will be locked.
|quote=
|response=
|link=Mormonism and temples/Work for Holocaust victims
|subject=Work for Holocaust victims
|summary=In 1995, after it was learned that a substantial number of Holocaust victims were listed in the Church's temple records as having been baptized, an agreement was signed between the Church and leading Jewish authorities which officially ended baptizing Jewish Holocaust victims posthumously.
}}

Criticism of Mormonism/Websites/MormonThink/Overview

2012-09-24T18:52:43Z

Awyatt: /* Testimonials from those who no longer believe in the Church because of MormonThink */

Criticism of Mormonism/Websites/MormonThink/The Witnesses

2012-04-30T15:55:07Z

Awyatt: /* */

{{Articles FAIR copyright}} {{Articles Header 1}} {{Articles Header 2}} {{Articles Header 3}} {{Articles Header 4}} {{Articles Header 5}} {{Articles Header 6}} {{Articles Header 7}} {{Articles Header 8}} {{Articles Header 9}} {{Articles Header 10}}
__NOTOC__
{{FAIRAnalysisHeader
|title=[[../|MormonThink]]
|author=Anonymous
|noauthor=
|section=The Witnesses
|previous=[[../25 items that would allegedly "make the Church true"|25 items that would allegedly "make the Church true"]]
|next=[[../Index|Index]]
|notes=
This is a review of the MormonThink web page <nowiki>http://mormonthink.com/witnessesweb.htm</nowiki> as it existed on 4/29/2012. The text of this web page may have changed since it was reviewed.
}}
==A FAIR Analysis of MormonThink page "The Witnesses"==

==== ====
{{Website response summary|date=28 April 2012}}

'''The positions that the MormonThink article "The Witnesses" appears to take are the following:'''
*That the witnesses may have only seen the plates in a vision, despite their repeated assertions that they saw them with their own eyes.
*That some witnesses only saw the plates when they were covered, although none of the three or eight witnesses are included in this group.
*That the three witnesses did not all see the plates and the angel at the same time, although this is clearly taught in Church.
*Most of the witnesses left the Church (which is also clearly taught in Church), but for some reason failed to expose the scam.
*That many of the the witnesses had a falling out with Joseph Smith, yet for some reason they failed to expose the scam.
*That Joseph Smith at some point called the witnesses liars in matters unrelated to their view of the plates, yet for some reason they still failed to expose the scam.
*That the discovery of James Strang's Vorhee plates buried underground was somehow "extraordinary" on the same level as viewing an angel.
*That eyewitness testimony is not a reliable means to prove the occurrence of historical events, despite the fact that history is completely based upon such witness accounts.
*That the witnesses to the Book of Mormon should have been more vocal and been interviewed more often, in spite of the fact that they actually were.
*Oliver may have assisted Joseph in performing a deception, despite the fact that he never exposed the deception after he and Joseph had their falling out and Oliver left the Church.

==== ====
{{Website response label}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=The witnesses' experiences may have only been visionary in nature. There are many statements given by the witnesses that indicate they only saw the angel and the plates in a visionary experience. Why would people need to see real, physical plates in a vision or a real angel that was physically on the earth?
|think=
*David Whitmer said this: "No, sir! I was not under any hallucination, nor was I deceived! I saw with these eyes and I heard with these ears! I know whereof I speak!" {{ref|whitmer.js3}}
*And he said this: "'He that hath an ear to hear, let him hear;' it was no delusion! What is written is written, and he that readeth let him understand." {{ref|whitmer.believers.9}}
*Sounds like he was pretty definite, if you ask us.
|response=
|authorsources=
|link=Book of Mormon/Witnesses/Spiritual or literal
|subject=Were the experiences of the witnesses spiritual or literal?
|summary=Some critics suggest that the witnesses’ encounter with the angel and the plates took place solely in their minds. They claim that witnesses saw the angel in a “vision” and equate “vision” with imagination.
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=There are also several statements saying that the only time they saw the plates was when the plates were covered in a cloth or tow frock.
|think=
*Did you know that the "several statements" are all from William Smith, Joseph's brother, and that William ''was not one of the three or eight witnesses''?
*Why does MormonThink falsely imply that the statement about the plates being covered applies to the witnesses, when it does not?
*As MormonThink points out on the page, ''William Smith'' reported that he had handled and hefted the plates within a pillow case or tow frock and that he knew that his brother "translated the plates." William was not one of the witnesses, but he ''repeatedly'' reported having lifted the plates while they were covered.
*William made it clear in one of his statements that the family was not allowed to see the plates at first, but that Joseph later showed them to Hyrum, Joseph Sr., and Samuel Smith:

:::He ''then'' [after translating] showed the plates to my father and my brothers Hyrum and Samuel, who were witnesses to the truth of the book which was translated from them. I was permitted to lift them as they laid in a pillow-case; but not to see them [i.e., unlike the others who ''did'' see them as formal witnesses], as it was contrary to the commands he had received.{{ref|william.smith.1}}

*Why does MormonThink not include this part of the same statement?
*In the same interviews, William also dismissed the Spalding manuscript story as nonsense. MormonThink talks a lot about the Spalding manuscript below. Why do they not use William's witness on that score?
|authorsources=
*''A New Witness for Christ in America'' 2:416,417 (William Smith statement)
|response=
|authorsources=
|link=Book of Mormon/Witnesses/Spiritual or literal/Only handled when covered by a tow frock
|subject=Only handled when covered by a tow frock?
|summary=Some critics claim that the witnesses said they only handled the plates covered in a "tow frock." Critics do not reveal that this report is from William Smith, one of Joseph's brother who was not a Book of Mormon witness. They also fail to tell us that William insisted in the same statement that he was convinced Joseph was not lying about the plates. William also dismissed the Spalding hypothesis as nonsense, but critics do not mention that either.
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=The three witnesses did not all see the plates or angel at the same time. Only David Whitmer and perhaps Oliver Cowdery saw the angel together. Martin Harris removed himself from the group and did not see the angel until perhaps three days later (Anthony Metcalf, Ten Years Before the Mast, n.d., microfilm copy, p. 70-71).
|think=
*Why is the fact that Martin's experience occurred later supposed to have meaning? This story is well documented in official Church sources.
|authorsources=
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=David Whitmer said "If you believe my testimony to the Book of Mormon; if you believe that God spake to us three witnesses by his own voice, then I tell you that in June, 1838, God spake to me again by his own voice from the heavens, and told me to separate myself from among the Latter-day Saints, for as they sought to do unto me, so should it be done unto them." So which statement was David Whitmer lying about or had been mistaken about? Either way he doesn't sound like a completely trustworthy witness.
|think=
*Why can't they both be true? God spoke to the three witnesses, and God told David Whitmer to leave in order to avoid being harmed. After all, Whitmer was more valuable as a Book of Mormon witness the longer he lived.
* David Whitmer was already out of the Church when he was told to "separate himself." Does MormonThink give the impression that David was being told to leave the Church? Why isn't it clear that he was being told to leave the area where members of the Church (motivated by vigilantism) were plotting to harm him?
* If David had been killed by vigilante Mormons at this point, couldn't critics now claim that he had abandoned or would have abandoned his testimony? Wouldn't God want to prevent that?
*Wasn't Whitmer even ''more'' valuable as a Book of Mormon witness ''after'' he left the Church, because he ''still'' didn't deny seeing the angel and the plates when he could have exposed the entire "scam."
*Why did Whitmer have his testimony of the Book of Mormon engraved on his tombstone? It reads: "The record of the Jews and the record of the Nephites are one."
|response=
|link=Book of Mormon/Witnesses/David Whitmer told to leave
|subject=Did God tell David Whitmer to leave the Church?
|summary=David Whitmer, one of the Book of Mormon's Three Witnesses, said "If you believe my testimony to the Book of Mormon; if you believe that God spake to us three witnesses by his own voice, then I tell you that in June, 1838, God spake to me again by his own voice from the heavens, and told me to "separate myself from among the Latter Day Saints, for as they sought to do unto me, should it be done unto them." Critics argues that if members accept Whitmer's witness of the Book of Mormon, then they must also accept that God wanted David to repudiate the Church as false. Critics distort the historical record to make it appear that David Whitmer left the Church because he was told to, when it fact he was excommunicated prior to claiming any revelation to do so. The command to leave, if it was a true revelation, involved David's physical safety and not his membership in the Church, which he had already renounced.
|authorsources=
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=All the witnesses had close ties to Joseph and his family. Some like Martin Harris had a substantial financial investment in the success of the Book of Mormon.
|think=
*Why didn't Martin expose the Book of Mormon as a scam after he lost his investment?
*Why didn't Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer and some of the eleven witnesses expose Joseph as a fraud after they left the Church?
*If they all knew together that it was a hoax, ''why didn't any one of them say anything?''
|response=
|link=Book of Mormon/Witnesses/"Interested"_and_so_not_to_be_trusted
|subject=Witnesses were "interested" and not to be trusted since they followed Joseph Smith
|summary=Critics claim that because the witnesses are "interested"—i.e., they were members of the Church and believers in Joseph's mission—they are therefore not reliable, since they cannot be "neutral" or "disinterested."
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=These men lived in the early 1800s and believed in magical things like many people did during that time period such as divining rods, second sight, magic, dreams, seer stones, etc. Some of the witnesses, especially Martin Harris, were easily swayed by tales of the supernatural, especially in a religious context.
|think=
*Then why did Martin Harris have a tendency to test Joseph and look for proof—he took the characters to Anthon, he secretly switched Joseph's seer stone, and he wanted to show his wife and friends the 116 pages as "proof"? Sounds like Martin wanted something tangible, doesn't it?
*Why not acknowledge that Martin believed in hard proof, and sought it repeatedly? He was willing to entertain the idea of the supernatural, but then everyone was. But he didn't believe credulously—he insisted and sought proof. He wanted proof so badly that he ''insisted'' on being a witness!
|response=
|authorsources=
|link=Book of Mormon/Witnesses/Martin Harris repeatedly sought empirical proof
|subject=Martin Harris repeatedly sought empirical proof
|summary=Critics claim that Martin Harris was a gullible believer in the supernatural. But, in fact, Martin repeatedly performed empirical tests to confirm Joseph Smith's claims. He came away convinced.
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=Many of the witnesses ended up leaving the church and following other leaders and religions such as James Strang, the Shakers, Methodists, etc. By 1847 not a single one of the surviving eleven witnesses was part of the LDS Church.
|think=
*Why didn't any of the eleven witnesses expose the fraud after they left the Church? Think about it. What possible motivation could there have been to keep the secret? They weren't making any money off the Book of Mormon, after all.
* MormonThink is quite crafty in picking "1847"—because, in 1848, Oliver Cowdery was rebaptized. Martin Harris would rejoin later and come to Utah (1870). David Whitmer would never rejoin the Church, but left more accounts than any other witness insisting that he had seen the angel and plates.
|response=
|authorsources=
|link=Book of Mormon/Witnesses/Eight witnesses
|subject=Eight witnesses
|summary=Critics have tried to argue that the Eight witnesses only claimed a 'spiritual' or 'visionary' view of the plates, not a literal, physical one. The witnesses left concrete statements regarding the physical nature of the plates. There were others besides the eleven who saw and felt the plates, and testified that they were real.
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=Of the witnesses that left the church, most believed that Joseph was at best a fallen prophet, the church changed its doctrines in error and changed revelations against God's will.
|think=
*Yes, they did, especially David Whitmer. So why didn't they simply deny that they ever saw an angel or the plates and blow the entire scam? Wouldn't that have made more sense?
|response=
|authorsources=
|link=Book of Mormon/Witnesses/Recant
|subject=Did the Book of Mormon witnesses ever recant?
|summary=Critics have tried to argue that some or all of the Witnesses recanted concerning their testimony. They were all faithful to their testimonies to the end of their lives, even though many of them had personal disagreements with Joseph Smith that caused them to leave the Church.
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=The witnesses, who have been heralded as good, honest, Abe Lincoln-type of men were later called liars, counterfeiters, thieves, etc. by Joseph Smith himself.
|think=
* If Joseph was running a scam, why did he dare do this? Why did he attack these men's later behavior in the strongest terms, if he knew they had the means to ruin him by exposing the fraud of the Book of Mormon?
* Why didn't the witnesses turn around an denounce Joseph as a liar about the angel and the Book of Mormon plates?
* If the witnesses stuck to their story even when alienated from and harshly criticized by Joseph, doesn't this strengthen their witness?
* Why does it seem like Joseph had no worries about these men denying their testimony? It seems like he knew they would feel bound to bear it, no matter what.
|response=
|link=Book of Mormon/Witnesses/Recant
|subject=Did the Book of Mormon witnesses ever recant?
|summary=Critics have tried to argue that some or all of the Witnesses recanted concerning their testimony. They were all faithful to their testimonies to the end of their lives, even though many of them had personal disagreements with Joseph Smith that caused them to leave the Church.
|authorsources=
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=The "testimony of the witnesses" is similar to testimonials which were commonly included in books etc. in those days to help spur sales. And of course, the BOM's producers originally intended to sell copies for $1.75 each.
|think=
*So, if the point was simply to "spur sales" of the Book of Mormon, why did the witnesses stick to their testimonies until they died? They certainly weren't hoping to get any profits from the book by that time, right?
*Come to think of it, what ''was'' the financial motivation for all of the other witnesses with regard to sales of the Book of Mormon? Martin Harris was the only one invested in it.
|response=
|authorsources=
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=All three witnesses believed that God Himself had told them (through Joseph Smith) that they had been specially chosen to testify to the world that they had seen the angel and the plates –– if they had enough faith. Martin Harris was even told the exact words he must use: Joseph Smith said he had a revelation in which the Lord commanded Harris to say, “I have seen the things which the Lord hath shown unto Joseph Smith Jun., and I know of a surety that they are true, for I have seen them.” And just to clinch the command, God threatened Martin Harris, saying, “But if he deny this he will break the covenant which he has before covenanted with me, and behold, he is condemned.” A personal promise (and a threat of condemnation) coming directly from God is bound to have a powerful influence on a person’s thinking!
|think=
*So, are they implying that Martin deliberately ''lied'' about seeing the plates because he was ''afraid of being condemned by God''?
*Why would Martin think that it was OK to break one of the ''ten commandments'' in order to avoid God's condemnation? Didn't the ten commandments come from God?
*Wouldn't Martin be more afraid of breaking the eighth commandment to not bear "false witness?"
*Why did Martin "stay scared" of God after leaving the Church? Why did he keep preaching the Book of Mormon and bearing his witness even when with other religious groups (much to those groups' irritation!)?
*Why would Martin believe these lines came from God unless he believed Joseph could really get revelation? Why would he fear the words of a presumed false prophet more than the ten commandments, Bible, and his own reputation?
|response=
|authorsources=
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=There are seven witnesses that say Solomon Spalding was the author of the Book of Mormon. Seven people wrote affidavits testifying that they had read early drafts of the Book of Mormon by author Solomon Spalding. In some ways they are more credible than the BOM witnesses as they each wrote their own account instead of merely signing a prepared statement.
|think=
*Do you find it amazing that so many of Joseph's neighbors had "recently" been reading the Book of Mormon when ex-Mormon Dr. Philastus Hurlbut stopped by to interview them?
*By the way, these people said that they had been reading the ''Book of Mormon'' by Joseph Smith, ''not'' "the Book of Mormon by author Solomon Spalding".
*Did you ever wonder why the unfinished Spalding manuscript doesn't resemble the Book of Mormon? It is published. You can actually read it. It doesn't contain the Book of Mormon names "Nephi" and "Lehi" that the "witnesses" said they did. Would you like to [[Criticism_of_Mormonism/Books/Mormonism_Unvailed/The_Hurlbut_affidavits#Spalding_manuscript_claims_and_reliability|read what the "witnesses" actually said]]?
*Do you think that maybe ex-Mormon Dr. Phiastus Hurlbut "helped" the Spalding "witnesses" with their testimonies, which coincidentally all sound so similar?
*Given that some of those providing affidavits couldn't even sign their names, ''then how is it that they were reading the Book of Mormon?'' And, how is it that they could write "their own account?" Don't you think their inability to read or write might make them vulnerable to having Hurlbut or others influence what was written in their names? The three and eight witnesses could all read and write.
*Do you wonder why, even though Eber D. Howe ''had'' the Spalding manuscript ''in his possession'' when including the Spalding affidavits in ''Mormonism Unvailed'', that he ''chose not to use it'' because it didn't actually support the story given in the affidavits?
*Is it simply convenient that Howe "lost" the actual Spalding manuscript after including the Spalding affidavits in his anti-Mormon book ''Mormonism Unvailed'' and it was not discovered again until years later?
|response=
|authorsources=
|link=Criticism_of_Mormonism/Books/Mormonism_Unvailed/The_Hurlbut_affidavits#Spalding_manuscript_claims_and_reliability
|subject=The Hurlbut Spalding affidavits
|summary=Joseph's neighbors claimed that Joseph had copied the Spalding manuscript
|link2=Book of Mormon/Authorship theories/Spalding manuscript
|subject2=Spalding manuscript
|summary2=Critics claim that Joseph Smith either plagiarized or relied upon a manuscript by Solomon Spaulding to write the Book of Mormon. There is a small group of critics who hold to the theory that the production of the Book of Mormon was a conspiracy involving Sidney Rigdon, Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery and others. These critics search for links between Spalding and Rigdon. Joseph Smith is assumed to have been Rigdon's pawn.
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=Here's the detailed accounts of several James Strang witnesses that seem very similar to the BOM witnesses: Testimony of Witnesses to the Voree Plates
|think=
*What is so extraordinary about this story? Seeing an angel is extraordinary, digging up some fake plates is not very extraordinary.
*Don't you find it extremely coincidental that the whole "buried plates" story is somewhat similar to Joseph Smith's story, years after the Book of Mormon was published?
*The Voree witnesses say nothing about angelic messengers and witnesses—if this sort of thing is so easy to fake, why didn't Strang work the same effect on his followers?
*Why did none of Joseph Smith's witnesses recant—even at severe persecution and ridicule, and even when leaving the Church—while some of Strang's recanted under far less pressure?
|link=Book of Mormon/Witnesses/Strangite parallels
|subject=Strangite parallels
|summary=Critics claim that break-off sects like James Strang's produced eyewitnesses of buried records, so Joseph's ability to do so is neither surprising nor persuasive. The Strangite witnesses were not all faithful, and some recanted and described the nature of the fraud perpetuated by Strang.
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=On November 5, 1975, seven men witnessed a spacecraft from another world hovering silently between tall pines in the Apache-Sitgreaves National forest of north-eastern Arizona. One of those men, Travis Walton, became an unwilling captive of an alien race when the other men fled in fear.
|think=
*We have a result of Joseph's efforts - the Book of Mormon itself. Show us the tangible evidence of alien abduction.
*We're comparing seeing ''space aliens'' with the Book of Mormon witnesses?? Really?
|response=
|authorsources=
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=Obviously both sets of witnesses cannot be correct. At least one set, possibly both sets, of witnesses were either lying or were mistaken or deceived. Which group is to be believed or are they both in error? We're not saying we believe the Spalding witnesses over the Book of Mormon witnesses, but it proves the point that just because a group of people claims something extraordinary happened to them, it doesn't make it so.
|think=
*The Spalding witnesses didn't claim that anything "extraordinary" happened to them - they claimed that Spalding had read them a manuscript. What's so extraordinary about that?
*Seeing an angel is ''extraordinary''—hearing a manuscript read is not.
*Why not mention that all of these Spalding witnesses testimonies came through Dr. Phiastus Hurlbut, and that they were published in the first true anti-Mormon work, ''Mormonism Unvailed'', by Eber D. Howe?
*Why not mention that the Spalding manuscript was in Howe's possession, but he didn't use it because it bore no resemblance to the Book of Mormon? And that it was lost for years only to turn up later, and that it can be read today and that it ''still'' doesn't resemble the Book of Mormon?
|response=
|authorsources=
|link=Criticism of Mormonism/Books/Mormonism Unvailed/The Hurlbut affidavits
|subject=The Hurlbut affidavits
|summary=Many of Joseph Smith’s friends and neighbors signed affidavits that accused him and his family of being lazy, indolent, undependable treasure-seekers.
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=There are many, many reported witnesses to UFOs, Bigfoot, the Lochness Monster, Abominable Snowman, alien abductions, gurus with magic powers, psychics, etc. There are literally hundreds of thousands of witnesses to these amazing phenomena. Should they be believed as well?
|think=
*Have any UFO's, Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster, the Abominable Snowman, aliens, gurus or psychics produced a work comparable to the Book of Mormon?
*Does it sound like someone here is throwing every oddball thing they can at the witnesses and hoping that something "sticks?"
|response=
|authorsources=
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=Just because three witnesses signed a statement saying they saw an angel, doesn't mean it really happened.
|think=
*Why then did these men put their reputations for the rest of their lives on the line by doing so...and by never denying it despite each one having a falling out with Joseph Smith. Think about that.
*That's the conclusion? To simply call the witnesses liars because you can't account for the numerous times that they reaffirmed their testimony?
|response=
|authorsources=
*None, of course. This is pure speculation in contradiction to what the witnesses themselves stated.
|link=Book of Mormon/Witnesses/Character
|subject=What was the character of the witnesses?
|summary=Critics charge that the witnesses cannot be trusted, or are unreliable, because they were unstable personalities, prone to enthusiasm and exaggeration. Evidence amply demonstrates that the formal witnesses of the Book of Mormon were men of good character and reputation, and were recognized as such by contemporary non-Mormons.
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=Faithful members would likely come up with explanations to counter these claims like the 3+8 witnesses signed a single statement because they so strongly agreed with their unified experience. However this comparison shows some of the inherent weaknesses of the using just witnesses to prove historical events. This also underscores the weaknesses in the BOM process to obtain witnesses to verify the BOM.
|think=
*A witness is "One who can give a firsthand account of something seen, heard, or experienced." That's what they did. ''That's what witnesses do''. That's why they call them "witnesses," because they witnessed the events that they are relating as part of history.
*What does MormonThink ''all'' history is based on? First person witnesses. People witness history, and they leave behind documents: journals, government records, art, etc. If you get rid of witnesses, then there's hardly any such thing as "history" at all. It is only very recently that we have things like photographs or video—and even these are records made by witnesses at the time.
|response=
|authorsources=
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=Why should we believe all the Book of Mormon witnesses over the sworn affidavits of over dozens of unrelated townspeople?
|think=
*Were any of these dozens of unrelated townspeople there when the angel was present? How would they know?
*Why are you comparing the witnesses to the plates to the Hurlbut-Howe affidavits anyway? One group said they saw the plates (and some an angel), the other group said that they heard a manuscript read.
*Why is it that when we try to verify matters in the affidavits that we ''can'' verify, they aren't confirmed? For example, those who wrote the affidavits claimed that the Spalding manuscript matched the Book of Mormon—but it doesn't, and even anti-Mormons abandoned this argument more than a century ago. So, why should we uncritically accept those claims in the affidavits that we ''can't'' verify?
|response=
|link=Book of Mormon/Authorship theories/Spalding manuscript/Critical rejection
|subject=Rejection of the Spaulding theory by critics of the Book of Mormon
|summary=Many ''critics'' of the Book of Mormon reject the Spaulding theory as unworkable. If Mormonism's most prominent critics find the Spalding theory unworkable, then what motivates those who tenuously hold to this theory and continue to pursue it?
|authorsources=
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=None of the witnesses should have been related to Joseph or each other. Most of the witnesses were either related or good friends. Having unrelated people as witnesses would be far more effective than using your brothers and father.
|think=
*Why should Joseph go off and find a bunch of total strangers to witness such a miracle? Wouldn't he want to have his family and friends share the experience? After all, he had not been allowed to show them the plates for many months.
*Who would you rather share such an amazing experience with? Your brother, or some total stranger who doubts everything you say?
|response=
|authorsources=
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=The witnesses should not have already been eager believers. There should have been some skeptics.
|think=
*Why would an angel show up for ''skeptics''? Are these men then supposed to immediately convert and risk their reputations by declaring to the world that they saw an angel?
|response=
|authorsources=
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=There should have been no financial motive. Martin Harris mortgaged his farm and invested at least $3,000 of his own money into printing the Book of Mormon, so of course he had incentive to 'promote' the book.
|think=
*Show how ''was'' the Book of Mormon supposed to get published? Was a printer supposed to magically do the work for free?
|response=
|authorsources=
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=Each of the witnesses should each have written their own testimony instead of merely signing a prepared statement written by Joseph. If the prepared document wasn't 100% accurate many people would simply sign it anyway as it would be too much of a hassle to have it completely rewritten by hand - especially in the 1800s.
|think=
*Really? Would it really have been "too much of a hassle" to completely rewrite ''one paragraph of text'' consisting of ''only 300 words?
*If you were going to be ''inaccurately'' quoted in a book for which you hoped to sell ''hundreds of copies'', wouldn't ''you'' have taken the time to insist that either the paragraph be rewritten or take the time to write your own version of it?
* Oliver Cowdery ''rewrote'' almost the entire manuscript of the Book of Mormon (the "printer's manuscript") so they would always have a copy of the translation in their possession. How likely is he to be put off from rewriting a 300 word document that he's going to sign as a solemn witness?
*Were people "in the 1800s" really ''less'' concerned with the accuracy of their signed statements than we are now? Think about it.
*If this was true, why didn't the witnesses complain about it, especially later when they were alienated from Joseph Smith? Instead, they consistently ''referred'' people to their statement and affirmed its accuracy.
* Remember that Joseph needed Oliver Cowdery and Martin Harris to act as scribes for the Book of Mormon (and David Whitmer helped a bit too). How likely is it that Joseph sat down and wrote out the statement for them to sign? Isn't it more likely that one or more was involved in at least acting as scribe, and that they may have even participated in drafting it? Oliver Cowdery would help draft some sections of the Doctrine and Covenants, for example.
*Where's MormonThink's evidence that Joseph wrote the statement with no input from the witnesses?
*Does it seem like MormonThink is grasping at straws?

|response=
|authorsources=
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=The witnesses should have been much more detailed about this amazing event. What did the angel look like? What exactly did he say? How did he speak? There are almost no details provided which can be analyzed and compared. If each witness had simply written their own account and provided significant details then their individual testimonies could corroborate each other.
|think=
*There are many later accounts by the witnesses that corroborate each other. Yet, MormonThink does not mention these, or consider that to increase the witnesses' credibility. Isn't this a double standard?
*If there were lots of details in the printed edition of the Book of Mormon, wouldn't MormonThink just turn around and claim that this close match was evidence of collusion? Or, they could always claim (without evidence) that Joseph wrote or dictated all the statements. It's easy to find "reasons" to dismiss evidence you don't want to accept.
*Does it seem like MormonThink is impossible to satisfy, no matter what evidence is presented?
|response=
|authorsources=
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=The witnesses should have been interviewed independently immediately after going public. They should have been interviewed the same way police do with witnesses to crimes or that investigators do with UFO cases. Ask questions to see if their stories match; How was the angel dressed? How tall was he? How did he speak?, etc.
|response=
|authorsources=
|think=
* And, if these things matched, would MormonThink be convinced?
* The Mormons are not to be blamed because the non-believing townfolk in Joseph's area didn't interview the witnesses the way MormonThink believes they should have been.
* If the interviews matched, couldn't MormonThink just use that as evidence that Joseph and the witnesses had conspired together to concoct a story? And, if the witnesses had different perspectives, wouldn't that be used as evidence they were making it up?
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=The witnesses should not have used subjective language and say strange things like comparing seeing the plates with seeing a city through a mountain or using spiritual eyes instead of their natural eyes to view physical plates
|think=
*Why not? How can anyone not describe their own experience in "subjective language?"
*The word "subjective" means "Proceeding from or taking place in a person's mind rather than the external world." How can one describe one's ''own experience'' in anything ''other'' than subjective terms?
|response=
|authorsources=
|link=Book of Mormon/Witnesses/"Eye of Faith" and "Spiritual Eye" statements by Martin Harris
|subject="Eye of Faith" and "Spiritual Eye" statements by Martin Harris
|summary=Martin Harris frequently told people that he did not see the golden plates and the angel with his natural eyes but rather with “spiritual eyes” or the “eye of faith.”
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=The witnesses should not have been gullible people that believed in things like 'second sight', divining rods, finding treasure by placing a rock in a hat, etc. That the Three Witnesses were a gullible sort is illustrated by an incident in July, 1837. Joseph had left on a five-week missionary tour to Canada, only to find on his return that all three of the Witnesses had joined a faction opposing him. This faction rallied around a young girl who claimed to be a seeress by virtue of a black stone in which she read the future. David Whitmer, Martin Harris, and Oliver Cowdery all pledged her their loyalty, and Frederick G. Williams, formerly Joseph's First Counselor, became her scribe. The girl seeress would dance herself into a state of exhaustion, fall to the floor, and burst forth with revelations. (See Lucy Smith: Biographical Sketches, pp. 211-213).
|think=
*Martin Harris was considered a wealthy man. How did he get that way if he was so gullible?
*Did the witnesses remain convinced that the girl was a prophet? Did they dedicate the rest of their lives to insisting that her experience was legitimate?
*By 1837, the witnesses were all opposed to and alienated against Joseph Smith. This incident illustrates that beautifully--so, why did they not follow up and finish off Joseph's destruction by admitting to the fraud?
*Members of the Church would not be surprised that those who apostatize can come to believe all sorts of absurd things to explain and justify their unbelief--MormonThink is, in fact, a good example of that phenomenon. This does not impact the truthfulness of the witnesses' accounts--in fact, it increases them since they would have been highly motivated to find a way to explain away what they had seen. But they did not.
|link=Book of Mormon/Witnesses/Recant
|subject=Did the Book of Mormon witnesses ever recant?
|summary=Critics have tried to argue that some or all of the Witnesses recanted concerning their testimony. They were all faithful to their testimonies to the end of their lives, even though many of them had personal disagreements with Joseph Smith that caused them to leave the Church.
|response=
|authorsources=
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=All of the witness should have been much more vocal and been interviewed much more often. There are very few interviews done with the witnesses that provide any additional information or corroboration of their statements. You would think that these people, after seeing such a magnificent sight, would spend their time testifying to the world about their experience instead of largely just signing a prepared statement and avoiding interviews by the media. Only three of the eight witnesses made separate statements that they had handled the plates. They were Joseph's two brothers, Hyrum and Samuel, and John Whitmer.
|think=
*What? You mean they didn't? There are many testimonies and statements of the witnesses—especially David Whitmer.
*So, are we supposed to believe that these men would simply put their lives on hold for the next 50 years or so and just continue talking about their experience endlessly?
*They gave all the detail that there was to be had—what more are you looking for? There are only so many ways to describe an angel and a set of plates.
*Who said that they avoided interviews with "the media" (a 20th-century term if there ever was one). There are well-documented interviews with some of the witnesses in "the media." (See, for example, {{Book:Cook:David Whitmer Interviews}})
|response=
|authorsources=
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=And of course it would have helped had all the witnesses remained loyal to the Church for the rest of their lives instead of having most of them abandon it later on. It doesn't make much sense to leave the one, true Church of God if you have really received an indisputable witness that it was true. Why would these people risk being cast in Outer Darkness for all eternity for denying what they KNEW to be true unless they maybe had some doubts or knew it really wasn't true?
|response=
|think=
*If the witnesses did not really see what they claimed to have seen, then why did they not expose the deception when they had their fallings out with Joseph Smith and the Church? Why didn't a single witness expose the sham?
*Why not correctly state that the witnesses were ''not'' witnesses of the "one, true Church of God?" They were witnesses to the angel and the existence of the gold plates. That is all. They never denied their witness.
*Isn't it more persuasive to be alienated from Joseph Smith and the Church, and yet continue to insist that you'd seen the plates (and, for the three, the angel)?
*If the witnesses had all remained faithful for their entire lives, wouldn't MormonThink now be claiming that they had a "vested interest" in sticking to their story?
*Do you get the feeling that MormonThink wants to get rid of the witnesses however they can—even if the arguments contradict each other, and even if the complaints don't make sense?
|authorsources=
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=It's also quite possible that Oliver was in on a deception with Joseph, assuming the BOM story isn't true. If so, he could have helped convince the others that they were seeing experiencing something not real, like the second-sight experiences many people had at the time.
|think=
*If Oliver was "in on a deception" with Joseph, then why didn't he expose the deception after he had his falling out with Joseph?
*Why did Oliver continue to hold to his story of being a witness of the plates?
*Why didn't Oliver denounce the statement signed by him in every copy of the Book of Mormon?
}}

=={{Endnotes label}}==
#{{note|whitmer.js3}}Interview with Joseph Smith III et al. (Richmond, Missouri, July 1884), originally published in The Saints' Herald (28 January 1936). Also quoted in Richard Lloyd Anderson, Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1981), p. 88.
#{{note|whimter.believers.9}}David Whitmer, [http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/An_Address_to_All_Believers_in_Christ/Part_First/Chapter_I|''An Address to All Believers in Christ''], 1887.
#{{note|william.smith.1}} William B. Smith, ''William Smith on Mormonism'' (Lamoni, Iowa: Herald Steam Book and Job Office, 1883), 5-19, emphasis added. Reproduced in {{Book:Vogel:EMD|vol=1|pages=497}}

Criticism of Mormonism/Websites/MormonThink/The Witnesses

2012-04-30T15:52:33Z

Awyatt: /* */

{{Articles FAIR copyright}} {{Articles Header 1}} {{Articles Header 2}} {{Articles Header 3}} {{Articles Header 4}} {{Articles Header 5}} {{Articles Header 6}} {{Articles Header 7}} {{Articles Header 8}} {{Articles Header 9}} {{Articles Header 10}}
__NOTOC__
{{FAIRAnalysisHeader
|title=[[../|MormonThink]]
|author=Anonymous
|noauthor=
|section=The Witnesses
|previous=[[../25 items that would allegedly "make the Church true"|25 items that would allegedly "make the Church true"]]
|next=[[../Index|Index]]
|notes=
This is a review of the MormonThink web page <nowiki>http://mormonthink.com/witnessesweb.htm</nowiki> as it existed on 4/29/2012. The text of this web page may have changed since it was reviewed.
}}
==A FAIR Analysis of MormonThink page "The Witnesses"==

==== ====
{{Website response summary|date=28 April 2012}}

'''The positions that the MormonThink article "The Witnesses" appears to take are the following:'''
*That the witnesses may have only seen the plates in a vision, despite their repeated assertions that they saw them with their own eyes.
*That some witnesses only saw the plates when they were covered, although none of the three or eight witnesses are included in this group.
*That the three witnesses did not all see the plates and the angel at the same time, although this is clearly taught in Church.
*Most of the witnesses left the Church (which is also clearly taught in Church), but for some reason failed to expose the scam.
*That many of the the witnesses had a falling out with Joseph Smith, yet for some reason they failed to expose the scam.
*That Joseph Smith at some point called the witnesses liars in matters unrelated to their view of the plates, yet for some reason they still failed to expose the scam.
*That the discovery of James Strang's Vorhee plates buried underground was somehow "extraordinary" on the same level as viewing an angel.
*That eyewitness testimony is not a reliable means to prove the occurrence of historical events, despite the fact that history is completely based upon such witness accounts.
*That the witnesses to the Book of Mormon should have been more vocal and been interviewed more often, in spite of the fact that they actually were.
*Oliver may have assisted Joseph in performing a deception, despite the fact that he never exposed the deception after he and Joseph had their falling out and Oliver left the Church.

==== ====
{{Website response label}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=The witnesses' experiences may have only been visionary in nature. There are many statements given by the witnesses that indicate they only saw the angel and the plates in a visionary experience. Why would people need to see real, physical plates in a vision or a real angel that was physically on the earth?
|think=
*David Whitmer said this: "No, sir! I was not under any hallucination, nor was I deceived! I saw with these eyes and I heard with these ears! I know whereof I speak!" {{ref|whitmer.js3}}
*And he said this: "'He that hath an ear to hear, let him hear;' it was no delusion! What is written is written, and he that readeth let him understand." {{ref|whitmer.believers.9}}
*Sounds like he was pretty definite, if you ask us.
|response=
|authorsources=
|link=Book of Mormon/Witnesses/Spiritual or literal
|subject=Were the experiences of the witnesses spiritual or literal?
|summary=Some critics suggest that the witnesses’ encounter with the angel and the plates took place solely in their minds. They claim that witnesses saw the angel in a “vision” and equate “vision” with imagination.
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=There are also several statements saying that the only time they saw the plates was when the plates were covered in a cloth or tow frock.
|think=
*Did you know that the "several statements" are all from William Smith, Joseph's brother, and that William ''was not one of the three or eight witnesses''?
*Why does MormonThink falsely imply that the statement about the plates being covered applies to the witnesses, when it does not?
*As MormonThink points out on the page, ''William Smith'' reported that he had handled and hefted the plates within a pillow case or tow frock and that he knew that his brother "translated the plates." William was not one of the witnesses, but he ''repeatedly'' reported having lifted the plates while they were covered.
*William made it clear in one of his statements that the family was not allowed to see the plates at first, but that Joseph later showed them to Hyrum, Joseph Sr., and Samuel Smith:

:::He ''then'' [after translating] showed the plates to my father and my brothers Hyrum and Samuel, who were witnesses to the truth of the book which was translated from them. I was permitted to lift them as they laid in a pillow-case; but not to see them [i.e., unlike the others who ''did'' see them as formal witnesses], as it was contrary to the commands he had received.{{ref|william.smith.1}}

*Why does MormonThink not include this part of the same statement?
*In the same interviews, William also dismissed the Spalding manuscript story as nonsense. MormonThink talks a lot about the Spalding manuscript below. Why do they not use William's witness on that score?
|authorsources=
*''A New Witness for Christ in America'' 2:416,417 (William Smith statement)
|response=
|authorsources=
|link=Book of Mormon/Witnesses/Spiritual or literal/Only handled when covered by a tow frock
|subject=Only handled when covered by a tow frock?
|summary=Some critics claim that the witnesses said they only handled the plates covered in a "tow frock." Critics do not reveal that this report is from William Smith, one of Joseph's brother who was not a Book of Mormon witness. They also fail to tell us that William insisted in the same statement that he was convinced Joseph was not lying about the plates. William also dismissed the Spalding hypothesis as nonsense, but critics do not mention that either.
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=The three witnesses did not all see the plates or angel at the same time. Only David Whitmer and perhaps Oliver Cowdery saw the angel together. Martin Harris removed himself from the group and did not see the angel until perhaps three days later (Anthony Metcalf, Ten Years Before the Mast, n.d., microfilm copy, p. 70-71).
|think=
*Why is the fact that Martin's experience occurred later supposed to have meaning? This story is well documented in official Church sources.
|authorsources=
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=David Whitmer said "If you believe my testimony to the Book of Mormon; if you believe that God spake to us three witnesses by his own voice, then I tell you that in June, 1838, God spake to me again by his own voice from the heavens, and told me to separate myself from among the Latter-day Saints, for as they sought to do unto me, so should it be done unto them." So which statement was David Whitmer lying about or had been mistaken about? Either way he doesn't sound like a completely trustworthy witness.
|think=
*Why can't they both be true? God spoke to the three witnesses, and God told David Whitmer to leave in order to avoid being harmed. After all, Whitmer was more valuable as a Book of Mormon witness the longer he lived.
* David Whitmer was already out of the Church when he was told to "separate himself." Does MormonThink give the impression that David was being told to leave the Church? Why isn't it clear that he was being told to leave the area where members of the Church (motivated by vigilantism) were plotting to harm him?
* If David had been killed by vigilante Mormons at this point, couldn't critics now claim that he had abandoned or would have abandoned his testimony? Wouldn't God want to prevent that?
*Wasn't Whitmer even ''more'' valuable as a Book of Mormon witness ''after'' he left the Church, because he ''still'' didn't deny seeing the angel and the plates when he could have exposed the entire "scam."
*Why did Whitmer have his testimony of the Book of Mormon engraved on his tombstone? It reads: "The record of the Jews and the record of the Nephites are one."
|response=
|link=Book of Mormon/Witnesses/David Whitmer told to leave
|subject=Did God tell David Whitmer to leave the Church?
|summary=David Whitmer, one of the Book of Mormon's Three Witnesses, said "If you believe my testimony to the Book of Mormon; if you believe that God spake to us three witnesses by his own voice, then I tell you that in June, 1838, God spake to me again by his own voice from the heavens, and told me to "separate myself from among the Latter Day Saints, for as they sought to do unto me, should it be done unto them." Critics argues that if members accept Whitmer's witness of the Book of Mormon, then they must also accept that God wanted David to repudiate the Church as false. Critics distort the historical record to make it appear that David Whitmer left the Church because he was told to, when it fact he was excommunicated prior to claiming any revelation to do so. The command to leave, if it was a true revelation, involved David's physical safety and not his membership in the Church, which he had already renounced.
|authorsources=
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=All the witnesses had close ties to Joseph and his family. Some like Martin Harris had a substantial financial investment in the success of the Book of Mormon.
|think=
*Why didn't Martin expose the Book of Mormon as a scam after he lost his investment?
*Why didn't Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer and some of the eleven witnesses expose Joseph as a fraud after they left the Church?
*If they all knew together that it was a hoax, ''why didn't any one of them say anything?''
|response=
|link=Book of Mormon/Witnesses/"Interested"_and_so_not_to_be_trusted
|subject=Witnesses were "interested" and not to be trusted since they followed Joseph Smith
|summary=Critics claim that because the witnesses are "interested"—i.e., they were members of the Church and believers in Joseph's mission—they are therefore not reliable, since they cannot be "neutral" or "disinterested."
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=These men lived in the early 1800s and believed in magical things like many people did during that time period such as divining rods, second sight, magic, dreams, seer stones, etc. Some of the witnesses, especially Martin Harris, were easily swayed by tales of the supernatural, especially in a religious context.
|think=
*Then why did Martin Harris have a tendency to test Joseph and look for proof—he took the characters to Anthon, he secretly switched Joseph's seer stone, and he wanted to show his wife and friends the 116 pages as "proof"? Sounds like Martin wanted something tangible, doesn't it?
*Why not acknowledge that Martin believed in hard proof, and sought it repeatedly? He was willing to entertain the idea of the supernatural, but then everyone was. But he didn't believe credulously—he insisted and sought proof. He wanted proof so badly that he ''insisted'' on being a witness!
|response=
|authorsources=
|link=Book of Mormon/Witnesses/Martin Harris repeatedly sought empirical proof
|subject=Martin Harris repeatedly sought empirical proof
|summary=Critics claim that Martin Harris was a gullible believer in the supernatural. But, in fact, Martin repeatedly performed empirical tests to confirm Joseph Smith's claims. He came away convinced.
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=Many of the witnesses ended up leaving the church and following other leaders and religions such as James Strang, the Shakers, Methodists, etc. By 1847 not a single one of the surviving eleven witnesses was part of the LDS Church.
|think=
*Why didn't any of the eleven witnesses expose the fraud after they left the Church? Think about it. What possible motivation could there have been to keep the secret? They weren't making any money off the Book of Mormon, after all.
* MormonThink is quite crafty in picking "1847"—because, in 1848, Oliver Cowdery was rebaptized. Martin Harris would rejoin later and come to Utah (1870). David Whitmer would never rejoin the Church, but left more accounts than any other witness insisting that he had seen the angel and plates.
|response=
|authorsources=
|link=Book of Mormon/Witnesses/Eight witnesses
|subject=Eight witnesses
|summary=Critics have tried to argue that the Eight witnesses only claimed a 'spiritual' or 'visionary' view of the plates, not a literal, physical one. The witnesses left concrete statements regarding the physical nature of the plates. There were others besides the eleven who saw and felt the plates, and testified that they were real.
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=Of the witnesses that left the church, most believed that Joseph was at best a fallen prophet, the church changed its doctrines in error and changed revelations against God's will.
|think=
*Yes, they did, especially David Whitmer. So why didn't they simply deny that they ever saw an angel or the plates and blow the entire scam? Wouldn't that have made more sense?
|response=
|authorsources=
|link=Book of Mormon/Witnesses/Recant
|subject=Did the Book of Mormon witnesses ever recant?
|summary=Critics have tried to argue that some or all of the Witnesses recanted concerning their testimony. They were all faithful to their testimonies to the end of their lives, even though many of them had personal disagreements with Joseph Smith that caused them to leave the Church.
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=The witnesses, who have been heralded as good, honest, Abe Lincoln-type of men were later called liars, counterfeiters, thieves, etc. by Joseph Smith himself.
|think=
* If Joseph was running a scam, why did he dare do this? Why did he attack these men's later behavior in the strongest terms, if he knew they had the means to ruin him by exposing the fraud of the Book of Mormon?
* Why didn't the witnesses turn around an denounce Joseph as a liar about the angel and the Book of Mormon plates?
* If the witnesses stuck to their story even when alienated from and harshly criticized by Joseph, doesn't this strengthen their witness?
* Why does it seem like Joseph had no worries about these men denying their testimony? It seems like he knew they would feel bound to bear it, no matter what.
|response=
|link=Book of Mormon/Witnesses/Recant
|subject=Did the Book of Mormon witnesses ever recant?
|summary=Critics have tried to argue that some or all of the Witnesses recanted concerning their testimony. They were all faithful to their testimonies to the end of their lives, even though many of them had personal disagreements with Joseph Smith that caused them to leave the Church.
|authorsources=
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=The "testimony of the witnesses" is similar to testimonials which were commonly included in books etc. in those days to help spur sales. And of course, the BOM's producers originally intended to sell copies for $1.75 each.
|think=
*So, if the point was simply to "spur sales" of the Book of Mormon, why did the witnesses stick to their testimonies until they died? They certainly weren't hoping to get any profits from the book by that time, right?
*Come to think of it, what ''was'' the financial motivation for all of the other witnesses with regard to sales of the Book of Mormon? Martin Harris was the only one invested in it.
|response=
|authorsources=
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=All three witnesses believed that God Himself had told them (through Joseph Smith) that they had been specially chosen to testify to the world that they had seen the angel and the plates –– if they had enough faith. Martin Harris was even told the exact words he must use: Joseph Smith said he had a revelation in which the Lord commanded Harris to say, “I have seen the things which the Lord hath shown unto Joseph Smith Jun., and I know of a surety that they are true, for I have seen them.” And just to clinch the command, God threatened Martin Harris, saying, “But if he deny this he will break the covenant which he has before covenanted with me, and behold, he is condemned.” A personal promise (and a threat of condemnation) coming directly from God is bound to have a powerful influence on a person’s thinking!
|think=
*So, are they implying that Martin deliberately ''lied'' about seeing the plates because he was ''afraid of being condemned by God''?
*Why would Martin think that it was OK to break one of the ''ten commandments'' in order to avoid God's condemnation? Didn't the ten commandments come from God?
*Wouldn't Martin be more afraid of breaking the eighth commandment to not bear "false witness?"
*Why did Martin "stay scared" of God after leaving the Church? Why did he keep preaching the Book of Mormon and bearing his witness even when with other religious groups (much to those groups' irritation!)?
*Why would Martin believe these lines came from God unless he believed Joseph could really get revelation? Why would he fear the words of a presumed false prophet more than the ten commandments, Bible, and his own reputation?
|response=
|authorsources=
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=There are seven witnesses that say Solomon Spalding was the author of the Book of Mormon. Seven people wrote affidavits testifying that they had read early drafts of the Book of Mormon by author Solomon Spalding. In some ways they are more credible than the BOM witnesses as they each wrote their own account instead of merely signing a prepared statement.
|think=
*Do you find it amazing that so many of Joseph's neighbors had "recently" been reading the Book of Mormon when ex-Mormon Dr. Philastus Hurlbut stopped by to interview them?
*By the way, these people said that they had been reading the ''Book of Mormon'' by Joseph Smith, ''not'' "the Book of Mormon by author Solomon Spalding".
*Did you ever wonder why the unfinished Spalding manuscript doesn't resemble the Book of Mormon? It is published. You can actually read it. It doesn't contain the Book of Mormon names "Nephi" and "Lehi" that the "witnesses" said they did. Would you like to [[Criticism_of_Mormonism/Books/Mormonism_Unvailed/The_Hurlbut_affidavits#Spalding_manuscript_claims_and_reliability|read what the "witnesses" actually said]]?
*Do you think that maybe ex-Mormon Dr. Phiastus Hurlbut "helped" the Spalding "witnesses" with their testimonies, which coincidentally all sound so similar?
*Given that some of those providing affidavits couldn't even sign their names, ''then how is it that they were reading the Book of Mormon?'' And, how is it that they could write "their own account?" Don't you think their inability to read or write might make them vulnerable to having Hurlbut or others influence what was written in their names? The three and eight witnesses could all read and write.
*Do you wonder why, even though Eber D. Howe ''had'' the Spalding manuscript ''in his possession'' when including the Spalding affidavits in ''Mormonism Unvailed'', that he ''chose not to use it'' because it didn't actually support the story given in the affidavits?
*Is it simply convenient that Howe "lost" the actual Spalding manuscript after including the Spalding affidavits in his anti-Mormon book ''Mormonism Unvailed'' and it was not discovered again until years later?
|response=
|authorsources=
|link=Criticism_of_Mormonism/Books/Mormonism_Unvailed/The_Hurlbut_affidavits#Spalding_manuscript_claims_and_reliability
|subject=The Hurlbut Spalding affidavits
|summary=Joseph's neighbors claimed that Joseph had copied the Spalding manuscript
|link2=Book of Mormon/Authorship theories/Spalding manuscript
|subject2=Spalding manuscript
|summary2=Critics claim that Joseph Smith either plagiarized or relied upon a manuscript by Solomon Spaulding to write the Book of Mormon. There is a small group of critics who hold to the theory that the production of the Book of Mormon was a conspiracy involving Sidney Rigdon, Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery and others. These critics search for links between Spalding and Rigdon. Joseph Smith is assumed to have been Rigdon's pawn.
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=Here's the detailed accounts of several James Strang witnesses that seem very similar to the BOM witnesses: Testimony of Witnesses to the Voree Plates
|think=
*What is so extraordinary about this story? Seeing an angel is extraordinary, digging up some fake plates is not very extraordinary.
*Don't you find it extremely coincidental that the whole "buried plates" story is somewhat similar to Joseph Smith's story, years after the Book of Mormon was published?
*The Voree witnesses say nothing about angelic messengers and witnesses—if this sort of thing is so easy to fake, why didn't Strang work the same effect on his followers?
*Why did none of Joseph Smith's witnesses recant—even at severe persecution and ridicule, and even when leaving the Church—while some of Strang's recanted under far less pressure?
|link=Book of Mormon/Witnesses/Strangite parallels
|subject=Strangite parallels
|summary=Critics claim that break-off sects like James Strang's produced eyewitnesses of buried records, so Joseph's ability to do so is neither surprising nor persuasive. The Strangite witnesses were not all faithful, and some recanted and described the nature of the fraud perpetuated by Strang.
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=On November 5, 1975, seven men witnessed a spacecraft from another world hovering silently between tall pines in the Apache-Sitgreaves National forest of north-eastern Arizona. One of those men, Travis Walton, became an unwilling captive of an alien race when the other men fled in fear.
|think=
*We have a result of Joseph's efforts - the Book of Mormon itself. Show us the tangible evidence of alien abduction.
*We're comparing seeing ''space aliens'' with the Book of Mormon witnesses?? Really?
|response=
|authorsources=
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=Obviously both sets of witnesses cannot be correct. At least one set, possibly both sets, of witnesses were either lying or were mistaken or deceived. Which group is to be believed or are they both in error? We're not saying we believe the Spalding witnesses over the Book of Mormon witnesses, but it proves the point that just because a group of people claims something extraordinary happened to them, it doesn't make it so.
|think=
*The Spalding witnesses didn't claim that anything "extraordinary" happened to them - they claimed that Spalding had read them a manuscript. What's so extraordinary about that?
*Seeing an angel is ''extraordinary''—hearing a manuscript read is not.
*Why not mention that all of these Spalding witnesses testimonies came through Dr. Phiastus Hurlbut, and that they were published in the first true anti-Mormon work, ''Mormonism Unvailed'', by Eber D. Howe?
*Why not mention that the Spalding manuscript was in Howe's possession, but he didn't use it because it bore no resemblance to the Book of Mormon? And that it was lost for years only to turn up later, and that it can be read today and that it ''still'' doesn't resemble the Book of Mormon?
|response=
|authorsources=
|link=Criticism of Mormonism/Books/Mormonism Unvailed/The Hurlbut affidavits
|subject=The Hurlbut affidavits
|summary=Many of Joseph Smith’s friends and neighbors signed affidavits that accused him and his family of being lazy, indolent, undependable treasure-seekers.
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=There are many, many reported witnesses to UFOs, Bigfoot, the Lochness Monster, Abominable Snowman, alien abductions, gurus with magic powers,psychics, etc. There are literally hundreds of thousands of witnesses to these amazing phenomena. Should they be believed as well?
|think=
*Have any UFO's, Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster, the Abominable Snowman, aliens, gurus or psychics produced a work comparable to the Book of Mormon?
*Does it sound like someone here is throwing every oddball thing they can at the witnesses and hoping that something "sticks?"
|response=
|authorsources=
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=Just because three witnesses signed a statement saying they saw an angel, doesn't mean it really happened.
|think=
*Why then did these men put their reputations for the rest of their lives on the line by doing so...and by never denying it despite each one having a falling out with Joseph Smith. Think about that.
*That's the conclusion? To simply call the witnesses liars because you can't account for the numerous times that they reaffirmed their testimony?
|response=
|authorsources=
*None, of course. This is pure speculation in contradiction to what the witnesses themselves stated.
|link=Book of Mormon/Witnesses/Character
|subject=What was the character of the witnesses?
|summary=Critics charge that the witnesses cannot be trusted, or are unreliable, because they were unstable personalities, prone to enthusiasm and exaggeration. Evidence amply demonstrates that the formal witnesses of the Book of Mormon were men of good character and reputation, and were recognized as such by contemporary non-Mormons.
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=Faithful members would likely come up with explanations to counter these claims like the 3+8 witnesses signed a single statement because they so strongly agreed with their unified experience. However this comparison shows some of the inherent weaknesses of the using just witnesses to prove historical events. This also underscores the weaknesses in the BOM process to obtain witnesses to verify the BOM.
|think=
*A witness is "One who can give a firsthand account of something seen, heard, or experienced." That's what they did. ''That's what witnesses do''. That's why they call them "witnesses," because they witnessed the events that they are relating as part of history.
*What does MormonThink ''all'' history is based on? First person witnesses. People witness history, and they leave behind documents: journals, government records, art, etc. If you get rid of witnesses, then there's hardly any such thing as "history" at all. It is only very recently that we have things like photographs or video—and even these are records made by witnesses at the time.
|response=
|authorsources=
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=Why should we believe all the Book of Mormon witnesses over the sworn affidavits of over dozens of unrelated townspeople?
|think=
*Were any of these dozens of unrelated townspeople there when the angel was present? How would they know?
*Why are you comparing the witnesses to the plates to the Hurlbut-Howe affidavits anyway? One group said they saw the plates (and some an angel), the other group said that they heard a manuscript read.
*Why is it that when we try to verify matters in the affidavits that we ''can'' verify, they aren't confirmed? For example, those who wrote the affidavits claimed that the Spalding manuscript matched the Book of Mormon—but it doesn't, and even anti-Mormons abandoned this argument more than a century ago. So, why should we uncritically accept those claims in the affidavits that we ''can't'' verify?
|response=
|link=Book of Mormon/Authorship theories/Spalding manuscript/Critical rejection
|subject=Rejection of the Spaulding theory by critics of the Book of Mormon
|summary=Many ''critics'' of the Book of Mormon reject the Spaulding theory as unworkable. If Mormonism's most prominent critics find the Spalding theory unworkable, then what motivates those who tenuously hold to this theory and continue to pursue it?
|authorsources=
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=None of the witnesses should have been related to Joseph or each other. Most of the witnesses were either related or good friends. Having unrelated people as witnesses would be far more effective than using your brothers and father.
|think=
*Why should Joseph go off and find a bunch of total strangers to witness such a miracle? Wouldn't he want to have his family and friends share the experience? After all, he had not been allowed to show them the plates for many months.
*Who would you rather share such an amazing experience with? Your brother, or some total stranger who doubts everything you say?
|response=
|authorsources=
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=The witnesses should not have already been eager believers. There should have been some skeptics.
|think=
*Why would an angel show up for ''skeptics''? Are these men then supposed to immediately convert and risk their reputations by declaring to the world that they saw an angel?
|response=
|authorsources=
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=There should have been no financial motive. Martin Harris mortgaged his farm and invested at least $3,000 of his own money into printing the Book of Mormon, so of course he had incentive to 'promote' the book.
|think=
*Show how ''was'' the Book of Mormon supposed to get published? Was a printer supposed to magically do the work for free?
|response=
|authorsources=
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=Each of the witnesses should each have written their own testimony instead of merely signing a prepared statement written by Joseph. If the prepared document wasn't 100% accurate many people would simply sign it anyway as it would be too much of a hassle to have it completely rewritten by hand - especially in the 1800s.
|think=
*Really? Would it really have been "too much of a hassle" to completely rewrite ''one paragraph of text'' consisting of ''only 300 words?
*If you were going to be ''inaccurately'' quoted in a book for which you hoped to sell ''hundreds of copies'', wouldn't ''you'' have taken the time to insist that either the paragraph be rewritten or take the time to write your own version of it?
* Oliver Cowdery ''rewrote'' almost the entire manuscript of the Book of Mormon (the "printer's manuscript") so they would always have a copy of the translation in their possession. How likely is he to be put off from rewriting a 300 word document that he's going to sign as a solemn witness?
*Were people "in the 1800s" really ''less'' concerned with the accuracy of their signed statements than we are now? Think about it.
*If this was true, why didn't the witnesses complain about it, especially later when they were alienated from Joseph Smith? Instead, they consistently ''referred'' people to their statement and affirmed its accuracy.
* Remember that Joseph needed Oliver Cowdery and Martin Harris to act as scribes for the Book of Mormon (and David Whitmer helped a bit too). How likely is it that Joseph sat down and wrote out the statement for them to sign? Isn't it more likely that one or more was involved in at least acting as scribe, and that they may have even participated in drafting it? Oliver Cowdery would help draft some sections of the Doctrine and Covenants, for example.
*Where's MormonThink's evidence that Joseph wrote the statement with no input from the witnesses?
*Does it seem like MormonThink is grasping at straws?

|response=
|authorsources=
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=The witnesses should have been much more detailed about this amazing event. What did the angel look like? What exactly did he say? How did he speak? There are almost no details provided which can be analyzed and compared. If each witness had simply written their own account and provided significant details then their individual testimonies could corroborate each other.
|think=
*There are many later accounts by the witnesses that corroborate each other. Yet, MormonThink does not mention these, or consider that to increase the witnesses' credibility. Isn't this a double standard?
*If there were lots of details in the printed edition of the Book of Mormon, wouldn't MormonThink just turn around and claim that this close match was evidence of collusion? Or, they could always claim (without evidence) that Joseph wrote or dictated all the statements. It's easy to find "reasons" to dismiss evidence you don't want to accept.
*Does it seem like MormonThink is impossible to satisfy, no matter what evidence is presented?
|response=
|authorsources=
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=The witnesses should have been interviewed independently immediately after going public. They should have been interviewed the same way police do with witnesses to crimes or that investigators do with UFO cases. Ask questions to see if their stories match; How was the angel dressed? How tall was he? How did he speak?, etc.
|response=
|authorsources=
|think=
* And, if these things matched, would MormonThink be convinced?
* The Mormons are not to be blamed because the non-believing townfolk in Joseph's area didn't interview the witnesses the way MormonThink believes they should have been.
* If the interviews matched, couldn't MormonThink just use that as evidence that Joseph and the witnesses had conspired together to concoct a story? And, if the witnesses had different perspectives, wouldn't that be used as evidence they were making it up?
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=The witnesses should not have used subjective language and say strange things like comparing seeing the plates with seeing a city through a mountain or using spiritual eyes instead of their natural eyes to view physical plates
|think=
*Why not? How can anyone not describe their own experience in "subjective language?"
*The word "subjective" means "Proceeding from or taking place in a person's mind rather than the external world." How can one describe one's ''own experience'' in anything ''other'' than subjective terms?
|response=
|authorsources=
|link=Book of Mormon/Witnesses/"Eye of Faith" and "Spiritual Eye" statements by Martin Harris
|subject="Eye of Faith" and "Spiritual Eye" statements by Martin Harris
|summary=Martin Harris frequently told people that he did not see the golden plates and the angel with his natural eyes but rather with “spiritual eyes” or the “eye of faith.”
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=The witnesses should not have been gullible people that believed in things like 'second sight', divining rods, finding treasure by placing a rock in a hat, etc. That the Three Witnesses were a gullible sort is illustrated by an incident in July, 1837. Joseph had left on a five-week missionary tour to Canada, only to find on his return that all three of the Witnesses had joined a faction opposing him. This faction rallied around a young girl who claimed to be a seeress by virtue of a black stone in which she read the future. David Whitmer, Martin Harris, and Oliver Cowdery all pledged her their loyalty, and Frederick G. Williams, formerly Joseph's First Counselor, became her scribe. The girl seeress would dance herself into a state of exhaustion, fall to the floor, and burst forth with revelations. (See Lucy Smith: Biographical Sketches, pp. 211-213).
|think=
*Martin Harris was considered a wealthy man. How did he get that way if he was so gullible?
*Did the witnesses remain convinced that the girl was a prophet? Did they dedicate the rest of their lives to insisting that her experience was legitimate?
*By 1837, the witnesses were all opposed to and alienated against Joseph Smith. This incident illustrates that beautifully--so, why did they not follow up and finish off Joseph's destruction by admitting to the fraud?
*Members of the Church would not be surprised that those who apostatize can come to believe all sorts of absurd things to explain and justify their unbelief--MormonThink is, in fact, a good example of that phenomenon. This does not impact the truthfulness of the witnesses' accounts--in fact, it increases them since they would have been highly motivated to find a way to explain away what they had seen. But they did not.
|link=Book of Mormon/Witnesses/Recant
|subject=Did the Book of Mormon witnesses ever recant?
|summary=Critics have tried to argue that some or all of the Witnesses recanted concerning their testimony. They were all faithful to their testimonies to the end of their lives, even though many of them had personal disagreements with Joseph Smith that caused them to leave the Church.
|response=
|authorsources=
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=All of the witness should have been much more vocal and been interviewed much more often. There are very few interviews done with the witnesses that provide any additional information or corroboration of their statements. You would think that these people, after seeing such a magnificent sight, would spend their time testifying to the world about their experience instead of largely just signing a prepared statement and avoiding interviews by the media. Only three of the eight witnesses made separate statements that they had handled the plates. They were Joseph's two brothers, Hyrum and Samuel, and John Whitmer.
|think=
*What? You mean they didn't? There are many testimonies and statements of the witnesses—especially David Whitmer.
*So, are we supposed to believe that these men would simply put their lives on hold for the next 50 years or so and just continue talking about their experience endlessly?
*They gave all the detail that there was to be had—what more are you looking for? There are only so many ways to describe an angel and a set of plates.
*Who said that they avoided interviews with "the media" (a 20th-century term if there ever was one). There are well-documented interviews with some of the witnesses in "the media." (See, for example, {{Book:Cook:David Whitmer Interviews}})
|response=
|authorsources=
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=And of course it would have helped had all the witnesses remained loyal to the Church for the rest of their lives instead of having most of them abandon it later on. It doesn't make much sense to leave the one, true Church of God if you have really received an indisputable witness that it was true. Why would these people risk being cast in Outer Darkness for all eternity for denying what they KNEW to be true unless they maybe had some doubts or knew it really wasn't true?
|response=
|think=
*If the witnesses did not really see what they claimed to have seen, then why did they not expose the deception when they had their fallings out with Joseph Smith and the Church? Why didn't a single witness expose the sham?
*Why not correctly state that the witnesses were ''not'' witnesses of the "one, true Church of God?" They were witnesses to the angel and the existence of the gold plates. That is all. They never denied their witness.
*Isn't it more persuasive to be alienated from Joseph Smith and the Church, and yet continue to insist that you'd seen the plates (and, for the three, the angel)?
*If the witnesses had all remained faithful for their entire lives, wouldn't MormonThink now be claiming that they had a "vested interest" in sticking to their story?
*Do you get the feeling that MormonThink wants to get rid of the witnesses however they can—even if the arguments contradict each other, and even if the complaints don't make sense?
|authorsources=
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=It's also quite possible that Oliver was in on a deception with Joseph, assuming the BOM story isn't true. If so, he could have helped convince the others that they were seeing experiencing something not real, like the second-sight experiences many people had at the time.
|think=
*If Oliver was "in on a deception" with Joseph, then why didn't he expose the deception after he had his falling out with Joseph?
*Why did Oliver continue to hold to his story of being a witness of the plates?
*Why didn't Oliver denounce the statement signed by him in every copy of the Book of Mormon?
}}

=={{Endnotes label}}==
#{{note|whitmer.js3}}Interview with Joseph Smith III et al. (Richmond, Missouri, July 1884), originally published in The Saints' Herald (28 January 1936). Also quoted in Richard Lloyd Anderson, Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1981), p. 88.
#{{note|whimter.believers.9}}David Whitmer, [http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/An_Address_to_All_Believers_in_Christ/Part_First/Chapter_I|''An Address to All Believers in Christ''], 1887.
#{{note|william.smith.1}} William B. Smith, ''William Smith on Mormonism'' (Lamoni, Iowa: Herald Steam Book and Job Office, 1883), 5-19, emphasis added. Reproduced in {{Book:Vogel:EMD|vol=1|pages=497}}

Criticism of Mormonism/Websites/MormonThink/The Witnesses

2012-04-30T15:48:59Z

Awyatt: /* */

{{Articles FAIR copyright}} {{Articles Header 1}} {{Articles Header 2}} {{Articles Header 3}} {{Articles Header 4}} {{Articles Header 5}} {{Articles Header 6}} {{Articles Header 7}} {{Articles Header 8}} {{Articles Header 9}} {{Articles Header 10}}
__NOTOC__
{{FAIRAnalysisHeader
|title=[[../|MormonThink]]
|author=Anonymous
|noauthor=
|section=The Witnesses
|previous=[[../25 items that would allegedly "make the Church true"|25 items that would allegedly "make the Church true"]]
|next=[[../Index|Index]]
|notes=
This is a review of the MormonThink web page <nowiki>http://mormonthink.com/witnessesweb.htm</nowiki> as it existed on 4/29/2012. The text of this web page may have changed since it was reviewed.
}}
==A FAIR Analysis of MormonThink page "The Witnesses"==

==== ====
{{Website response summary|date=28 April 2012}}

'''The positions that the MormonThink article "The Witnesses" appears to take are the following:'''
*That the witnesses may have only seen the plates in a vision, despite their repeated assertions that they saw them with their own eyes.
*That some witnesses only saw the plates when they were covered, although none of the three or eight witnesses are included in this group.
*That the three witnesses did not all see the plates and the angel at the same time, although this is clearly taught in Church.
*Most of the witnesses left the Church (which is also clearly taught in Church), but for some reason failed to expose the scam.
*That many of the the witnesses had a falling out with Joseph Smith, yet for some reason they failed to expose the scam.
*That Joseph Smith at some point called the witnesses liars in matters unrelated to their view of the plates, yet for some reason they still failed to expose the scam.
*That the discovery of James Strang's Vorhee plates buried underground was somehow "extraordinary" on the same level as viewing an angel.
*That eyewitness testimony is not a reliable means to prove the occurrence of historical events, despite the fact that history is completely based upon such witness accounts.
*That the witnesses to the Book of Mormon should have been more vocal and been interviewed more often, in spite of the fact that they actually were.
*Oliver may have assisted Joseph in performing a deception, despite the fact that he never exposed the deception after he and Joseph had their falling out and Oliver left the Church.

==== ====
{{Website response label}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=The witnesses' experiences may have only been visionary in nature. There are many statements given by the witnesses that indicate they only saw the angel and the plates in a visionary experience. Why would people need to see real, physical plates in a vision or a real angel that was physically on the earth?
|think=
*David Whitmer said this: "No, sir! I was not under any hallucination, nor was I deceived! I saw with these eyes and I heard with these ears! I know whereof I speak!" {{ref|whitmer.js3}}
*And he said this: "'He that hath an ear to hear, let him hear;' it was no delusion! What is written is written, and he that readeth let him understand." {{ref|whitmer.believers.9}}
*Sounds like he was pretty definite, if you ask us.
|response=
|authorsources=
|link=Book of Mormon/Witnesses/Spiritual or literal
|subject=Were the experiences of the witnesses spiritual or literal?
|summary=Some critics suggest that the witnesses’ encounter with the angel and the plates took place solely in their minds. They claim that witnesses saw the angel in a “vision” and equate “vision” with imagination.
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=There are also several statements saying that the only time they saw the plates was when the plates were covered in a cloth or tow frock.
|think=
*Did you know that the "several statements" are all from William Smith, Joseph's brother, and that William ''was not one of the three or eight witnesses''?
*Why does MormonThink falsely imply that the statement about the plates being covered applies to the witnesses, when it does not?
*As MormonThink points out on the page, ''William Smith'' reported that he had handled and hefted the plates within a pillow case or tow frock and that he knew that his brother "translated the plates." William was not one of the witnesses, but he ''repeatedly'' reported having lifted the plates while they were covered.
*William made it clear in one of his statements that the family was not allowed to see the plates at first, but that Joseph later showed them to Hyrum, Joseph Sr., and Samuel Smith:

:::He ''then'' [after translating] showed the plates to my father and my brothers Hyrum and Samuel, who were witnesses to the truth of the book which was translated from them. I was permitted to lift them as they laid in a pillow-case; but not to see them [i.e., unlike the others who ''did'' see them as formal witnesses], as it was contrary to the commands he had received.{{ref|william.smith.1}}

*Why does MormonThink not include this part of the same statement?
*In the same interviews, William also dismissed the Spalding manuscript story as nonsense. MormonThink talks a lot about the Spalding manuscript below. Why do they not use William's witness on that score?
|authorsources=
*''A New Witness for Christ in America'' 2:416,417 (William Smith statement)
|response=
|authorsources=
|link=Book of Mormon/Witnesses/Spiritual or literal/Only handled when covered by a tow frock
|subject=Only handled when covered by a tow frock?
|summary=Some critics claim that the witnesses said they only handled the plates covered in a "tow frock." Critics do not reveal that this report is from William Smith, one of Joseph's brother who was not a Book of Mormon witness. They also fail to tell us that William insisted in the same statement that he was convinced Joseph was not lying about the plates. William also dismissed the Spalding hypothesis as nonsense, but critics do not mention that either.
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=The three witnesses did not all see the plates or angel at the same time. Only David Whitmer and perhaps Oliver Cowdery saw the angel together. Martin Harris removed himself from the group and did not see the angel until perhaps three days later (Anthony Metcalf, Ten Years Before the Mast, n.d., microfilm copy, p. 70-71).
|think=
*Why is the fact that Martin's experience occurred later supposed to have meaning? This story is well documented in official Church sources.
|authorsources=
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=David Whitmer said "If you believe my testimony to the Book of Mormon; if you believe that God spake to us three witnesses by his own voice, then I tell you that in June, 1838, God spake to me again by his own voice from the heavens, and told me to separate myself from among the Latter-day Saints, for as they sought to do unto me, so should it be done unto them." So which statement was David Whitmer lying about or had been mistaken about? Either way he doesn't sound like a completely trustworthy witness.
|think=
*Why can't they both be true? God spoke to the three witnesses, and God told David Whitmer to leave in order to avoid being harmed. After all, Whitmer was more valuable as a Book of Mormon witness the longer he lived.
* David Whitmer was already out of the Church when he was told to "separate himself." Does MormonThink give the impression that David was being told to leave the Church? Why isn't it clear that he was being told to leave the area where members of the Church (motivated by vigilantism) were plotting to harm him?
* If David had been killed by vigilante Mormons at this point, couldn't critics now claim that he had abandoned or would have abandoned his testimony? Wouldn't God want to prevent that?
*Wasn't Whitmer even ''more'' valuable as a Book of Mormon witness ''after'' he left the Church, because he ''still'' didn't deny seeing the angel and the plates when he could have exposed the entire "scam."
*Why did Whitmer have his testimony of the Book of Mormon engraved on his tombstone? It reads: "The record of the Jews and the record of the Nephites are one."
|response=
|link=Book of Mormon/Witnesses/David Whitmer told to leave
|subject=Did God tell David Whitmer to leave the Church?
|summary=David Whitmer, one of the Book of Mormon's Three Witnesses, said "If you believe my testimony to the Book of Mormon; if you believe that God spake to us three witnesses by his own voice, then I tell you that in June, 1838, God spake to me again by his own voice from the heavens, and told me to "separate myself from among the Latter Day Saints, for as they sought to do unto me, should it be done unto them." Critics argues that if members accept Whitmer's witness of the Book of Mormon, then they must also accept that God wanted David to repudiate the Church as false. Critics distort the historical record to make it appear that David Whitmer left the Church because he was told to, when it fact he was excommunicated prior to claiming any revelation to do so. The command to leave, if it was a true revelation, involved David's physical safety and not his membership in the Church, which he had already renounced.
|authorsources=
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=All the witnesses had close ties to Joseph and his family. Some like Martin Harris had a substantial financial investment in the success of the Book of Mormon.
|think=
*Why didn't Martin expose the Book of Mormon as a scam after he lost his investment?
*Why didn't Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer and some of the eleven witnesses expose Joseph as a fraud after they left the Church?
*If they all knew together that it was a hoax, ''why didn't any one of them say anything?''
|response=
|link=Book of Mormon/Witnesses/"Interested"_and_so_not_to_be_trusted
|subject=Witnesses were "interested" and not to be trusted since they followed Joseph Smith
|summary=Critics claim that because the witnesses are "interested"—i.e., they were members of the Church and believers in Joseph's mission—they are therefore not reliable, since they cannot be "neutral" or "disinterested."
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=These men lived in the early 1800s and believed in magical things like many people did during that time period such as divining rods, second sight, magic, dreams, seer stones, etc. Some of the witnesses, especially Martin Harris, were easily swayed by tales of the supernatural, especially in a religious context.
|think=
*Then why did Martin Harris have a tendency to test Joseph and look for proof—he took the characters to Anthon, he secretly switched Joseph's seer stone, and he wanted to show his wife and friends the 116 pages as "proof"? Sounds like Martin wanted something tangible, doesn't it?
*Why not acknowledge that Martin believed in hard proof, and sought it repeatedly? He was willing to entertain the idea of the supernatural, but then everyone was. But he didn't believe credulously—he insisted and sought proof. He wanted proof so badly that he ''insisted'' on being a witness!
|response=
|authorsources=
|link=Book of Mormon/Witnesses/Martin Harris repeatedly sought empirical proof
|subject=Martin Harris repeatedly sought empirical proof
|summary=Critics claim that Martin Harris was a gullible believer in the supernatural. But, in fact, Martin repeatedly performed empirical tests to confirm Joseph Smith's claims. He came away convinced.
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=Many of the witnesses ended up leaving the church and following other leaders and religions such as James Strang, the Shakers, Methodists, etc. By 1847 not a single one of the surviving eleven witnesses was part of the LDS Church.
|think=
*Why didn't any of the eleven witnesses expose the fraud after they left the Church? Think about it. What possible motivation could there have been to keep the secret? They weren't making any money off the Book of Mormon, after all.
* MormonThink is quite crafty in picking "1847"—because, in 1848, Oliver Cowdery was rebaptized. Martin Harris would rejoin later and come to Utah (1870). David Whitmer would never rejoin the Church, but left more accounts than any other witness insisting that he had seen the angel and plates.
|response=
|authorsources=
|link=Book of Mormon/Witnesses/Eight witnesses
|subject=Eight witnesses
|summary=Critics have tried to argue that the Eight witnesses only claimed a 'spiritual' or 'visionary' view of the plates, not a literal, physical one. The witnesses left concrete statements regarding the physical nature of the plates. There were others besides the eleven who saw and felt the plates, and testified that they were real.
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=Of the witnesses that left the church, most believed that Joseph was at best a fallen prophet, the church changed its doctrines in error and changed revelations against God's will.
|think=
*Yes, they did, especially David Whitmer. So why didn't they simply deny that they ever saw an angel or the plates and blow the entire scam? Wouldn't that have made more sense?
|response=
|authorsources=
|link=Book of Mormon/Witnesses/Recant
|subject=Did the Book of Mormon witnesses ever recant?
|summary=Critics have tried to argue that some or all of the Witnesses recanted concerning their testimony. They were all faithful to their testimonies to the end of their lives, even though many of them had personal disagreements with Joseph Smith that caused them to leave the Church.
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=The witnesses, who have been heralded as good, honest, Abe Lincoln-type of men were later called liars, counterfeiters, thieves, etc. by Joseph Smith himself.
|think=
* If Joseph was running a scam, why did he dare do this? Why did he attack these men's later behavior in the strongest terms, if he knew they had the means to ruin him by exposing the fraud of the Book of Mormon?
* Why didn't the witnesses turn around an denounce Joseph as a liar about the angel and the Book of Mormon plates?
* If the witnesses stuck to their story even when alienated from and harshly criticized by Joseph, doesn't this strengthen their witness?
* Why does it seem like Joseph had no worries about these men denying their testimony? It seems like he knew they would feel bound to bear it, no matter what.
|response=
|link=Book of Mormon/Witnesses/Recant
|subject=Did the Book of Mormon witnesses ever recant?
|summary=Critics have tried to argue that some or all of the Witnesses recanted concerning their testimony. They were all faithful to their testimonies to the end of their lives, even though many of them had personal disagreements with Joseph Smith that caused them to leave the Church.
|authorsources=
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=The "testimony of the witnesses" is similar to testimonials which were commonly included in books etc. in those days to help spur sales. And of course, the BOM's producers originally intended to sell copies for $1.75 each.
|think=
*So, if the point was simply to "spur sales" of the Book of Mormon, why did the witnesses stick to their testimonies until they died? They certainly weren't hoping to get any profits from the book by that time, right?
*Come to think of it, what ''was'' the financial motivation for all of the other witnesses with regard to sales of the Book of Mormon? Martin Harris was the only one invested in it.
|response=
|authorsources=
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=All three witnesses believed that God Himself had told them (through Joseph Smith) that they had been specially chosen to testify to the world that they had seen the angel and the plates –– if they had enough faith. Martin Harris was even told the exact words he must use: Joseph Smith said he had a revelation in which the Lord commanded Harris to say, “I have seen the things which the Lord hath shown unto Joseph Smith Jun., and I know of a surety that they are true, for I have seen them.” And just to clinch the command, God threatened Martin Harris, saying, “But if he deny this he will break the covenant which he has before covenanted with me, and behold, he is condemned.” A personal promise (and a threat of condemnation) coming directly from God is bound to have a powerful influence on a person’s thinking!
|think=
*So, are they implying that Martin deliberately ''lied'' about seeing the plates because he was ''afraid of being condemned by God''?
*Why would Martin think that it was OK to break one of the ''ten commandments'' in order to avoid God's condemnation? Didn't the ten commandments come from God?
*Wouldn't Martin be more afraid of breaking the eighth commandment to not bear "false witness?"
*Why did Martin "stay scared" of God after leaving the Church? Why did he keep preaching the Book of Mormon and bearing his witness even when with other religious groups (much to those groups' irritation!)?
*Why would Martin believe these lines came from God unless he believed Joseph could really get revelation? Why would he fear the words of a presumed false prophet more than the ten commandments, Bible, and his own reputation?
|response=
|authorsources=
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=There are seven witnesses that say Solomon Spalding was the author of the Book of Mormon. Seven people wrote affidavits testifying that they had read early drafts of the Book of Mormon by author Solomon Spalding. In some ways they are more credible than the BOM witnesses as they each wrote their own account instead of merely signing a prepared statement.
|think=
*Do you find it amazing that so many of Joseph's neighbors had "recently" been reading the Book of Mormon when ex-Mormon Dr. Philastus Hurlbut stopped by to interview them?
*By the way, these people said that they had been reading the ''Book of Mormon'' by Joseph Smith, ''not'' "the Book of Mormon by author Solomon Spalding".
*Did you ever wonder why the unfinished Spalding manuscript doesn't resemble the Book of Mormon? It is published. You can actually read it. It doesn't contain the Book of Mormon names "Nephi" and "Lehi" that the "witnesses" said they did. Would you like to [[Criticism_of_Mormonism/Books/Mormonism_Unvailed/The_Hurlbut_affidavits#Spalding_manuscript_claims_and_reliability|read what the "witnesses" actually said]]?
*Do you think that maybe ex-Mormon Dr. Phiastus Hurlbut "helped" the Spalding "witnesses" with their testimonies, which coincidentally all sound so similar?
*Given that some of those providing affidavits couldn't even sign their names, ''then how is it that they were reading the Book of Mormon?'' Don't you think this might make them vulnerable to having Hurlbut or others influence what they wrote? The three and eight witnesses could all read.
*Do you wonder why, even though Eber D. Howe ''had'' the Spalding manuscript ''in his possession'' when including the Spalding affidavits in ''Mormonism Unvailed'', that he ''chose not to use it'' because it didn't actually support the story given in the affidavits?
*Is it simply convenient that Howe "lost" the actual Spalding manuscript after including the Spalding affidavits in his anti-Mormon book ''Mormonism Unvailed'' and it was not discovered again until years later?
|response=
|authorsources=
|link=Criticism_of_Mormonism/Books/Mormonism_Unvailed/The_Hurlbut_affidavits#Spalding_manuscript_claims_and_reliability
|subject=The Hurlbut Spalding affidavits
|summary=Joseph's neighbors claimed that Joseph had copied the Spalding manuscript
|link2=Book of Mormon/Authorship theories/Spalding manuscript
|subject2=Spalding manuscript
|summary2=Critics claim that Joseph Smith either plagiarized or relied upon a manuscript by Solomon Spaulding to write the Book of Mormon. There is a small group of critics who hold to the theory that the production of the Book of Mormon was a conspiracy involving Sidney Rigdon, Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery and others. These critics search for links between Spalding and Rigdon. Joseph Smith is assumed to have been Rigdon's pawn.
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=Here's the detailed accounts of several James Strang witnesses that seem very similar to the BOM witnesses: Testimony of Witnesses to the Voree Plates
|think=
*What is so extraordinary about this story? Seeing an angel is extraordinary, digging up some fake plates is not very extraordinary.
*Don't you find it extremely coincidental that the whole "buried plates" story is somewhat similar to Joseph Smith's story, years after the Book of Mormon was published?
*The Voree witnesses say nothing about angelic messengers and witnesses—if this sort of thing is so easy to fake, why didn't Strang work the same effect on his followers?
*Why did none of Joseph Smith's witnesses recant—even at severe persecution and ridicule, and even when leaving the Church—while some of Strang's recanted under far less pressure?
|link=Book of Mormon/Witnesses/Strangite parallels
|subject=Strangite parallels
|summary=Critics claim that break-off sects like James Strang's produced eyewitnesses of buried records, so Joseph's ability to do so is neither surprising nor persuasive. The Strangite witnesses were not all faithful, and some recanted and described the nature of the fraud perpetuated by Strang.
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=On November 5, 1975, seven men witnessed a spacecraft from another world hovering silently between tall pines in the Apache-Sitgreaves National forest of north-eastern Arizona. One of those men, Travis Walton, became an unwilling captive of an alien race when the other men fled in fear.
|think=
*We have a result of Joseph's efforts - the Book of Mormon itself. Show us the tangible evidence of alien abduction.
*We're comparing seeing ''space aliens'' with the Book of Mormon witnesses?? Really?
|response=
|authorsources=
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=Obviously both sets of witnesses cannot be correct. At least one set, possibly both sets, of witnesses were either lying or were mistaken or deceived. Which group is to be believed or are they both in error? We're not saying we believe the Spalding witnesses over the Book of Mormon witnesses, but it proves the point that just because a group of people claims something extraordinary happened to them, it doesn't make it so.
|think=
*The Spalding witnesses didn't claim that anything "extraordinary" happened to them - they claimed that Spalding had read them a manuscript. What's so extraordinary about that?
*Seeing an angel is ''extraordinary''—hearing a manuscript read is not.
*Why not mention that all of these Spalding witnesses testimonies came through Dr. Phiastus Hurlbut, and that they were published in the first true anti-Mormon work, ''Mormonism Unvailed'', by Eber D. Howe?
*Why not mention that the Spalding manuscript was in Howe's possession, but he didn't use it because it bore no resemblance to the Book of Mormon? And that it was lost for years only to turn up later, and that it can be read today and that it ''still'' doesn't resemble the Book of Mormon?
|response=
|authorsources=
|link=Criticism of Mormonism/Books/Mormonism Unvailed/The Hurlbut affidavits
|subject=The Hurlbut affidavits
|summary=Many of Joseph Smith’s friends and neighbors signed affidavits that accused him and his family of being lazy, indolent, undependable treasure-seekers.
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=There are many, many reported witnesses to UFOs, Bigfoot, the Lochness Monster, Abominable Snowman, alien abductions, gurus with magic powers,psychics, etc. There are literally hundreds of thousands of witnesses to these amazing phenomena. Should they be believed as well?
|think=
*Have any UFO's, Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster, the Abominable Snowman, aliens, gurus or psychics produced a work comparable to the Book of Mormon?
*Does it sound like someone here is throwing every oddball thing they can at the witnesses and hoping that something "sticks?"
|response=
|authorsources=
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=Just because three witnesses signed a statement saying they saw an angel, doesn't mean it really happened.
|think=
*Why then did these men put their reputations for the rest of their lives on the line by doing so...and by never denying it despite each one having a falling out with Joseph Smith. Think about that.
*That's the conclusion? To simply call the witnesses liars because you can't account for the numerous times that they reaffirmed their testimony?
|response=
|authorsources=
*None, of course. This is pure speculation in contradiction to what the witnesses themselves stated.
|link=Book of Mormon/Witnesses/Character
|subject=What was the character of the witnesses?
|summary=Critics charge that the witnesses cannot be trusted, or are unreliable, because they were unstable personalities, prone to enthusiasm and exaggeration. Evidence amply demonstrates that the formal witnesses of the Book of Mormon were men of good character and reputation, and were recognized as such by contemporary non-Mormons.
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=Faithful members would likely come up with explanations to counter these claims like the 3+8 witnesses signed a single statement because they so strongly agreed with their unified experience. However this comparison shows some of the inherent weaknesses of the using just witnesses to prove historical events. This also underscores the weaknesses in the BOM process to obtain witnesses to verify the BOM.
|think=
*A witness is "One who can give a firsthand account of something seen, heard, or experienced." That's what they did. ''That's what witnesses do''. That's why they call them "witnesses," because they witnessed the events that they are relating as part of history.
*What does MormonThink ''all'' history is based on? First person witnesses. People witness history, and they leave behind documents: journals, government records, art, etc. If you get rid of witnesses, then there's hardly any such thing as "history" at all. It is only very recently that we have things like photographs or video—and even these are records made by witnesses at the time.
|response=
|authorsources=
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=Why should we believe all the Book of Mormon witnesses over the sworn affidavits of over dozens of unrelated townspeople?
|think=
*Were any of these dozens of unrelated townspeople there when the angel was present? How would they know?
*Why are you comparing the witnesses to the plates to the Hurlbut-Howe affidavits anyway? One group said they saw the plates (and some an angel), the other group said that they heard a manuscript read.
*Why is it that when we try to verify matters in the affidavits that we ''can'' verify, they aren't confirmed? For example, those who wrote the affidavits claimed that the Spalding manuscript matched the Book of Mormon—but it doesn't, and even anti-Mormons abandoned this argument more than a century ago. So, why should we uncritically accept those claims in the affidavits that we ''can't'' verify?
|response=
|link=Book of Mormon/Authorship theories/Spalding manuscript/Critical rejection
|subject=Rejection of the Spaulding theory by critics of the Book of Mormon
|summary=Many ''critics'' of the Book of Mormon reject the Spaulding theory as unworkable. If Mormonism's most prominent critics find the Spalding theory unworkable, then what motivates those who tenuously hold to this theory and continue to pursue it?
|authorsources=
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=None of the witnesses should have been related to Joseph or each other. Most of the witnesses were either related or good friends. Having unrelated people as witnesses would be far more effective than using your brothers and father.
|think=
*Why should Joseph go off and find a bunch of total strangers to witness such a miracle? Wouldn't he want to have his family and friends share the experience? After all, he had not been allowed to show them the plates for many months.
*Who would you rather share such an amazing experience with? Your brother, or some total stranger who doubts everything you say?
|response=
|authorsources=
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=The witnesses should not have already been eager believers. There should have been some skeptics.
|think=
*Why would an angel show up for ''skeptics''? Are these men then supposed to immediately convert and risk their reputations by declaring to the world that they saw an angel?
|response=
|authorsources=
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=There should have been no financial motive. Martin Harris mortgaged his farm and invested at least $3,000 of his own money into printing the Book of Mormon, so of course he had incentive to 'promote' the book.
|think=
*Show how ''was'' the Book of Mormon supposed to get published? Was a printer supposed to magically do the work for free?
|response=
|authorsources=
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=Each of the witnesses should each have written their own testimony instead of merely signing a prepared statement written by Joseph. If the prepared document wasn't 100% accurate many people would simply sign it anyway as it would be too much of a hassle to have it completely rewritten by hand - especially in the 1800s.
|think=
*Really? Would it really have been "too much of a hassle" to completely rewrite ''one paragraph of text'' consisting of ''only 300 words?
*If you were going to be ''inaccurately'' quoted in a book for which you hoped to sell ''hundreds of copies'', wouldn't ''you'' have taken the time to insist that either the paragraph be rewritten or take the time to write your own version of it?
* Oliver Cowdery ''rewrote'' almost the entire manuscript of the Book of Mormon (the "printer's manuscript") so they would always have a copy of the translation in their possession. How likely is he to be put off from rewriting a 300 word document that he's going to sign as a solemn witness?
*Were people "in the 1800s" really ''less'' concerned with the accuracy of their signed statements than we are now? Think about it.
*If this was true, why didn't the witnesses complain about it, especially later when they were alienated from Joseph Smith? Instead, they consistently ''referred'' people to their statement and affirmed its accuracy.
* Remember that Joseph needed Oliver Cowdery and Martin Harris to act as scribes for the Book of Mormon (and David Whitmer helped a bit too). How likely is it that Joseph sat down and wrote out the statement for them to sign? Isn't it more likely that one or more was involved in at least acting as scribe, and that they may have even participated in drafting it? Oliver Cowdery would help draft some sections of the Doctrine and Covenants, for example.
*Where's MormonThink's evidence that Joseph wrote the statement with no input from the witnesses?
*Does it seem like MormonThink is grasping at straws?

|response=
|authorsources=
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=The witnesses should have been much more detailed about this amazing event. What did the angel look like? What exactly did he say? How did he speak? There are almost no details provided which can be analyzed and compared. If each witness had simply written their own account and provided significant details then their individual testimonies could corroborate each other.
|think=
*There are many later accounts by the witnesses that corroborate each other. Yet, MormonThink does not mention these, or consider that to increase the witnesses' credibility. Isn't this a double standard?
*If there were lots of details in the printed edition of the Book of Mormon, wouldn't MormonThink just turn around and claim that this close match was evidence of collusion? Or, they could always claim (without evidence) that Joseph wrote or dictated all the statements. It's easy to find "reasons" to dismiss evidence you don't want to accept.
*Does it seem like MormonThink is impossible to satisfy, no matter what evidence is presented?
|response=
|authorsources=
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=The witnesses should have been interviewed independently immediately after going public. They should have been interviewed the same way police do with witnesses to crimes or that investigators do with UFO cases. Ask questions to see if their stories match; How was the angel dressed? How tall was he? How did he speak?, etc.
|response=
|authorsources=
|think=
* And, if these things matched, would MormonThink be convinced?
* The Mormons are not to be blamed because the non-believing townfolk in Joseph's area didn't interview the witnesses the way MormonThink believes they should have been.
* If the interviews matched, couldn't MormonThink just use that as evidence that Joseph and the witnesses had conspired together to concoct a story? And, if the witnesses had different perspectives, wouldn't that be used as evidence they were making it up?
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=The witnesses should not have used subjective language and say strange things like comparing seeing the plates with seeing a city through a mountain or using spiritual eyes instead of their natural eyes to view physical plates
|think=
*Why not? How can anyone not describe their own experience in "subjective language?"
*The word "subjective" means "Proceeding from or taking place in a person's mind rather than the external world." How can one describe one's ''own experience'' in anything ''other'' than subjective terms?
|response=
|authorsources=
|link=Book of Mormon/Witnesses/"Eye of Faith" and "Spiritual Eye" statements by Martin Harris
|subject="Eye of Faith" and "Spiritual Eye" statements by Martin Harris
|summary=Martin Harris frequently told people that he did not see the golden plates and the angel with his natural eyes but rather with “spiritual eyes” or the “eye of faith.”
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=The witnesses should not have been gullible people that believed in things like 'second sight', divining rods, finding treasure by placing a rock in a hat, etc. That the Three Witnesses were a gullible sort is illustrated by an incident in July, 1837. Joseph had left on a five-week missionary tour to Canada, only to find on his return that all three of the Witnesses had joined a faction opposing him. This faction rallied around a young girl who claimed to be a seeress by virtue of a black stone in which she read the future. David Whitmer, Martin Harris, and Oliver Cowdery all pledged her their loyalty, and Frederick G. Williams, formerly Joseph's First Counselor, became her scribe. The girl seeress would dance herself into a state of exhaustion, fall to the floor, and burst forth with revelations. (See Lucy Smith: Biographical Sketches, pp. 211-213).
|think=
*Martin Harris was considered a wealthy man. How did he get that way if he was so gullible?
*Did the witnesses remain convinced that the girl was a prophet? Did they dedicate the rest of their lives to insisting that her experience was legitimate?
*By 1837, the witnesses were all opposed to and alienated against Joseph Smith. This incident illustrates that beautifully--so, why did they not follow up and finish off Joseph's destruction by admitting to the fraud?
*Members of the Church would not be surprised that those who apostatize can come to believe all sorts of absurd things to explain and justify their unbelief--MormonThink is, in fact, a good example of that phenomenon. This does not impact the truthfulness of the witnesses' accounts--in fact, it increases them since they would have been highly motivated to find a way to explain away what they had seen. But they did not.
|link=Book of Mormon/Witnesses/Recant
|subject=Did the Book of Mormon witnesses ever recant?
|summary=Critics have tried to argue that some or all of the Witnesses recanted concerning their testimony. They were all faithful to their testimonies to the end of their lives, even though many of them had personal disagreements with Joseph Smith that caused them to leave the Church.
|response=
|authorsources=
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=All of the witness should have been much more vocal and been interviewed much more often. There are very few interviews done with the witnesses that provide any additional information or corroboration of their statements. You would think that these people, after seeing such a magnificent sight, would spend their time testifying to the world about their experience instead of largely just signing a prepared statement and avoiding interviews by the media. Only three of the eight witnesses made separate statements that they had handled the plates. They were Joseph's two brothers, Hyrum and Samuel, and John Whitmer.
|think=
*What? You mean they didn't? There are many testimonies and statements of the witnesses—especially David Whitmer.
*So, are we supposed to believe that these men would simply put their lives on hold for the next 50 years or so and just continue talking about their experience endlessly?
*They gave all the detail that there was to be had—what more are you looking for? There are only so many ways to describe an angel and a set of plates.
*Who said that they avoided interviews with "the media" (a 20th-century term if there ever was one). There are well-documented interviews with some of the witnesses in "the media." (See, for example, {{Book:Cook:David Whitmer Interviews}})
|response=
|authorsources=
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=And of course it would have helped had all the witnesses remained loyal to the Church for the rest of their lives instead of having most of them abandon it later on. It doesn't make much sense to leave the one, true Church of God if you have really received an indisputable witness that it was true. Why would these people risk being cast in Outer Darkness for all eternity for denying what they KNEW to be true unless they maybe had some doubts or knew it really wasn't true?
|response=
|think=
*If the witnesses did not really see what they claimed to have seen, then why did they not expose the deception when they had their fallings out with Joseph Smith and the Church? Why didn't a single witness expose the sham?
*Why not correctly state that the witnesses were ''not'' witnesses of the "one, true Church of God?" They were witnesses to the angel and the existence of the gold plates. That is all. They never denied their witness.
*Isn't it more persuasive to be alienated from Joseph Smith and the Church, and yet continue to insist that you'd seen the plates (and, for the three, the angel)?
*If the witnesses had all remained faithful for their entire lives, wouldn't MormonThink now be claiming that they had a "vested interest" in sticking to their story?
*Do you get the feeling that MormonThink wants to get rid of the witnesses however they can—even if the arguments contradict each other, and even if the complaints don't make sense?
|authorsources=
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=It's also quite possible that Oliver was in on a deception with Joseph, assuming the BOM story isn't true. If so, he could have helped convince the others that they were seeing experiencing something not real, like the second-sight experiences many people had at the time.
|think=
*If Oliver was "in on a deception" with Joseph, then why didn't he expose the deception after he had his falling out with Joseph?
*Why did Oliver continue to hold to his story of being a witness of the plates?
*Why didn't Oliver denounce the statement signed by him in every copy of the Book of Mormon?
}}

=={{Endnotes label}}==
#{{note|whitmer.js3}}Interview with Joseph Smith III et al. (Richmond, Missouri, July 1884), originally published in The Saints' Herald (28 January 1936). Also quoted in Richard Lloyd Anderson, Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1981), p. 88.
#{{note|whimter.believers.9}}David Whitmer, [http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/An_Address_to_All_Believers_in_Christ/Part_First/Chapter_I|''An Address to All Believers in Christ''], 1887.
#{{note|william.smith.1}} William B. Smith, ''William Smith on Mormonism'' (Lamoni, Iowa: Herald Steam Book and Job Office, 1883), 5-19, emphasis added. Reproduced in {{Book:Vogel:EMD|vol=1|pages=497}}

Criticism of Mormonism/Websites/MormonThink/The Witnesses

2012-04-30T15:45:57Z

Awyatt: /* */

{{Articles FAIR copyright}} {{Articles Header 1}} {{Articles Header 2}} {{Articles Header 3}} {{Articles Header 4}} {{Articles Header 5}} {{Articles Header 6}} {{Articles Header 7}} {{Articles Header 8}} {{Articles Header 9}} {{Articles Header 10}}
__NOTOC__
{{FAIRAnalysisHeader
|title=[[../|MormonThink]]
|author=Anonymous
|noauthor=
|section=The Witnesses
|previous=[[../25 items that would allegedly "make the Church true"|25 items that would allegedly "make the Church true"]]
|next=[[../Index|Index]]
|notes=
This is a review of the MormonThink web page <nowiki>http://mormonthink.com/witnessesweb.htm</nowiki> as it existed on 4/29/2012. The text of this web page may have changed since it was reviewed.
}}
==A FAIR Analysis of MormonThink page "The Witnesses"==

==== ====
{{Website response summary|date=28 April 2012}}

'''The positions that the MormonThink article "The Witnesses" appears to take are the following:'''
*That the witnesses may have only seen the plates in a vision, despite their repeated assertions that they saw them with their own eyes.
*That some witnesses only saw the plates when they were covered, although none of the three or eight witnesses are included in this group.
*That the three witnesses did not all see the plates and the angel at the same time, although this is clearly taught in Church.
*Most of the witnesses left the Church (which is also clearly taught in Church), but for some reason failed to expose the scam.
*That many of the the witnesses had a falling out with Joseph Smith, yet for some reason they failed to expose the scam.
*That Joseph Smith at some point called the witnesses liars in matters unrelated to their view of the plates, yet for some reason they still failed to expose the scam.
*That the discovery of James Strang's Vorhee plates buried underground was somehow "extraordinary" on the same level as viewing an angel.
*That eyewitness testimony is not a reliable means to prove the occurrence of historical events, despite the fact that history is completely based upon such witness accounts.
*That the witnesses to the Book of Mormon should have been more vocal and been interviewed more often, in spite of the fact that they actually were.
*Oliver may have assisted Joseph in performing a deception, despite the fact that he never exposed the deception after he and Joseph had their falling out and Oliver left the Church.

==== ====
{{Website response label}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=The witnesses' experiences may have only been visionary in nature. There are many statements given by the witnesses that indicate they only saw the angel and the plates in a visionary experience. Why would people need to see real, physical plates in a vision or a real angel that was physically on the earth?
|think=
*David Whitmer said this: "No, sir! I was not under any hallucination, nor was I deceived! I saw with these eyes and I heard with these ears! I know whereof I speak!" {{ref|whitmer.js3}}
*And he said this: "'He that hath an ear to hear, let him hear;' it was no delusion! What is written is written, and he that readeth let him understand." {{ref|whitmer.believers.9}}
*Sounds like he was pretty definite, if you ask us.
|response=
|authorsources=
|link=Book of Mormon/Witnesses/Spiritual or literal
|subject=Were the experiences of the witnesses spiritual or literal?
|summary=Some critics suggest that the witnesses’ encounter with the angel and the plates took place solely in their minds. They claim that witnesses saw the angel in a “vision” and equate “vision” with imagination.
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=There are also several statements saying that the only time they saw the plates was when the plates were covered in a cloth or tow frock.
|think=
*Did you know that the "several statements" are all from William Smith, Joseph's brother, and that William ''was not one of the three or eight witnesses''?
*Why does MormonThink falsely imply that the statement about the plates being covered applies to the witnesses, when it does not?
*As MormonThink points out on the page, ''William Smith'' reported that he had handled and hefted the plates within a pillow case or tow frock and that he knew that his brother "translated the plates." William was not one of the witnesses, but he ''repeatedly'' reported having lifted the plates while they were covered.
*William made it clear in one of his statements that the family was not allowed to see the plates at first, but that Joseph later showed them to Hyrum, Joseph Sr., and Samuel Smith:

:::He ''then'' [after translating] showed the plates to my father and my brothers Hyrum and Samuel, who were witnesses to the truth of the book which was translated from them. I was permitted to lift them as they laid in a pillow-case; but not to see them [i.e., unlike the others who ''did'' see them as formal witnesses], as it was contrary to the commands he had received.{{ref|william.smith.1}}

*Why does MormonThink not include this part of the same statement?
*In the same interviews, William also dismissed the Spalding manuscript story as nonsense. MormonThink talks a lot about the Spalding manuscript below. Why do they not use William's witness on that score?
|authorsources=
*''A New Witness for Christ in America'' 2:416,417 (William Smith statement)
|response=
|authorsources=
|link=Book of Mormon/Witnesses/Spiritual or literal/Only handled when covered by a tow frock
|subject=Only handled when covered by a tow frock?
|summary=Some critics claim that the witnesses said they only handled the plates covered in a "tow frock." Critics do not reveal that this report is from William Smith, one of Joseph's brother who was not a Book of Mormon witness. They also fail to tell us that William insisted in the same statement that he was convinced Joseph was not lying about the plates. William also dismissed the Spalding hypothesis as nonsense, but critics do not mention that either.
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=The three witnesses did not all see the plates or angel at the same time. Only David Whitmer and perhaps Oliver Cowdery saw the angel together. Martin Harris removed himself from the group and did not see the angel until perhaps three days later (Anthony Metcalf, Ten Years Before the Mast, n.d., microfilm copy, p. 70-71).
|think=
*Why is the fact that Martin's experience occurred later supposed to have meaning? This story is well documented in official Church sources.
|authorsources=
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=David Whitmer said "If you believe my testimony to the Book of Mormon; if you believe that God spake to us three witnesses by his own voice, then I tell you that in June, 1838, God spake to me again by his own voice from the heavens, and told me to separate myself from among the Latter-day Saints, for as they sought to do unto me, so should it be done unto them." So which statement was David Whitmer lying about or had been mistaken about? Either way he doesn't sound like a completely trustworthy witness.
|think=
*Why can't they both be true? God spoke to the three witnesses, and God told David Whitmer to leave in order to avoid being harmed. After all, Whitmer was more valuable as a Book of Mormon witness the longer he lived.
* David Whitmer was already out of the Church when he was told to "separate himself." Does MormonThink give the impression that David was being told to leave the Church? Why isn't it clear that he was being told to leave the area where members of the Church (motivated by vigilantism) were plotting to harm him?
* If David had been killed by vigilante Mormons at this point, couldn't critics now claim that he had abandoned or would have abandoned his testimony? Wouldn't God want to prevent that?
*Wasn't Whitmer even ''more'' valuable as a Book of Mormon witness ''after'' he left the Church, because he ''still'' didn't deny seeing the angel and the plates when he could have exposed the entire "scam."
*Why did Whitmer have his testimony of the Book of Mormon engraved on his tombstone? It reads: "The record of the Jews and the record of the Nephites are one."
|response=
|link=Book of Mormon/Witnesses/David Whitmer told to leave
|subject=Did God tell David Whitmer to leave the Church?
|summary=David Whitmer, one of the Book of Mormon's Three Witnesses, said "If you believe my testimony to the Book of Mormon; if you believe that God spake to us three witnesses by his own voice, then I tell you that in June, 1838, God spake to me again by his own voice from the heavens, and told me to "separate myself from among the Latter Day Saints, for as they sought to do unto me, should it be done unto them." Critics argues that if members accept Whitmer's witness of the Book of Mormon, then they must also accept that God wanted David to repudiate the Church as false. Critics distort the historical record to make it appear that David Whitmer left the Church because he was told to, when it fact he was excommunicated prior to claiming any revelation to do so. The command to leave, if it was a true revelation, involved David's physical safety and not his membership in the Church, which he had already renounced.
|authorsources=
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=All the witnesses had close ties to Joseph and his family. Some like Martin Harris had a substantial financial investment in the success of the Book of Mormon.
|think=
*Why didn't Martin expose the Book of Mormon as a scam after he lost his investment?
*Why didn't Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer and some of the eleven witnesses expose Joseph as a fraud after they left the Church?
*If they all knew together that it was a hoax, ''why didn't any one of them say anything?''
|response=
|link=Book of Mormon/Witnesses/"Interested"_and_so_not_to_be_trusted
|subject=Witnesses were "interested" and not to be trusted since they followed Joseph Smith
|summary=Critics claim that because the witnesses are "interested"—i.e., they were members of the Church and believers in Joseph's mission—they are therefore not reliable, since they cannot be "neutral" or "disinterested."
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=These men lived in the early 1800s and believed in magical things like many people did during that time period such as divining rods, second sight, magic, dreams, seer stones, etc. Some of the witnesses, especially Martin Harris, were easily swayed by tales of the supernatural, especially in a religious context.
|think=
*Then why did Martin Harris have a tendency to test Joseph and look for proof—he took the characters to Anthon, he secretly switched Joseph's seer stone, and he wanted to show his wife and friends the 116 pages as "proof"? Sounds like Martin wanted something tangible, doesn't it?
*Why not acknowledge that Martin believed in hard proof, and sought it repeatedly? He was willing to entertain the idea of the supernatural, but then everyone was. But he didn't believe credulously—he insisted and sought proof. He wanted proof so badly that he ''insisted'' on being a witness!
|response=
|authorsources=
|link=Book of Mormon/Witnesses/Martin Harris repeatedly sought empirical proof
|subject=Martin Harris repeatedly sought empirical proof
|summary=Critics claim that Martin Harris was a gullible believer in the supernatural. But, in fact, Martin repeatedly performed empirical tests to confirm Joseph Smith's claims. He came away convinced.
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=Many of the witnesses ended up leaving the church and following other leaders and religions such as James Strang, the Shakers, Methodists, etc. By 1847 not a single one of the surviving eleven witnesses was part of the LDS Church.
|think=
*Why didn't any of the eleven witnesses expose the fraud after they left the Church? Think about it. What possible motivation could there have been to keep the secret? They weren't making any money off the Book of Mormon, after all.
* MormonThink is quite crafty in picking "1847"—because, in 1848, Oliver Cowdery was rebaptized. Martin Harris would rejoin later and come to Utah (1870). David Whitmer would never rejoin the Church, but left more accounts than any other witness insisting that he had seen the angel and plates.
|response=
|authorsources=
|link=Book of Mormon/Witnesses/Eight witnesses
|subject=Eight witnesses
|summary=Critics have tried to argue that the Eight witnesses only claimed a 'spiritual' or 'visionary' view of the plates, not a literal, physical one. The witnesses left concrete statements regarding the physical nature of the plates. There were others besides the eleven who saw and felt the plates, and testified that they were real.
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=Of the witnesses that left the church, most believed that Joseph was at best a fallen prophet, the church changed its doctrines in error and changed revelations against God's will.
|think=
*Yes, they did, especially David Whitmer. So why didn't they simply deny that they ever saw an angel or the plates and blow the entire scam? Wouldn't that have made more sense?
|response=
|authorsources=
|link=Book of Mormon/Witnesses/Recant
|subject=Did the Book of Mormon witnesses ever recant?
|summary=Critics have tried to argue that some or all of the Witnesses recanted concerning their testimony. They were all faithful to their testimonies to the end of their lives, even though many of them had personal disagreements with Joseph Smith that caused them to leave the Church.
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=The witnesses, who have been heralded as good, honest, Abe Lincoln-type of men were later called liars, counterfeiters, thieves, etc. by Joseph Smith himself.
|think=
* If Joseph was running a scam, why did he dare do this? Why did he attack these men's later behavior in the strongest terms, if he knew they had the means to ruin him by exposing the fraud of the Book of Mormon?
* Why didn't the witnesses turn around an denounce Joseph as a liar about the angel and the Book of Mormon plates?
* If the witnesses stuck to their story even when alienated from and harshly criticized by Joseph, doesn't this strengthen their witness?
* Why does it seem like Joseph had no worries about these men denying their testimony? It seems like he knew they would feel bound to bear it, no matter what.
|response=
|link=Book of Mormon/Witnesses/Recant
|subject=Did the Book of Mormon witnesses ever recant?
|summary=Critics have tried to argue that some or all of the Witnesses recanted concerning their testimony. They were all faithful to their testimonies to the end of their lives, even though many of them had personal disagreements with Joseph Smith that caused them to leave the Church.
|authorsources=
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=The "testimony of the witnesses" is similar to testimonials which were commonly included in books etc. in those days to help spur sales. And of course, the BOM's producers originally intended to sell copies for $1.75 each.
|think=
*So, if the point was simply to "spur sales" of the Book of Mormon, why did the witnesses stick to their testimonies until they died? They certainly weren't hoping to get any profits from the book by that time, right?
*Come to think of it, what ''was'' the financial motivation for all of the other witnesses with regard to sales of the Book of Mormon? Martin Harris was the only one invested in it.
|response=
|authorsources=
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=All three witnesses believed that God Himself had told them (through Joseph Smith) that they had been specially chosen to testify to the world that they had seen the angel and the plates –– if they had enough faith. Martin Harris was even told the exact words he must use: Joseph Smith said he had a revelation in which the Lord commanded Harris to say, “I have seen the things which the Lord hath shown unto Joseph Smith Jun., and I know of a surety that they are true, for I have seen them.” And just to clinch the command, God threatened Martin Harris, saying, “But if he deny this he will break the covenant which he has before covenanted with me, and behold, he is condemned.” A personal promise (and a threat of condemnation) coming directly from God is bound to have a powerful influence on a person’s thinking!
|think=
*So, are they implying that Martin deliberately ''lied'' about seeing the plates because he was ''afraid of being condemned by God''?
*Why would Martin think that it was OK to break one of the ''ten commandments'' in order to avoid God's condemnation? Didn't the ten commandments come from God?
*Wouldn't Martin be more afraid of breaking the eight commandment to not bear "false witness?"
*Why did Martin "stay scared" of God after leaving the Church? Why did he keep preaching the Book of Mormon and bearing his witness even when with other religious groups (much to their irritation!)?
*Why would Martin believe these lines came from God unless he believed Joseph could really get revelation? Why would he fear the words of a false prophet more than the ten commandments, Bible, and his own reputation?
|response=
|authorsources=
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=There are seven witnesses that say Solomon Spalding was the author of the Book of Mormon. Seven people wrote affidavits testifying that they had read early drafts of the Book of Mormon by author Solomon Spalding. In some ways they are more credible than the BOM witnesses as they each wrote their own account instead of merely signing a prepared statement.
|think=
*Do you find it amazing that so many of Joseph's neighbors had "recently" been reading the Book of Mormon when ex-Mormon Dr. Philastus Hurlbut stopped by to interview them?
*By the way, these people said that they had been reading the ''Book of Mormon'' by Joseph Smith, ''not'' "the Book of Mormon by author Solomon Spalding".
*Did you ever wonder why the unfinished Spalding manuscript doesn't resemble the Book of Mormon? It is published. You can actually read it. It doesn't contain the Book of Mormon names "Nephi" and "Lehi" that the "witnesses" said they did. Would you like to [[Criticism_of_Mormonism/Books/Mormonism_Unvailed/The_Hurlbut_affidavits#Spalding_manuscript_claims_and_reliability|read what the "witnesses" actually said]]?
*Do you think that maybe ex-Mormon Dr. Phiastus Hurlbut "helped" the Spalding "witnesses" with their testimonies, which coincidentally all sound so similar?
*Given that some of those providing affidavits couldn't even sign their names, ''then how is it that they were reading the Book of Mormon?'' Don't you think this might make them vulnerable to having Hurlbut or others influence what they wrote? The three and eight witnesses could all read.
*Do you wonder why, even though Eber D. Howe ''had'' the Spalding manuscript ''in his possession'' when including the Spalding affidavits in ''Mormonism Unvailed'', that he ''chose not to use it'' because it didn't actually support the story given in the affidavits?
*Is it simply convenient that Howe "lost" the actual Spalding manuscript after including the Spalding affidavits in his anti-Mormon book ''Mormonism Unvailed'' and it was not discovered again until years later?
|response=
|authorsources=
|link=Criticism_of_Mormonism/Books/Mormonism_Unvailed/The_Hurlbut_affidavits#Spalding_manuscript_claims_and_reliability
|subject=The Hurlbut Spalding affidavits
|summary=Joseph's neighbors claimed that Joseph had copied the Spalding manuscript
|link2=Book of Mormon/Authorship theories/Spalding manuscript
|subject2=Spalding manuscript
|summary2=Critics claim that Joseph Smith either plagiarized or relied upon a manuscript by Solomon Spaulding to write the Book of Mormon. There is a small group of critics who hold to the theory that the production of the Book of Mormon was a conspiracy involving Sidney Rigdon, Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery and others. These critics search for links between Spalding and Rigdon. Joseph Smith is assumed to have been Rigdon's pawn.
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=Here's the detailed accounts of several James Strang witnesses that seem very similar to the BOM witnesses: Testimony of Witnesses to the Voree Plates
|think=
*What is so extraordinary about this story? Seeing an angel is extraordinary, digging up some fake plates is not very extraordinary.
*Don't you find it extremely coincidental that the whole "buried plates" story is somewhat similar to Joseph Smith's story, years after the Book of Mormon was published?
*The Voree witnesses say nothing about angelic messengers and witnesses—if this sort of thing is so easy to fake, why didn't Strang work the same effect on his followers?
*Why did none of Joseph Smith's witnesses recant—even at severe persecution and ridicule, and even when leaving the Church—while some of Strang's recanted under far less pressure?
|link=Book of Mormon/Witnesses/Strangite parallels
|subject=Strangite parallels
|summary=Critics claim that break-off sects like James Strang's produced eyewitnesses of buried records, so Joseph's ability to do so is neither surprising nor persuasive. The Strangite witnesses were not all faithful, and some recanted and described the nature of the fraud perpetuated by Strang.
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=On November 5, 1975, seven men witnessed a spacecraft from another world hovering silently between tall pines in the Apache-Sitgreaves National forest of north-eastern Arizona. One of those men, Travis Walton, became an unwilling captive of an alien race when the other men fled in fear.
|think=
*We have a result of Joseph's efforts - the Book of Mormon itself. Show us the tangible evidence of alien abduction.
*We're comparing seeing ''space aliens'' with the Book of Mormon witnesses?? Really?
|response=
|authorsources=
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=Obviously both sets of witnesses cannot be correct. At least one set, possibly both sets, of witnesses were either lying or were mistaken or deceived. Which group is to be believed or are they both in error? We're not saying we believe the Spalding witnesses over the Book of Mormon witnesses, but it proves the point that just because a group of people claims something extraordinary happened to them, it doesn't make it so.
|think=
*The Spalding witnesses didn't claim that anything "extraordinary" happened to them - they claimed that Spalding had read them a manuscript. What's so extraordinary about that?
*Seeing an angel is ''extraordinary''—hearing a manuscript read is not.
*Why not mention that all of these Spalding witnesses testimonies came through Dr. Phiastus Hurlbut, and that they were published in the first true anti-Mormon work, ''Mormonism Unvailed'', by Eber D. Howe?
*Why not mention that the Spalding manuscript was in Howe's possession, but he didn't use it because it bore no resemblance to the Book of Mormon? And that it was lost for years only to turn up later, and that it can be read today and that it ''still'' doesn't resemble the Book of Mormon?
|response=
|authorsources=
|link=Criticism of Mormonism/Books/Mormonism Unvailed/The Hurlbut affidavits
|subject=The Hurlbut affidavits
|summary=Many of Joseph Smith’s friends and neighbors signed affidavits that accused him and his family of being lazy, indolent, undependable treasure-seekers.
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=There are many, many reported witnesses to UFOs, Bigfoot, the Lochness Monster, Abominable Snowman, alien abductions, gurus with magic powers,psychics, etc. There are literally hundreds of thousands of witnesses to these amazing phenomena. Should they be believed as well?
|think=
*Have any UFO's, Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster, the Abominable Snowman, aliens, gurus or psychics produced a work comparable to the Book of Mormon?
*Does it sound like someone here is throwing every oddball thing they can at the witnesses and hoping that something "sticks?"
|response=
|authorsources=
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=Just because three witnesses signed a statement saying they saw an angel, doesn't mean it really happened.
|think=
*Why then did these men put their reputations for the rest of their lives on the line by doing so...and by never denying it despite each one having a falling out with Joseph Smith. Think about that.
*That's the conclusion? To simply call the witnesses liars because you can't account for the numerous times that they reaffirmed their testimony?
|response=
|authorsources=
*None, of course. This is pure speculation in contradiction to what the witnesses themselves stated.
|link=Book of Mormon/Witnesses/Character
|subject=What was the character of the witnesses?
|summary=Critics charge that the witnesses cannot be trusted, or are unreliable, because they were unstable personalities, prone to enthusiasm and exaggeration. Evidence amply demonstrates that the formal witnesses of the Book of Mormon were men of good character and reputation, and were recognized as such by contemporary non-Mormons.
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=Faithful members would likely come up with explanations to counter these claims like the 3+8 witnesses signed a single statement because they so strongly agreed with their unified experience. However this comparison shows some of the inherent weaknesses of the using just witnesses to prove historical events. This also underscores the weaknesses in the BOM process to obtain witnesses to verify the BOM.
|think=
*A witness is "One who can give a firsthand account of something seen, heard, or experienced." That's what they did. ''That's what witnesses do''. That's why they call them "witnesses," because they witnessed the events that they are relating as part of history.
*What does MormonThink ''all'' history is based on? First person witnesses. People witness history, and they leave behind documents: journals, government records, art, etc. If you get rid of witnesses, then there's hardly any such thing as "history" at all. It is only very recently that we have things like photographs or video—and even these are records made by witnesses at the time.
|response=
|authorsources=
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=Why should we believe all the Book of Mormon witnesses over the sworn affidavits of over dozens of unrelated townspeople?
|think=
*Were any of these dozens of unrelated townspeople there when the angel was present? How would they know?
*Why are you comparing the witnesses to the plates to the Hurlbut-Howe affidavits anyway? One group said they saw the plates (and some an angel), the other group said that they heard a manuscript read.
*Why is it that when we try to verify matters in the affidavits that we ''can'' verify, they aren't confirmed? For example, those who wrote the affidavits claimed that the Spalding manuscript matched the Book of Mormon—but it doesn't, and even anti-Mormons abandoned this argument more than a century ago. So, why should we uncritically accept those claims in the affidavits that we ''can't'' verify?
|response=
|link=Book of Mormon/Authorship theories/Spalding manuscript/Critical rejection
|subject=Rejection of the Spaulding theory by critics of the Book of Mormon
|summary=Many ''critics'' of the Book of Mormon reject the Spaulding theory as unworkable. If Mormonism's most prominent critics find the Spalding theory unworkable, then what motivates those who tenuously hold to this theory and continue to pursue it?
|authorsources=
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=None of the witnesses should have been related to Joseph or each other. Most of the witnesses were either related or good friends. Having unrelated people as witnesses would be far more effective than using your brothers and father.
|think=
*Why should Joseph go off and find a bunch of total strangers to witness such a miracle? Wouldn't he want to have his family and friends share the experience? After all, he had not been allowed to show them the plates for many months.
*Who would you rather share such an amazing experience with? Your brother, or some total stranger who doubts everything you say?
|response=
|authorsources=
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=The witnesses should not have already been eager believers. There should have been some skeptics.
|think=
*Why would an angel show up for ''skeptics''? Are these men then supposed to immediately convert and risk their reputations by declaring to the world that they saw an angel?
|response=
|authorsources=
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=There should have been no financial motive. Martin Harris mortgaged his farm and invested at least $3,000 of his own money into printing the Book of Mormon, so of course he had incentive to 'promote' the book.
|think=
*Show how ''was'' the Book of Mormon supposed to get published? Was a printer supposed to magically do the work for free?
|response=
|authorsources=
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=Each of the witnesses should each have written their own testimony instead of merely signing a prepared statement written by Joseph. If the prepared document wasn't 100% accurate many people would simply sign it anyway as it would be too much of a hassle to have it completely rewritten by hand - especially in the 1800s.
|think=
*Really? Would it really have been "too much of a hassle" to completely rewrite ''one paragraph of text'' consisting of ''only 300 words?
*If you were going to be ''inaccurately'' quoted in a book for which you hoped to sell ''hundreds of copies'', wouldn't ''you'' have taken the time to insist that either the paragraph be rewritten or take the time to write your own version of it?
* Oliver Cowdery ''rewrote'' almost the entire manuscript of the Book of Mormon (the "printer's manuscript") so they would always have a copy of the translation in their possession. How likely is he to be put off from rewriting a 300 word document that he's going to sign as a solemn witness?
*Were people "in the 1800s" really ''less'' concerned with the accuracy of their signed statements than we are now? Think about it.
*If this was true, why didn't the witnesses complain about it, especially later when they were alienated from Joseph Smith? Instead, they consistently ''referred'' people to their statement and affirmed its accuracy.
* Remember that Joseph needed Oliver Cowdery and Martin Harris to act as scribes for the Book of Mormon (and David Whitmer helped a bit too). How likely is it that Joseph sat down and wrote out the statement for them to sign? Isn't it more likely that one or more was involved in at least acting as scribe, and that they may have even participated in drafting it? Oliver Cowdery would help draft some sections of the Doctrine and Covenants, for example.
*Where's MormonThink's evidence that Joseph wrote the statement with no input from the witnesses?
*Does it seem like MormonThink is grasping at straws?

|response=
|authorsources=
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=The witnesses should have been much more detailed about this amazing event. What did the angel look like? What exactly did he say? How did he speak? There are almost no details provided which can be analyzed and compared. If each witness had simply written their own account and provided significant details then their individual testimonies could corroborate each other.
|think=
*There are many later accounts by the witnesses that corroborate each other. Yet, MormonThink does not mention these, or consider that to increase the witnesses' credibility. Isn't this a double standard?
*If there were lots of details in the printed edition of the Book of Mormon, wouldn't MormonThink just turn around and claim that this close match was evidence of collusion? Or, they could always claim (without evidence) that Joseph wrote or dictated all the statements. It's easy to find "reasons" to dismiss evidence you don't want to accept.
*Does it seem like MormonThink is impossible to satisfy, no matter what evidence is presented?
|response=
|authorsources=
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=The witnesses should have been interviewed independently immediately after going public. They should have been interviewed the same way police do with witnesses to crimes or that investigators do with UFO cases. Ask questions to see if their stories match; How was the angel dressed? How tall was he? How did he speak?, etc.
|response=
|authorsources=
|think=
* And, if these things matched, would MormonThink be convinced?
* The Mormons are not to be blamed because the non-believing townfolk in Joseph's area didn't interview the witnesses the way MormonThink believes they should have been.
* If the interviews matched, couldn't MormonThink just use that as evidence that Joseph and the witnesses had conspired together to concoct a story? And, if the witnesses had different perspectives, wouldn't that be used as evidence they were making it up?
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=The witnesses should not have used subjective language and say strange things like comparing seeing the plates with seeing a city through a mountain or using spiritual eyes instead of their natural eyes to view physical plates
|think=
*Why not? How can anyone not describe their own experience in "subjective language?"
*The word "subjective" means "Proceeding from or taking place in a person's mind rather than the external world." How can one describe one's ''own experience'' in anything ''other'' than subjective terms?
|response=
|authorsources=
|link=Book of Mormon/Witnesses/"Eye of Faith" and "Spiritual Eye" statements by Martin Harris
|subject="Eye of Faith" and "Spiritual Eye" statements by Martin Harris
|summary=Martin Harris frequently told people that he did not see the golden plates and the angel with his natural eyes but rather with “spiritual eyes” or the “eye of faith.”
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=The witnesses should not have been gullible people that believed in things like 'second sight', divining rods, finding treasure by placing a rock in a hat, etc. That the Three Witnesses were a gullible sort is illustrated by an incident in July, 1837. Joseph had left on a five-week missionary tour to Canada, only to find on his return that all three of the Witnesses had joined a faction opposing him. This faction rallied around a young girl who claimed to be a seeress by virtue of a black stone in which she read the future. David Whitmer, Martin Harris, and Oliver Cowdery all pledged her their loyalty, and Frederick G. Williams, formerly Joseph's First Counselor, became her scribe. The girl seeress would dance herself into a state of exhaustion, fall to the floor, and burst forth with revelations. (See Lucy Smith: Biographical Sketches, pp. 211-213).
|think=
*Martin Harris was considered a wealthy man. How did he get that way if he was so gullible?
*Did the witnesses remain convinced that the girl was a prophet? Did they dedicate the rest of their lives to insisting that her experience was legitimate?
*By 1837, the witnesses were all opposed to and alienated against Joseph Smith. This incident illustrates that beautifully--so, why did they not follow up and finish off Joseph's destruction by admitting to the fraud?
*Members of the Church would not be surprised that those who apostatize can come to believe all sorts of absurd things to explain and justify their unbelief--MormonThink is, in fact, a good example of that phenomenon. This does not impact the truthfulness of the witnesses' accounts--in fact, it increases them since they would have been highly motivated to find a way to explain away what they had seen. But they did not.
|link=Book of Mormon/Witnesses/Recant
|subject=Did the Book of Mormon witnesses ever recant?
|summary=Critics have tried to argue that some or all of the Witnesses recanted concerning their testimony. They were all faithful to their testimonies to the end of their lives, even though many of them had personal disagreements with Joseph Smith that caused them to leave the Church.
|response=
|authorsources=
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=All of the witness should have been much more vocal and been interviewed much more often. There are very few interviews done with the witnesses that provide any additional information or corroboration of their statements. You would think that these people, after seeing such a magnificent sight, would spend their time testifying to the world about their experience instead of largely just signing a prepared statement and avoiding interviews by the media. Only three of the eight witnesses made separate statements that they had handled the plates. They were Joseph's two brothers, Hyrum and Samuel, and John Whitmer.
|think=
*What? You mean they didn't? There are many testimonies and statements of the witnesses—especially David Whitmer.
*So, are we supposed to believe that these men would simply put their lives on hold for the next 50 years or so and just continue talking about their experience endlessly?
*They gave all the detail that there was to be had—what more are you looking for? There are only so many ways to describe an angel and a set of plates.
*Who said that they avoided interviews with "the media" (a 20th-century term if there ever was one). There are well-documented interviews with some of the witnesses in "the media." (See, for example, {{Book:Cook:David Whitmer Interviews}})
|response=
|authorsources=
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=And of course it would have helped had all the witnesses remained loyal to the Church for the rest of their lives instead of having most of them abandon it later on. It doesn't make much sense to leave the one, true Church of God if you have really received an indisputable witness that it was true. Why would these people risk being cast in Outer Darkness for all eternity for denying what they KNEW to be true unless they maybe had some doubts or knew it really wasn't true?
|response=
|think=
*If the witnesses did not really see what they claimed to have seen, then why did they not expose the deception when they had their fallings out with Joseph Smith and the Church? Why didn't a single witness expose the sham?
*Why not correctly state that the witnesses were ''not'' witnesses of the "one, true Church of God?" They were witnesses to the angel and the existence of the gold plates. That is all. They never denied their witness.
*Isn't it more persuasive to be alienated from Joseph Smith and the Church, and yet continue to insist that you'd seen the plates (and, for the three, the angel)?
*If the witnesses had all remained faithful for their entire lives, wouldn't MormonThink now be claiming that they had a "vested interest" in sticking to their story?
*Do you get the feeling that MormonThink wants to get rid of the witnesses however they can—even if the arguments contradict each other, and even if the complaints don't make sense?
|authorsources=
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=It's also quite possible that Oliver was in on a deception with Joseph, assuming the BOM story isn't true. If so, he could have helped convince the others that they were seeing experiencing something not real, like the second-sight experiences many people had at the time.
|think=
*If Oliver was "in on a deception" with Joseph, then why didn't he expose the deception after he had his falling out with Joseph?
*Why did Oliver continue to hold to his story of being a witness of the plates?
*Why didn't Oliver denounce the statement signed by him in every copy of the Book of Mormon?
}}

=={{Endnotes label}}==
#{{note|whitmer.js3}}Interview with Joseph Smith III et al. (Richmond, Missouri, July 1884), originally published in The Saints' Herald (28 January 1936). Also quoted in Richard Lloyd Anderson, Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1981), p. 88.
#{{note|whimter.believers.9}}David Whitmer, [http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/An_Address_to_All_Believers_in_Christ/Part_First/Chapter_I|''An Address to All Believers in Christ''], 1887.
#{{note|william.smith.1}} William B. Smith, ''William Smith on Mormonism'' (Lamoni, Iowa: Herald Steam Book and Job Office, 1883), 5-19, emphasis added. Reproduced in {{Book:Vogel:EMD|vol=1|pages=497}}

Criticism of Mormonism/Websites/MormonThink/The Witnesses

2012-04-30T15:44:02Z

Awyatt: /* */

{{Articles FAIR copyright}} {{Articles Header 1}} {{Articles Header 2}} {{Articles Header 3}} {{Articles Header 4}} {{Articles Header 5}} {{Articles Header 6}} {{Articles Header 7}} {{Articles Header 8}} {{Articles Header 9}} {{Articles Header 10}}
__NOTOC__
{{FAIRAnalysisHeader
|title=[[../|MormonThink]]
|author=Anonymous
|noauthor=
|section=The Witnesses
|previous=[[../25 items that would allegedly "make the Church true"|25 items that would allegedly "make the Church true"]]
|next=[[../Index|Index]]
|notes=
This is a review of the MormonThink web page <nowiki>http://mormonthink.com/witnessesweb.htm</nowiki> as it existed on 4/29/2012. The text of this web page may have changed since it was reviewed.
}}
==A FAIR Analysis of MormonThink page "The Witnesses"==

==== ====
{{Website response summary|date=28 April 2012}}

'''The positions that the MormonThink article "The Witnesses" appears to take are the following:'''
*That the witnesses may have only seen the plates in a vision, despite their repeated assertions that they saw them with their own eyes.
*That some witnesses only saw the plates when they were covered, although none of the three or eight witnesses are included in this group.
*That the three witnesses did not all see the plates and the angel at the same time, although this is clearly taught in Church.
*Most of the witnesses left the Church (which is also clearly taught in Church), but for some reason failed to expose the scam.
*That many of the the witnesses had a falling out with Joseph Smith, yet for some reason they failed to expose the scam.
*That Joseph Smith at some point called the witnesses liars in matters unrelated to their view of the plates, yet for some reason they still failed to expose the scam.
*That the discovery of James Strang's Vorhee plates buried underground was somehow "extraordinary" on the same level as viewing an angel.
*That eyewitness testimony is not a reliable means to prove the occurrence of historical events, despite the fact that history is completely based upon such witness accounts.
*That the witnesses to the Book of Mormon should have been more vocal and been interviewed more often, in spite of the fact that they actually were.
*Oliver may have assisted Joseph in performing a deception, despite the fact that he never exposed the deception after he and Joseph had their falling out and Oliver left the Church.

==== ====
{{Website response label}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=The witnesses' experiences may have only been visionary in nature. There are many statements given by the witnesses that indicate they only saw the angel and the plates in a visionary experience. Why would people need to see real, physical plates in a vision or a real angel that was physically on the earth?
|think=
*David Whitmer said this: "No, sir! I was not under any hallucination, nor was I deceived! I saw with these eyes and I heard with these ears! I know whereof I speak!" {{ref|whitmer.js3}}
*And he said this: "'He that hath an ear to hear, let him hear;' it was no delusion! What is written is written, and he that readeth let him understand." {{ref|whitmer.believers.9}}
*Sounds like he was pretty definite, if you ask us.
|response=
|authorsources=
|link=Book of Mormon/Witnesses/Spiritual or literal
|subject=Were the experiences of the witnesses spiritual or literal?
|summary=Some critics suggest that the witnesses’ encounter with the angel and the plates took place solely in their minds. They claim that witnesses saw the angel in a “vision” and equate “vision” with imagination.
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=There are also several statements saying that the only time they saw the plates was when the plates were covered in a cloth or tow frock.
|think=
*Did you know that the "several statements" are all from William Smith, Joseph's brother, and that William ''was not one of the three or eight witnesses''?
*Why does MormonThink falsely imply that the statement about the plates being covered applies to the witnesses, when it does not?
*As MormonThink points out on the page, ''William Smith'' reported that he had handled and hefted the plates within a pillow case or tow frock and that he knew that his brother "translated the plates." William was not one of the witnesses, but he ''repeatedly'' reported having lifted the plates while they were covered.
*William made it clear in one of his statements that the family was not allowed to see the plates at first, but that Joseph later showed them to Hyrum, Joseph Sr., and Samuel Smith:

:::He ''then'' [after translating] showed the plates to my father and my brothers Hyrum and Samuel, who were witnesses to the truth of the book which was translated from them. I was permitted to lift them as they laid in a pillow-case; but not to see them [i.e., unlike the others who ''did'' see them as formal witnesses], as it was contrary to the commands he had received.{{ref|william.smith.1}}

*Why does MormonThink not include this part of the same statement?
*In the same interviews, William also dismissed the Spalding manuscript story as nonsense. MormonThink talks a lot about the Spalding manuscript below. Why do they not use William's witness on that score?
|authorsources=
*''A New Witness for Christ in America'' 2:416,417 (William Smith statement)
|response=
|authorsources=
|link=Book of Mormon/Witnesses/Spiritual or literal/Only handled when covered by a tow frock
|subject=Only handled when covered by a tow frock?
|summary=Some critics claim that the witnesses said they only handled the plates covered in a "tow frock." Critics do not reveal that this report is from William Smith, one of Joseph's brother who was not a Book of Mormon witness. They also fail to tell us that William insisted in the same statement that he was convinced Joseph was not lying about the plates. William also dismissed the Spalding hypothesis as nonsense, but critics do not mention that either.
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=The three witnesses did not all see the plates or angel at the same time. Only David Whitmer and perhaps Oliver Cowdery saw the angel together. Martin Harris removed himself from the group and did not see the angel until perhaps three days later (Anthony Metcalf, Ten Years Before the Mast, n.d., microfilm copy, p. 70-71).
|think=
*Why is the fact that Martin's experience occurred later supposed to have meaning? This story is well documented in official Church sources.
|authorsources=
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=David Whitmer said "If you believe my testimony to the Book of Mormon; if you believe that God spake to us three witnesses by his own voice, then I tell you that in June, 1838, God spake to me again by his own voice from the heavens, and told me to separate myself from among the Latter-day Saints, for as they sought to do unto me, so should it be done unto them." So which statement was David Whitmer lying about or had been mistaken about? Either way he doesn't sound like a completely trustworthy witness.
|think=
*Why can't they both be true? God spoke to the three witnesses, and God told David Whitmer to leave in order to avoid being harmed. After all, Whitmer was more valuable as a Book of Mormon witness the longer he lived.
* David Whitmer was already out of the Church when he was told to "separate himself." Does MormonThink give the impression that David was being told to leave the Church? Why isn't it clear that he was being told to leave the area where members of the Church (motivated by vigilantism) were plotting to harm him?
* If David had been killed by vigilante Mormons at this point, couldn't critics now claim that he had abandoned or would have abandoned his testimony? Wouldn't God want to prevent that?
*Wasn't Whitmer even ''more'' valuable as a Book of Mormon witness ''after'' he left the Church, because he ''still'' didn't deny seeing the angel and the plates when he could have exposed the entire "scam."
*Why did Whitmer have his testimony of the Book of Mormon engraved on his tombstone? It reads: "The record of the Jews and the record of the Nephites are one."
|response=
|link=Book of Mormon/Witnesses/David Whitmer told to leave
|subject=Did God tell David Whitmer to leave the Church?
|summary=David Whitmer, one of the Book of Mormon's Three Witnesses, said "If you believe my testimony to the Book of Mormon; if you believe that God spake to us three witnesses by his own voice, then I tell you that in June, 1838, God spake to me again by his own voice from the heavens, and told me to "separate myself from among the Latter Day Saints, for as they sought to do unto me, should it be done unto them." Critics argues that if members accept Whitmer's witness of the Book of Mormon, then they must also accept that God wanted David to repudiate the Church as false. Critics distort the historical record to make it appear that David Whitmer left the Church because he was told to, when it fact he was excommunicated prior to claiming any revelation to do so. The command to leave, if it was a true revelation, involved David's physical safety and not his membership in the Church, which he had already renounced.
|authorsources=
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=All the witnesses had close ties to Joseph and his family. Some like Martin Harris had a substantial financial investment in the success of the Book of Mormon.
|think=
*Why didn't Martin expose the Book of Mormon as a scam after he lost his investment?
*Why didn't Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer and some of the eleven witnesses expose Joseph as a fraud after they left the Church?
*If they all knew together that it was a hoax, ''why didn't any one of them say anything?''
|response=
|link=Book of Mormon/Witnesses/"Interested"_and_so_not_to_be_trusted
|subject=Witnesses were "interested" and not to be trusted since they followed Joseph Smith
|summary=Critics claim that because the witnesses are "interested"—i.e., they were members of the Church and believers in Joseph's mission—they are therefore not reliable, since they cannot be "neutral" or "disinterested."
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=These men lived in the early 1800s and believed in magical things like many people did during that time period such as divining rods, second sight, magic, dreams, seer stones, etc. Some of the witnesses, especially Martin Harris, were easily swayed by tales of the supernatural, especially in a religious context.
|think=
*Then why did Martin Harris have a tendency to test Joseph and look for proof—he took the characters to Anthon, he secretly switched Joseph's seer stone, and he wanted to show his wife and friends the 116 pages as "proof"? Sounds like Martin wanted something tangible, doesn't it?
*Why not acknowledge that Martin believed in hard proof, and sought it repeatedly? He was willing to entertain the idea of the supernatural, but then everyone was. But he didn't believe credulously—he insisted and sought proof. He wanted proof so badly that he ''insisted'' on being a witness!
|response=
|authorsources=
|link=Book of Mormon/Witnesses/Martin Harris repeatedly sought empirical proof
|subject=Martin Harris repeatedly sought empirical proof
|summary=Critics claim that Martin Harris was a gullible believer in the supernatural. But, in fact, Martin repeatedly performed empirical tests to confirm Joseph Smith's claims. He came away convinced.
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=Many of the witnesses ended up leaving the church and following other leaders and religions such as James Strang, the Shakers, Methodists, etc. By 1847 not a single one of the surviving eleven witnesses was part of the LDS Church.
|think=
*Why didn't any of the eleven witnesses expose the fraud after they left the Church? Think about it. What possible motivation could there have been to keep the secret? They weren't making any money off the Book of Mormon, after all.
* MormonThink is quite crafty in picking "1847"—because, in 1848, Oliver Cowdery was rebaptized. Martin Harris would rejoin later and come to Utah (1870). David Whitmer would never rejoin the Church, but left more accounts than any other witness insisting that he had seen the angel and plates.
|response=
|authorsources=
|link=Book of Mormon/Witnesses/Eight witnesses
|subject=Eight witnesses
|summary=Critics have tried to argue that the Eight witnesses only claimed a 'spiritual' or 'visionary' view of the plates, not a literal, physical one. The witnesses left concrete statements regarding the physical nature of the plates. There were others besides the eleven who saw and felt the plates, and testified that they were real.
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=Of the witnesses that left the church, most believed that Joseph was at best a fallen prophet, the church changed its doctrines in error and changed revelations against God's will.
|think=
*Yes, they did, especially David Whitmer. So why didn't they simply deny that they ever saw an angel or the plates and blow the entire scam? Wouldn't that have made more sense?
|response=
|authorsources=
|link=Book of Mormon/Witnesses/Recant
|subject=Did the Book of Mormon witnesses ever recant?
|summary=Critics have tried to argue that some or all of the Witnesses recanted concerning their testimony. They were all faithful to their testimonies to the end of their lives, even though many of them had personal disagreements with Joseph Smith that caused them to leave the Church.
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=The witnesses, who have been heralded as good, honest, Abe Lincoln-type of men were later called liars, counterfeiters, thieves, etc. by Joseph Smith himself.
|think=
* If Joseph was running a scam, why did he dare do this? Why did he attack these men's later behavior in the strongest terms, if he knew they had the means to ruin him by exposing the fraud of the Book of Mormon?
* Why didn't the witnesses turn around an denounce Joseph as a liar about the angel and the Book of Mormon plates?
* If the witnesses stuck to their story even when alienated from and attacked by Joseph, doesn't this strengthen their witness?
* Why does it seem like Joseph had no worries about these men denying their testimony? It seems like he knew they would feel bound to bear it, no matter what.
|response=
|link=Book of Mormon/Witnesses/Recant
|subject=Did the Book of Mormon witnesses ever recant?
|summary=Critics have tried to argue that some or all of the Witnesses recanted concerning their testimony. They were all faithful to their testimonies to the end of their lives, even though many of them had personal disagreements with Joseph Smith that caused them to leave the Church.
|authorsources=
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=The "testimony of the witnesses" is similar to testimonials which were commonly included in books etc. in those days to help spur sales. And of course, the BOM's producers originally intended to sell copies for $1.75 each.
|think=
*So, if the point was simply to "spur sales" of the Book of Mormon, why did the witnesses stick to their testimonies until they died? They certainly weren't hoping to get any profits from the book by that time, right?
*Come to think of it, what ''was'' the financial motivation for all of the other witnesses with regard to sales of the Book of Mormon? Martin Harris was the only one invested in it.
|response=
|authorsources=
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=All three witnesses believed that God Himself had told them (through Joseph Smith) that they had been specially chosen to testify to the world that they had seen the angel and the plates –– if they had enough faith. Martin Harris was even told the exact words he must use: Joseph Smith said he had a revelation in which the Lord commanded Harris to say, “I have seen the things which the Lord hath shown unto Joseph Smith Jun., and I know of a surety that they are true, for I have seen them.” And just to clinch the command, God threatened Martin Harris, saying, “But if he deny this he will break the covenant which he has before covenanted with me, and behold, he is condemned.” A personal promise (and a threat of condemnation) coming directly from God is bound to have a powerful influence on a person’s thinking!
|think=
*So, are they implying that Martin deliberately ''lied'' about seeing the plates because he was ''afraid of being condemned by God''?
*Why would Martin think that it was OK to break one of the ''ten commandments'' in order to avoid God's condemnation? Didn't the ten commandments come from God?
*Wouldn't Martin be more afraid of breaking the eight commandment to not bear "false witness?"
*Why did Martin "stay scared" of God after leaving the Church? Why did he keep preaching the Book of Mormon and bearing his witness even when with other religious groups (much to their irritation!)?
*Why would Martin believe these lines came from God unless he believed Joseph could really get revelation? Why would he fear the words of a false prophet more than the ten commandments, Bible, and his own reputation?
|response=
|authorsources=
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=There are seven witnesses that say Solomon Spalding was the author of the Book of Mormon. Seven people wrote affidavits testifying that they had read early drafts of the Book of Mormon by author Solomon Spalding. In some ways they are more credible than the BOM witnesses as they each wrote their own account instead of merely signing a prepared statement.
|think=
*Do you find it amazing that so many of Joseph's neighbors had "recently" been reading the Book of Mormon when ex-Mormon Dr. Philastus Hurlbut stopped by to interview them?
*By the way, these people said that they had been reading the ''Book of Mormon'' by Joseph Smith, ''not'' "the Book of Mormon by author Solomon Spalding".
*Did you ever wonder why the unfinished Spalding manuscript doesn't resemble the Book of Mormon? It is published. You can actually read it. It doesn't contain the Book of Mormon names "Nephi" and "Lehi" that the "witnesses" said they did. Would you like to [[Criticism_of_Mormonism/Books/Mormonism_Unvailed/The_Hurlbut_affidavits#Spalding_manuscript_claims_and_reliability|read what the "witnesses" actually said]]?
*Do you think that maybe ex-Mormon Dr. Phiastus Hurlbut "helped" the Spalding "witnesses" with their testimonies, which coincidentally all sound so similar?
*Given that some of those providing affidavits couldn't even sign their names, ''then how is it that they were reading the Book of Mormon?'' Don't you think this might make them vulnerable to having Hurlbut or others influence what they wrote? The three and eight witnesses could all read.
*Do you wonder why, even though Eber D. Howe ''had'' the Spalding manuscript ''in his possession'' when including the Spalding affidavits in ''Mormonism Unvailed'', that he ''chose not to use it'' because it didn't actually support the story given in the affidavits?
*Is it simply convenient that Howe "lost" the actual Spalding manuscript after including the Spalding affidavits in his anti-Mormon book ''Mormonism Unvailed'' and it was not discovered again until years later?
|response=
|authorsources=
|link=Criticism_of_Mormonism/Books/Mormonism_Unvailed/The_Hurlbut_affidavits#Spalding_manuscript_claims_and_reliability
|subject=The Hurlbut Spalding affidavits
|summary=Joseph's neighbors claimed that Joseph had copied the Spalding manuscript
|link2=Book of Mormon/Authorship theories/Spalding manuscript
|subject2=Spalding manuscript
|summary2=Critics claim that Joseph Smith either plagiarized or relied upon a manuscript by Solomon Spaulding to write the Book of Mormon. There is a small group of critics who hold to the theory that the production of the Book of Mormon was a conspiracy involving Sidney Rigdon, Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery and others. These critics search for links between Spalding and Rigdon. Joseph Smith is assumed to have been Rigdon's pawn.
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=Here's the detailed accounts of several James Strang witnesses that seem very similar to the BOM witnesses: Testimony of Witnesses to the Voree Plates
|think=
*What is so extraordinary about this story? Seeing an angel is extraordinary, digging up some fake plates is not very extraordinary.
*Don't you find it extremely coincidental that the whole "buried plates" story is somewhat similar to Joseph Smith's story, years after the Book of Mormon was published?
*The Voree witnesses say nothing about angelic messengers and witnesses—if this sort of thing is so easy to fake, why didn't Strang work the same effect on his followers?
*Why did none of Joseph Smith's witnesses recant—even at severe persecution and ridicule, and even when leaving the Church—while some of Strang's recanted under far less pressure?
|link=Book of Mormon/Witnesses/Strangite parallels
|subject=Strangite parallels
|summary=Critics claim that break-off sects like James Strang's produced eyewitnesses of buried records, so Joseph's ability to do so is neither surprising nor persuasive. The Strangite witnesses were not all faithful, and some recanted and described the nature of the fraud perpetuated by Strang.
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=On November 5, 1975, seven men witnessed a spacecraft from another world hovering silently between tall pines in the Apache-Sitgreaves National forest of north-eastern Arizona. One of those men, Travis Walton, became an unwilling captive of an alien race when the other men fled in fear.
|think=
*We have a result of Joseph's efforts - the Book of Mormon itself. Show us the tangible evidence of alien abduction.
*We're comparing seeing ''space aliens'' with the Book of Mormon witnesses?? Really?
|response=
|authorsources=
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=Obviously both sets of witnesses cannot be correct. At least one set, possibly both sets, of witnesses were either lying or were mistaken or deceived. Which group is to be believed or are they both in error? We're not saying we believe the Spalding witnesses over the Book of Mormon witnesses, but it proves the point that just because a group of people claims something extraordinary happened to them, it doesn't make it so.
|think=
*The Spalding witnesses didn't claim that anything "extraordinary" happened to them - they claimed that Spalding had read them a manuscript. What's so extraordinary about that?
*Seeing an angel is ''extraordinary''—hearing a manuscript read is not.
*Why not mention that all of these Spalding witnesses testimonies came through Dr. Phiastus Hurlbut, and that they were published in the first true anti-Mormon work, ''Mormonism Unvailed'', by Eber D. Howe?
*Why not mention that the Spalding manuscript was in Howe's possession, but he didn't use it because it bore no resemblance to the Book of Mormon? And that it was lost for years only to turn up later, and that it can be read today and that it ''still'' doesn't resemble the Book of Mormon?
|response=
|authorsources=
|link=Criticism of Mormonism/Books/Mormonism Unvailed/The Hurlbut affidavits
|subject=The Hurlbut affidavits
|summary=Many of Joseph Smith’s friends and neighbors signed affidavits that accused him and his family of being lazy, indolent, undependable treasure-seekers.
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=There are many, many reported witnesses to UFOs, Bigfoot, the Lochness Monster, Abominable Snowman, alien abductions, gurus with magic powers,psychics, etc. There are literally hundreds of thousands of witnesses to these amazing phenomena. Should they be believed as well?
|think=
*Have any UFO's, Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster, the Abominable Snowman, aliens, gurus or psychics produced a work comparable to the Book of Mormon?
*Does it sound like someone here is throwing every oddball thing they can at the witnesses and hoping that something "sticks?"
|response=
|authorsources=
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=Just because three witnesses signed a statement saying they saw an angel, doesn't mean it really happened.
|think=
*Why then did these men put their reputations for the rest of their lives on the line by doing so...and by never denying it despite each one having a falling out with Joseph Smith. Think about that.
*That's the conclusion? To simply call the witnesses liars because you can't account for the numerous times that they reaffirmed their testimony?
|response=
|authorsources=
*None, of course. This is pure speculation in contradiction to what the witnesses themselves stated.
|link=Book of Mormon/Witnesses/Character
|subject=What was the character of the witnesses?
|summary=Critics charge that the witnesses cannot be trusted, or are unreliable, because they were unstable personalities, prone to enthusiasm and exaggeration. Evidence amply demonstrates that the formal witnesses of the Book of Mormon were men of good character and reputation, and were recognized as such by contemporary non-Mormons.
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=Faithful members would likely come up with explanations to counter these claims like the 3+8 witnesses signed a single statement because they so strongly agreed with their unified experience. However this comparison shows some of the inherent weaknesses of the using just witnesses to prove historical events. This also underscores the weaknesses in the BOM process to obtain witnesses to verify the BOM.
|think=
*A witness is "One who can give a firsthand account of something seen, heard, or experienced." That's what they did. ''That's what witnesses do''. That's why they call them "witnesses," because they witnessed the events that they are relating as part of history.
*What does MormonThink ''all'' history is based on? First person witnesses. People witness history, and they leave behind documents: journals, government records, art, etc. If you get rid of witnesses, then there's hardly any such thing as "history" at all. It is only very recently that we have things like photographs or video—and even these are records made by witnesses at the time.
|response=
|authorsources=
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=Why should we believe all the Book of Mormon witnesses over the sworn affidavits of over dozens of unrelated townspeople?
|think=
*Were any of these dozens of unrelated townspeople there when the angel was present? How would they know?
*Why are you comparing the witnesses to the plates to the Hurlbut-Howe affidavits anyway? One group said they saw the plates (and some an angel), the other group said that they heard a manuscript read.
*Why is it that when we try to verify matters in the affidavits that we ''can'' verify, they aren't confirmed? For example, those who wrote the affidavits claimed that the Spalding manuscript matched the Book of Mormon—but it doesn't, and even anti-Mormons abandoned this argument more than a century ago. So, why should we uncritically accept those claims in the affidavits that we ''can't'' verify?
|response=
|link=Book of Mormon/Authorship theories/Spalding manuscript/Critical rejection
|subject=Rejection of the Spaulding theory by critics of the Book of Mormon
|summary=Many ''critics'' of the Book of Mormon reject the Spaulding theory as unworkable. If Mormonism's most prominent critics find the Spalding theory unworkable, then what motivates those who tenuously hold to this theory and continue to pursue it?
|authorsources=
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=None of the witnesses should have been related to Joseph or each other. Most of the witnesses were either related or good friends. Having unrelated people as witnesses would be far more effective than using your brothers and father.
|think=
*Why should Joseph go off and find a bunch of total strangers to witness such a miracle? Wouldn't he want to have his family and friends share the experience? After all, he had not been allowed to show them the plates for many months.
*Who would you rather share such an amazing experience with? Your brother, or some total stranger who doubts everything you say?
|response=
|authorsources=
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=The witnesses should not have already been eager believers. There should have been some skeptics.
|think=
*Why would an angel show up for ''skeptics''? Are these men then supposed to immediately convert and risk their reputations by declaring to the world that they saw an angel?
|response=
|authorsources=
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=There should have been no financial motive. Martin Harris mortgaged his farm and invested at least $3,000 of his own money into printing the Book of Mormon, so of course he had incentive to 'promote' the book.
|think=
*Show how ''was'' the Book of Mormon supposed to get published? Was a printer supposed to magically do the work for free?
|response=
|authorsources=
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=Each of the witnesses should each have written their own testimony instead of merely signing a prepared statement written by Joseph. If the prepared document wasn't 100% accurate many people would simply sign it anyway as it would be too much of a hassle to have it completely rewritten by hand - especially in the 1800s.
|think=
*Really? Would it really have been "too much of a hassle" to completely rewrite ''one paragraph of text'' consisting of ''only 300 words?
*If you were going to be ''inaccurately'' quoted in a book for which you hoped to sell ''hundreds of copies'', wouldn't ''you'' have taken the time to insist that either the paragraph be rewritten or take the time to write your own version of it?
* Oliver Cowdery ''rewrote'' almost the entire manuscript of the Book of Mormon (the "printer's manuscript") so they would always have a copy of the translation in their possession. How likely is he to be put off from rewriting a 300 word document that he's going to sign as a solemn witness?
*Were people "in the 1800s" really ''less'' concerned with the accuracy of their signed statements than we are now? Think about it.
*If this was true, why didn't the witnesses complain about it, especially later when they were alienated from Joseph Smith? Instead, they consistently ''referred'' people to their statement and affirmed its accuracy.
* Remember that Joseph needed Oliver Cowdery and Martin Harris to act as scribes for the Book of Mormon (and David Whitmer helped a bit too). How likely is it that Joseph sat down and wrote out the statement for them to sign? Isn't it more likely that one or more was involved in at least acting as scribe, and that they may have even participated in drafting it? Oliver Cowdery would help draft some sections of the Doctrine and Covenants, for example.
*Where's MormonThink's evidence that Joseph wrote the statement with no input from the witnesses?
*Does it seem like MormonThink is grasping at straws?

|response=
|authorsources=
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=The witnesses should have been much more detailed about this amazing event. What did the angel look like? What exactly did he say? How did he speak? There are almost no details provided which can be analyzed and compared. If each witness had simply written their own account and provided significant details then their individual testimonies could corroborate each other.
|think=
*There are many later accounts by the witnesses that corroborate each other. Yet, MormonThink does not mention these, or consider that to increase the witnesses' credibility. Isn't this a double standard?
*If there were lots of details in the printed edition of the Book of Mormon, wouldn't MormonThink just turn around and claim that this close match was evidence of collusion? Or, they could always claim (without evidence) that Joseph wrote or dictated all the statements. It's easy to find "reasons" to dismiss evidence you don't want to accept.
*Does it seem like MormonThink is impossible to satisfy, no matter what evidence is presented?
|response=
|authorsources=
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=The witnesses should have been interviewed independently immediately after going public. They should have been interviewed the same way police do with witnesses to crimes or that investigators do with UFO cases. Ask questions to see if their stories match; How was the angel dressed? How tall was he? How did he speak?, etc.
|response=
|authorsources=
|think=
* And, if these things matched, would MormonThink be convinced?
* The Mormons are not to be blamed because the non-believing townfolk in Joseph's area didn't interview the witnesses the way MormonThink believes they should have been.
* If the interviews matched, couldn't MormonThink just use that as evidence that Joseph and the witnesses had conspired together to concoct a story? And, if the witnesses had different perspectives, wouldn't that be used as evidence they were making it up?
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=The witnesses should not have used subjective language and say strange things like comparing seeing the plates with seeing a city through a mountain or using spiritual eyes instead of their natural eyes to view physical plates
|think=
*Why not? How can anyone not describe their own experience in "subjective language?"
*The word "subjective" means "Proceeding from or taking place in a person's mind rather than the external world." How can one describe one's ''own experience'' in anything ''other'' than subjective terms?
|response=
|authorsources=
|link=Book of Mormon/Witnesses/"Eye of Faith" and "Spiritual Eye" statements by Martin Harris
|subject="Eye of Faith" and "Spiritual Eye" statements by Martin Harris
|summary=Martin Harris frequently told people that he did not see the golden plates and the angel with his natural eyes but rather with “spiritual eyes” or the “eye of faith.”
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=The witnesses should not have been gullible people that believed in things like 'second sight', divining rods, finding treasure by placing a rock in a hat, etc. That the Three Witnesses were a gullible sort is illustrated by an incident in July, 1837. Joseph had left on a five-week missionary tour to Canada, only to find on his return that all three of the Witnesses had joined a faction opposing him. This faction rallied around a young girl who claimed to be a seeress by virtue of a black stone in which she read the future. David Whitmer, Martin Harris, and Oliver Cowdery all pledged her their loyalty, and Frederick G. Williams, formerly Joseph's First Counselor, became her scribe. The girl seeress would dance herself into a state of exhaustion, fall to the floor, and burst forth with revelations. (See Lucy Smith: Biographical Sketches, pp. 211-213).
|think=
*Martin Harris was considered a wealthy man. How did he get that way if he was so gullible?
*Did the witnesses remain convinced that the girl was a prophet? Did they dedicate the rest of their lives to insisting that her experience was legitimate?
*By 1837, the witnesses were all opposed to and alienated against Joseph Smith. This incident illustrates that beautifully--so, why did they not follow up and finish off Joseph's destruction by admitting to the fraud?
*Members of the Church would not be surprised that those who apostatize can come to believe all sorts of absurd things to explain and justify their unbelief--MormonThink is, in fact, a good example of that phenomenon. This does not impact the truthfulness of the witnesses' accounts--in fact, it increases them since they would have been highly motivated to find a way to explain away what they had seen. But they did not.
|link=Book of Mormon/Witnesses/Recant
|subject=Did the Book of Mormon witnesses ever recant?
|summary=Critics have tried to argue that some or all of the Witnesses recanted concerning their testimony. They were all faithful to their testimonies to the end of their lives, even though many of them had personal disagreements with Joseph Smith that caused them to leave the Church.
|response=
|authorsources=
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=All of the witness should have been much more vocal and been interviewed much more often. There are very few interviews done with the witnesses that provide any additional information or corroboration of their statements. You would think that these people, after seeing such a magnificent sight, would spend their time testifying to the world about their experience instead of largely just signing a prepared statement and avoiding interviews by the media. Only three of the eight witnesses made separate statements that they had handled the plates. They were Joseph's two brothers, Hyrum and Samuel, and John Whitmer.
|think=
*What? You mean they didn't? There are many testimonies and statements of the witnesses—especially David Whitmer.
*So, are we supposed to believe that these men would simply put their lives on hold for the next 50 years or so and just continue talking about their experience endlessly?
*They gave all the detail that there was to be had—what more are you looking for? There are only so many ways to describe an angel and a set of plates.
*Who said that they avoided interviews with "the media" (a 20th-century term if there ever was one). There are well-documented interviews with some of the witnesses in "the media." (See, for example, {{Book:Cook:David Whitmer Interviews}})
|response=
|authorsources=
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=And of course it would have helped had all the witnesses remained loyal to the Church for the rest of their lives instead of having most of them abandon it later on. It doesn't make much sense to leave the one, true Church of God if you have really received an indisputable witness that it was true. Why would these people risk being cast in Outer Darkness for all eternity for denying what they KNEW to be true unless they maybe had some doubts or knew it really wasn't true?
|response=
|think=
*If the witnesses did not really see what they claimed to have seen, then why did they not expose the deception when they had their fallings out with Joseph Smith and the Church? Why didn't a single witness expose the sham?
*Why not correctly state that the witnesses were ''not'' witnesses of the "one, true Church of God?" They were witnesses to the angel and the existence of the gold plates. That is all. They never denied their witness.
*Isn't it more persuasive to be alienated from Joseph Smith and the Church, and yet continue to insist that you'd seen the plates (and, for the three, the angel)?
*If the witnesses had all remained faithful for their entire lives, wouldn't MormonThink now be claiming that they had a "vested interest" in sticking to their story?
*Do you get the feeling that MormonThink wants to get rid of the witnesses however they can—even if the arguments contradict each other, and even if the complaints don't make sense?
|authorsources=
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=It's also quite possible that Oliver was in on a deception with Joseph, assuming the BOM story isn't true. If so, he could have helped convince the others that they were seeing experiencing something not real, like the second-sight experiences many people had at the time.
|think=
*If Oliver was "in on a deception" with Joseph, then why didn't he expose the deception after he had his falling out with Joseph?
*Why did Oliver continue to hold to his story of being a witness of the plates?
*Why didn't Oliver denounce the statement signed by him in every copy of the Book of Mormon?
}}

=={{Endnotes label}}==
#{{note|whitmer.js3}}Interview with Joseph Smith III et al. (Richmond, Missouri, July 1884), originally published in The Saints' Herald (28 January 1936). Also quoted in Richard Lloyd Anderson, Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1981), p. 88.
#{{note|whimter.believers.9}}David Whitmer, [http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/An_Address_to_All_Believers_in_Christ/Part_First/Chapter_I|''An Address to All Believers in Christ''], 1887.
#{{note|william.smith.1}} William B. Smith, ''William Smith on Mormonism'' (Lamoni, Iowa: Herald Steam Book and Job Office, 1883), 5-19, emphasis added. Reproduced in {{Book:Vogel:EMD|vol=1|pages=497}}

Criticism of Mormonism/Websites/MormonThink/The Witnesses

2012-04-30T15:33:38Z

Awyatt: /* */

{{Articles FAIR copyright}} {{Articles Header 1}} {{Articles Header 2}} {{Articles Header 3}} {{Articles Header 4}} {{Articles Header 5}} {{Articles Header 6}} {{Articles Header 7}} {{Articles Header 8}} {{Articles Header 9}} {{Articles Header 10}}
__NOTOC__
{{FAIRAnalysisHeader
|title=[[../|MormonThink]]
|author=Anonymous
|noauthor=
|section=The Witnesses
|previous=[[../25 items that would allegedly "make the Church true"|25 items that would allegedly "make the Church true"]]
|next=[[../Index|Index]]
|notes=
This is a review of the MormonThink web page <nowiki>http://mormonthink.com/witnessesweb.htm</nowiki> as it existed on 4/29/2012. The text of this web page may have changed since it was reviewed.
}}
==A FAIR Analysis of MormonThink page "The Witnesses"==

==== ====
{{Website response summary|date=28 April 2012}}

'''The positions that the MormonThink article "The Witnesses" appears to take are the following:'''
*That the witnesses may have only seen the plates in a vision, despite their repeated assertions that they saw them with their own eyes.
*That some witnesses only saw the plates when they were covered, although none of the three or eight witnesses are included in this group.
*That the three witnesses did not all see the plates and the angel at the same time, although this is clearly taught in Church.
*Most of the witnesses left the Church (which is also clearly taught in Church), but for some reason failed to expose the scam.
*That many of the the witnesses had a falling out with Joseph Smith, yet for some reason they failed to expose the scam.
*That Joseph Smith at some point called the witnesses liars in matters unrelated to their view of the plates, yet for some reason they still failed to expose the scam.
*That the discovery of James Strang's Vorhee plates buried underground was somehow "extraordinary" on the same level as viewing an angel.
*That eyewitness testimony is not a reliable means to prove the occurrence of historical events, despite the fact that history is completely based upon such witness accounts.
*That the witnesses to the Book of Mormon should have been more vocal and been interviewed more often, in spite of the fact that they actually were.
*Oliver may have assisted Joseph in performing a deception, despite the fact that he never exposed the deception after he and Joseph had their falling out and Oliver left the Church.

==== ====
{{Website response label}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=The witnesses' experiences may have only been visionary in nature. There are many statements given by the witnesses that indicate they only saw the angel and the plates in a visionary experience. Why would people need to see real, physical plates in a vision or a real angel that was physically on the earth?
|think=
*David Whitmer said this: "No, sir! I was not under any hallucination, nor was I deceived! I saw with these eyes and I heard with these ears! I know whereof I speak!" {{ref|whitmer.js3}}
*And he said this: "'He that hath an ear to hear, let him hear;' it was no delusion! What is written is written, and he that readeth let him understand." {{ref|whitmer.believers.9}}
*Sounds like he was pretty definite, if you ask us.
|response=
|authorsources=
|link=Book of Mormon/Witnesses/Spiritual or literal
|subject=Were the experiences of the witnesses spiritual or literal?
|summary=Some critics suggest that the witnesses’ encounter with the angel and the plates took place solely in their minds. They claim that witnesses saw the angel in a “vision” and equate “vision” with imagination.
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=There are also several statements saying that the only time they saw the plates was when the plates were covered in a cloth or tow frock.
|think=
*Did you know that the "several statements" are all from William Smith, Joseph's brother, and that William ''was not one of the three or eight witnesses''?
*Why does MormonThink falsely imply that the statement about the plates being covered applies to the witnesses, when it does not?
*As MormonThink points out on the page, ''William Smith'' reported that he had handled and hefted the plates within a pillow case or tow frock and that he knew that his brother "translated the plates." William was not one of the witnesses, but he ''repeatedly'' reported having lifted the plates while they were covered.
*William made it clear in one of his statements that the family was not allowed to see the plates at first, but that Joseph later showed them to Hyrum, Joseph Sr., and Samuel Smith:

:::He ''then'' [after translating] showed the plates to my father and my brothers Hyrum and Samuel, who were witnesses to the truth of the book which was translated from them. I was permitted to lift them as they laid in a pillow-case; but not to see them [i.e., unlike the others who ''did'' see them as formal witnesses], as it was contrary to the commands he had received.{{ref|william.smith.1}}

*Why does MormonThink not include this part of the same statement?
*In the same interviews, William also dismissed the Spalding manuscript story as nonsense. MormonThink talks a lot about the Spalding manuscript below. Why do they not use William's witness on that score?
|authorsources=
*''A New Witness for Christ in America'' 2:416,417 (William Smith statement)
|response=
|authorsources=
|link=Book of Mormon/Witnesses/Spiritual or literal/Only handled when covered by a tow frock
|subject=Only handled when covered by a tow frock?
|summary=Some critics claim that the witnesses said they only handled the plates covered in a "tow frock." Critics do not reveal that this report is from William Smith, one of Joseph's brother who was not a Book of Mormon witness. They also fail to tell us that William insisted in the same statement that he was convinced Joseph was not lying about the plates. William also dismissed the Spalding hypothesis as nonsense, but critics do not mention that either.
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=The three witnesses did not all see the plates or angel at the same time. Only David Whitmer and perhaps Oliver Cowdery saw the angel together. Martin Harris removed himself from the group and did not see the angel until perhaps three days later (Anthony Metcalf, Ten Years Before the Mast, n.d., microfilm copy, p. 70-71).
|think=
*Why is the fact that Martin's experience occurred later supposed to have meaning? This story is well documented in official Church sources.
|authorsources=
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=David Whitmer said "If you believe my testimony to the Book of Mormon; if you believe that God spake to us three witnesses by his own voice, then I tell you that in June, 1838, God spake to me again by his own voice from the heavens, and told me to separate myself from among the Latter-day Saints, for as they sought to do unto me, so should it be done unto them." So which statement was David Whitmer lying about or had been mistaken about? Either way he doesn't sound like a completely trustworthy witness.
|think=
*Why can't they both be true? God spoke to the three witnesses, and God told David Whitmer to leave in order to avoid being harmed. After all, Whitmer was more valuable as a Book of Mormon witness the longer he lived.
* David Whitmer was already out of the Church when he was told to "separate himself." Does MormonThink give the impression that David was being told to leave the Church? Why isn't it clear that he was being told to leave the area where members of the Church (motivated by vigilantism) were plotting to harm him?
* If David had been killed by vigilante Mormons at this point, couldn't critics now claim that he had abandoned or would have abandoned his testimony? Wouldn't God want to prevent that?
*Wasn't Whitmer even ''more'' valuable as a Book of Mormon witness ''after'' he left the Church, because he ''still'' didn't deny seeing the angel and the plates when he could have exposed the entire "scam."
*Why did Whitmer have his testimony of the Book of Mormon engraved on his tombstone? It reads: "The record of the Jews and the record of the Nephites are one."
|response=
|link=Book of Mormon/Witnesses/David Whitmer told to leave
|subject=Did God tell David Whitmer to leave the Church?
|summary=David Whitmer, one of the Book of Mormon's Three Witnesses, said "If you believe my testimony to the Book of Mormon; if you believe that God spake to us three witnesses by his own voice, then I tell you that in June, 1838, God spake to me again by his own voice from the heavens, and told me to "separate myself from among the Latter Day Saints, for as they sought to do unto me, should it be done unto them." Critics argues that if members accept Whitmer's witness of the Book of Mormon, then they must also accept that God wanted David to repudiate the Church as false. Critics distort the historical record to make it appear that David Whitmer left the Church because he was told to, when it fact he was excommunicated prior to claiming any revelation to do so. The command to leave, if it was a true revelation, involved David's physical safety and not his membership in the Church, which he had already renounced.
|authorsources=
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=All the witnesses had close ties to Joseph and his family. Some like Martin Harris had a substantial financial investment in the success of the Book of Mormon.
|think=
*Why didn't Martin expose the Book of Mormon as a scam after he lost his investment?
*Why didn't Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer and some of the eleven witnesses expose Joseph as a fraud after they left the Church?
*If they all knew together that it was a hoax, ''why didn't any one of them say anything?''
|response=
|link=Book of Mormon/Witnesses/"Interested"_and_so_not_to_be_trusted
|subject=Witnesses were "interested" and not to be trusted since they followed Joseph Smith
|summary=Critics claim that because the witnesses are "interested"—i.e., they were members of the Church and believers in Joseph's mission—they are therefore not reliable, since they cannot be "neutral" or "disinterested."
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=These men lived in the early 1800s and believed in magical things like many people did during that time period such as divining rods, second sight, magic, dreams, seer stones, etc. Some of the witnesses, especially Martin Harris, were easily swayed by tales of the supernatural, especially in a religious context.
|think=
*Then why did Martin Harris have a tendency to test Joseph and look for proof—he took the characters to Anthon, he secretly switched Joseph's seer stone, and he wanted to show his wife and friends the 116 pages as "proof"? Sounds like Martin wanted something tangible, doesn't it?
*Why not acknowledge that Martin believed in hard proof, and sought it repeatedly? He was willing to entertain the idea of the supernatural, but then everyone was. But he didn't believe credulously—he insisted and sought proof. He wanted proof so badly that he ''insisted'' on being a witness!
|response=
|authorsources=
|link=Book of Mormon/Witnesses/Martin Harris repeatedly sought empirical proof
|subject=Martin Harris repeatedly sought empirical proof
|summary=Critics claim that Martin Harris was a gullible believer in the supernatural. But, in fact, Martin repeatedly performed empirical tests to confirm Joseph Smith's claims. He came away convinced.
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=Many of the witnesses ended up leaving the church and following other leaders and religions such as James Strang, the Shakers, Methodists, etc. By 1847 not a single one of the surviving eleven witnesses was part of the LDS Church.
|think=
*Why didn't any of the eleven witnesses expose the fraud after they left the Church? Think about it. What possible motivation could there have been to keep the secret? They weren't making any money off the Book of Mormon after all.
* MormonThink is quite crafty in picking "1847"--because, in 1848, Oliver Cowdery was rebaptized. Martin Harris would rejoin later and come to Utah (1870). David Whitmer would never rejoin the Church, but left more accounts than any other witness insisting that he had seen the angel and plates.
|response=
|authorsources=
|link=Book of Mormon/Witnesses/Eight witnesses
|subject=Eight witnesses
|summary=Critics have tried to argue that the Eight witnesses only claimed a 'spiritual' or 'visionary' view of the plates, not a literal, physical one. The witnesses left concrete statements regarding the physical nature of the plates. There were others besides the eleven who saw and felt the plates, and testified that they were real.
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=Of the witnesses that left the church, most believed that Joseph was at best a fallen prophet, the church changed its doctrines in error and changed revelations against God's will.
|think=
*Yes, they did, especially David Whitmer. So why didn't they simply deny that they ever saw an angel or the plates and blow the entire scam? Wouldn't that have made more sense?
|response=
|authorsources=
|link=Book of Mormon/Witnesses/Recant
|subject=Did the Book of Mormon witnesses ever recant?
|summary=Critics have tried to argue that some or all of the Witnesses recanted concerning their testimony. They were all faithful to their testimonies to the end of their lives, even though many of them had personal disagreements with Joseph Smith that caused them to leave the Church.
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=The witnesses, who have been heralded as good, honest, Abe Lincoln-type of men were later called liars, counterfeiters, thieves, etc. by Joseph Smith himself.
|think=
* If Joseph was running a scam, why did he dare do this? Why did he attack these men's later behavior in the strongest terms, if he knew they had the means to ruin him by exposing the fraud of the Book of Mormon?
* Why didn't the witnesses turn around an denounce Joseph as a liar about the angel and the Book of Mormon plates?
* If the witnesses stuck to their story even when alienated from and attacked by Joseph, doesn't this strengthen their witness?
* Why does it seem like Joseph had no worries about these men denying their testimony? It seems like he knew they would feel bound to bear it, no matter what.
|response=
|link=Book of Mormon/Witnesses/Recant
|subject=Did the Book of Mormon witnesses ever recant?
|summary=Critics have tried to argue that some or all of the Witnesses recanted concerning their testimony. They were all faithful to their testimonies to the end of their lives, even though many of them had personal disagreements with Joseph Smith that caused them to leave the Church.
|authorsources=
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=The "testimony of the witnesses" is similar to testimonials which were commonly included in books etc. in those days to help spur sales. And of course, the BOM's producers originally intended to sell copies for $1.75 each.
|think=
*So, if the point was simply to "spur sales" of the Book of Mormon, why did the witnesses stick to their testimonies until they died? They certainly weren't hoping to get any profits from the book by that time, right?
*Come to think of it, what ''was'' the financial motivation for all of the other witnesses with regard to sales of the Book of Mormon? Martin Harris was the only one invested in it.
|response=
|authorsources=
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=All three witnesses believed that God Himself had told them (through Joseph Smith) that they had been specially chosen to testify to the world that they had seen the angel and the plates –– if they had enough faith. Martin Harris was even told the exact words he must use: Joseph Smith said he had a revelation in which the Lord commanded Harris to say, “I have seen the things which the Lord hath shown unto Joseph Smith Jun., and I know of a surety that they are true, for I have seen them.” And just to clinch the command, God threatened Martin Harris, saying, “But if he deny this he will break the covenant which he has before covenanted with me, and behold, he is condemned.” A personal promise (and a threat of condemnation) coming directly from God is bound to have a powerful influence on a person’s thinking!
|think=
*So, are they implying that Martin deliberately ''lied'' about seeing the plates because he was ''afraid of being condemned by God''?
*Why would Martin think that it was OK to break one of the ''ten commandments'' in order to avoid God's condemnation? Didn't the ten commandments come from God?
*Wouldn't Martin be more afraid of breaking the eight commandment to not bear "false witness?"
*Why did Martin "stay scared" of God after leaving the Church? Why did he keep preaching the Book of Mormon and bearing his witness even when with other religious groups (much to their irritation!)?
*Why would Martin believe these lines came from God unless he believed Joseph could really get revelation? Why would he fear the words of a false prophet more than the ten commandments, Bible, and his own reputation?
|response=
|authorsources=
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=There are seven witnesses that say Solomon Spalding was the author of the Book of Mormon. Seven people wrote affidavits testifying that they had read early drafts of the Book of Mormon by author Solomon Spalding. In some ways they are more credible than the BOM witnesses as they each wrote their own account instead of merely signing a prepared statement.
|think=
*Do you find it amazing that so many of Joseph's neighbors had "recently" been reading the Book of Mormon when ex-Mormon Dr. Philastus Hurlbut stopped by to interview them?
*By the way, these people said that they had been reading the ''Book of Mormon'' by Joseph Smith, ''not'' "the Book of Mormon by author Solomon Spalding".
*Did you ever wonder why the unfinished Spalding manuscript doesn't resemble the Book of Mormon? It is published. You can actually read it. It doesn't contain the Book of Mormon names "Nephi" and "Lehi" that the "witnesses" said they did. Would you like to [[Criticism_of_Mormonism/Books/Mormonism_Unvailed/The_Hurlbut_affidavits#Spalding_manuscript_claims_and_reliability|read what the "witnesses" actually said]]?
*Do you think that maybe ex-Mormon Dr. Phiastus Hurlbut "helped" the Spalding "witnesses" with their testimonies, which coincidentally all sound so similar?
*Given that some of those providing affidavits couldn't even sign their names, ''then how is it that they were reading the Book of Mormon?'' Don't you think this might make them vulnerable to having Hurlbut or others influence what they wrote? The three and eight witnesses could all read.
*Do you wonder why, even though Eber D. Howe ''had'' the Spalding manuscript ''in his possession'' when including the Spalding affidavits in ''Mormonism Unvailed'', that he ''chose not to use it'' because it didn't actually support the story given in the affidavits?
*Is it simply convenient that Howe "lost" the actual Spalding manuscript after including the Spalding affidavits in his anti-Mormon book ''Mormonism Unvailed'' and it was not discovered again until years later?
|response=
|authorsources=
|link=Criticism_of_Mormonism/Books/Mormonism_Unvailed/The_Hurlbut_affidavits#Spalding_manuscript_claims_and_reliability
|subject=The Hurlbut Spalding affidavits
|summary=Joseph's neighbors claimed that Joseph had copied the Spalding manuscript
|link2=Book of Mormon/Authorship theories/Spalding manuscript
|subject2=Spalding manuscript
|summary2=Critics claim that Joseph Smith either plagiarized or relied upon a manuscript by Solomon Spaulding to write the Book of Mormon. There is a small group of critics who hold to the theory that the production of the Book of Mormon was a conspiracy involving Sidney Rigdon, Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery and others. These critics search for links between Spalding and Rigdon. Joseph Smith is assumed to have been Rigdon's pawn.
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=Here's the detailed accounts of several James Strang witnesses that seem very similar to the BOM witnesses: Testimony of Witnesses to the Voree Plates
|think=
*What is so extraordinary about this story? Seeing an angel is extraordinary, digging up some fake plates is not very extraordinary.
*Don't you find it extremely coincidental that the whole "buried plates" story is somewhat similar to Joseph Smith's story, years after the Book of Mormon was published?
*The Voree witnesses say nothing about angelic messengers and witnesses—if this sort of thing is so easy to fake, why didn't Strang work the same effect on his followers?
*Why did none of Joseph Smith's witnesses recant—even at severe persecution and ridicule, and even when leaving the Church—while some of Strang's recanted under far less pressure?
|link=Book of Mormon/Witnesses/Strangite parallels
|subject=Strangite parallels
|summary=Critics claim that break-off sects like James Strang's produced eyewitnesses of buried records, so Joseph's ability to do so is neither surprising nor persuasive. The Strangite witnesses were not all faithful, and some recanted and described the nature of the fraud perpetuated by Strang.
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=On November 5, 1975, seven men witnessed a spacecraft from another world hovering silently between tall pines in the Apache-Sitgreaves National forest of north-eastern Arizona. One of those men, Travis Walton, became an unwilling captive of an alien race when the other men fled in fear.
|think=
*We have a result of Joseph's efforts - the Book of Mormon itself. Show us the tangible evidence of alien abduction.
*We're comparing seeing ''space aliens'' with the Book of Mormon witnesses?? Really?
|response=
|authorsources=
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=Obviously both sets of witnesses cannot be correct. At least one set, possibly both sets, of witnesses were either lying or were mistaken or deceived. Which group is to be believed or are they both in error? We're not saying we believe the Spalding witnesses over the Book of Mormon witnesses, but it proves the point that just because a group of people claims something extraordinary happened to them, it doesn't make it so.
|think=
*The Spalding witnesses didn't claim that anything "extraordinary" happened to them - they claimed that Spalding had read them a manuscript. What's so extraordinary about that?
*Seeing an angel is ''extraordinary''—hearing a manuscript read is not.
*Why not mention that all of these Spalding witnesses testimonies came through Dr. Phiastus Hurlbut, and that they were published in the first true anti-Mormon work, ''Mormonism Unvailed'', by Eber D. Howe?
*Why not mention that the Spalding manuscript was in Howe's possession, but he didn't use it because it bore no resemblance to the Book of Mormon? And that it was lost for years only to turn up later, and that it can be read today and that it ''still'' doesn't resemble the Book of Mormon?
|response=
|authorsources=
|link=Criticism of Mormonism/Books/Mormonism Unvailed/The Hurlbut affidavits
|subject=The Hurlbut affidavits
|summary=Many of Joseph Smith’s friends and neighbors signed affidavits that accused him and his family of being lazy, indolent, undependable treasure-seekers.
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=There are many, many reported witnesses to UFOs, Bigfoot, the Lochness Monster, Abominable Snowman, alien abductions, gurus with magic powers,psychics, etc. There are literally hundreds of thousands of witnesses to these amazing phenomena. Should they be believed as well?
|think=
*Have any UFO's, Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster, the Abominable Snowman, aliens, gurus or psychics produced a work comparable to the Book of Mormon?
*Does it sound like someone here is throwing every oddball thing they can at the witnesses and hoping that something "sticks?"
|response=
|authorsources=
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=Just because three witnesses signed a statement saying they saw an angel, doesn't mean it really happened.
|think=
*Why then did these men put their reputations for the rest of their lives on the line by doing so...and by never denying it despite each one having a falling out with Joseph Smith. Think about that.
*That's the conclusion? To simply call the witnesses liars because you can't account for the numerous times that they reaffirmed their testimony?
|response=
|authorsources=
*None, of course. This is pure speculation in contradiction to what the witnesses themselves stated.
|link=Book of Mormon/Witnesses/Character
|subject=What was the character of the witnesses?
|summary=Critics charge that the witnesses cannot be trusted, or are unreliable, because they were unstable personalities, prone to enthusiasm and exaggeration. Evidence amply demonstrates that the formal witnesses of the Book of Mormon were men of good character and reputation, and were recognized as such by contemporary non-Mormons.
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=Faithful members would likely come up with explanations to counter these claims like the 3+8 witnesses signed a single statement because they so strongly agreed with their unified experience. However this comparison shows some of the inherent weaknesses of the using just witnesses to prove historical events. This also underscores the weaknesses in the BOM process to obtain witnesses to verify the BOM.
|think=
*A witness is "One who can give a firsthand account of something seen, heard, or experienced." That's what they did. ''That's what witnesses do''. That's why they call them "witnesses," because they witnessed the events that they are relating as part of history.
*What does MormonThink ''all'' history is based on? First person witnesses. People witness history, and they leave behind documents: journals, government records, art, etc. If you get rid of witnesses, then there's hardly any such thing as "history" at all. It is only very recently that we have things like photographs or video—and even these are records made by witnesses at the time.
|response=
|authorsources=
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=Why should we believe all the Book of Mormon witnesses over the sworn affidavits of over dozens of unrelated townspeople?
|think=
*Were any of these dozens of unrelated townspeople there when the angel was present? How would they know?
*Why are you comparing the witnesses to the plates to the Hurlbut-Howe affidavits anyway? One group said they saw the plates (and some an angel), the other group said that they heard a manuscript read.
*Why is it that when we try to verify matters in the affidavits that we ''can'' verify, they aren't confirmed? For example, those who wrote the affidavits claimed that the Spalding manuscript matched the Book of Mormon—but it doesn't, and even anti-Mormons abandoned this argument more than a century ago. So, why should we uncritically accept those claims in the affidavits that we ''can't'' verify?
|response=
|link=Book of Mormon/Authorship theories/Spalding manuscript/Critical rejection
|subject=Rejection of the Spaulding theory by critics of the Book of Mormon
|summary=Many ''critics'' of the Book of Mormon reject the Spaulding theory as unworkable. If Mormonism's most prominent critics find the Spalding theory unworkable, then what motivates those who tenuously hold to this theory and continue to pursue it?
|authorsources=
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=None of the witnesses should have been related to Joseph or each other. Most of the witnesses were either related or good friends. Having unrelated people as witnesses would be far more effective than using your brothers and father.
|think=
*Why should Joseph go off and find a bunch of total strangers to witness such a miracle? Wouldn't he want to have his family and friends share the experience? After all, he had not been allowed to show them the plates for many months.
*Who would you rather share such an amazing experience with? Your brother, or some total stranger who doubts everything you say?
|response=
|authorsources=
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=The witnesses should not have already been eager believers. There should have been some skeptics.
|think=
*Why would an angel show up for ''skeptics''? Are these men then supposed to immediately convert and risk their reputations by declaring to the world that they saw an angel?
|response=
|authorsources=
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=There should have been no financial motive. Martin Harris mortgaged his farm and invested at least $3,000 of his own money into printing the Book of Mormon, so of course he had incentive to 'promote' the book.
|think=
*Show how ''was'' the Book of Mormon supposed to get published? Was a printer supposed to magically do the work for free?
|response=
|authorsources=
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=Each of the witnesses should each have written their own testimony instead of merely signing a prepared statement written by Joseph. If the prepared document wasn't 100% accurate many people would simply sign it anyway as it would be too much of a hassle to have it completely rewritten by hand - especially in the 1800s.
|think=
*Really? Would it really have been "too much of a hassle" to completely rewrite ''one paragraph of text'' consisting of ''only 300 words?
*If you were going to be ''inaccurately'' quoted in a book for which you hoped to sell ''hundreds of copies'', wouldn't ''you'' have taken the time to insist that either the paragraph be rewritten or take the time to write your own version of it?
* Oliver Cowdery ''rewrote'' almost the entire manuscript of the Book of Mormon (the "printer's manuscript") so they would always have a copy of the translation in their possession. How likely is he to be put off from rewriting a 300 word document that he's going to sign as a solemn witness?
*Were people "in the 1800s" really ''less'' concerned with the accuracy of their signed statements than we are now? Think about it.
*If this was true, why didn't the witnesses complain about it, especially later when they were alienated from Joseph Smith? Instead, they consistently ''referred'' people to their statement and affirmed its accuracy.
* Remember that Joseph needed Oliver Cowdery and Martin Harris to act as scribes for the Book of Mormon (and David Whitmer helped a bit too). How likely is it that Joseph sat down and wrote out the statement for them to sign? Isn't it more likely that one or more was involved in at least acting as scribe, and that they may have even participated in drafting it? Oliver Cowdery would help draft some sections of the Doctrine and Covenants, for example.
*Where's MormonThink's evidence that Joseph wrote the statement with no input from the witnesses?
*Does it seem like MormonThink is grasping at straws?

|response=
|authorsources=
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=The witnesses should have been much more detailed about this amazing event. What did the angel look like? What exactly did he say? How did he speak? There are almost no details provided which can be analyzed and compared. If each witness had simply written their own account and provided significant details then their individual testimonies could corroborate each other.
|think=
*There are many later accounts by the witnesses that corroborate each other. Yet, MormonThink does not mention these, or consider that to increase the witnesses' credibility. Isn't this a double standard?
*If there were lots of details in the printed edition of the Book of Mormon, wouldn't MormonThink just turn around and claim that this close match was evidence of collusion? Or, they could always claim (without evidence) that Joseph wrote or dictated all the statements. It's easy to find "reasons" to dismiss evidence you don't want to accept.
*Does it seem like MormonThink is impossible to satisfy, no matter what evidence is presented?
|response=
|authorsources=
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=The witnesses should have been interviewed independently immediately after going public. They should have been interviewed the same way police do with witnesses to crimes or that investigators do with UFO cases. Ask questions to see if their stories match; How was the angel dressed? How tall was he? How did he speak?, etc.
|response=
|authorsources=
|think=
* And, if these things matched, would MormonThink be convinced?
* The Mormons are not to be blamed because the non-believing townfolk in Joseph's area didn't interview the witnesses the way MormonThink believes they should have been.
* If the interviews matched, couldn't MormonThink just use that as evidence that Joseph and the witnesses had conspired together to concoct a story? And, if the witnesses had different perspectives, wouldn't that be used as evidence they were making it up?
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=The witnesses should not have used subjective language and say strange things like comparing seeing the plates with seeing a city through a mountain or using spiritual eyes instead of their natural eyes to view physical plates
|think=
*Why not? How can anyone not describe their own experience in "subjective language?"
*The word "subjective" means "Proceeding from or taking place in a person's mind rather than the external world." How can one describe one's ''own experience'' in anything ''other'' than subjective terms?
|response=
|authorsources=
|link=Book of Mormon/Witnesses/"Eye of Faith" and "Spiritual Eye" statements by Martin Harris
|subject="Eye of Faith" and "Spiritual Eye" statements by Martin Harris
|summary=Martin Harris frequently told people that he did not see the golden plates and the angel with his natural eyes but rather with “spiritual eyes” or the “eye of faith.”
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=The witnesses should not have been gullible people that believed in things like 'second sight', divining rods, finding treasure by placing a rock in a hat, etc. That the Three Witnesses were a gullible sort is illustrated by an incident in July, 1837. Joseph had left on a five-week missionary tour to Canada, only to find on his return that all three of the Witnesses had joined a faction opposing him. This faction rallied around a young girl who claimed to be a seeress by virtue of a black stone in which she read the future. David Whitmer, Martin Harris, and Oliver Cowdery all pledged her their loyalty, and Frederick G. Williams, formerly Joseph's First Counselor, became her scribe. The girl seeress would dance herself into a state of exhaustion, fall to the floor, and burst forth with revelations. (See Lucy Smith: Biographical Sketches, pp. 211-213).
|think=
*Martin Harris was considered a wealthy man. How did he get that way if he was so gullible?
*Did the witnesses remain convinced that the girl was a prophet? Did they dedicate the rest of their lives to insisting that her experience was legitimate?
*By 1837, the witnesses were all opposed to and alienated against Joseph Smith. This incident illustrates that beautifully--so, why did they not follow up and finish off Joseph's destruction by admitting to the fraud?
*Members of the Church would not be surprised that those who apostatize can come to believe all sorts of absurd things to explain and justify their unbelief--MormonThink is, in fact, a good example of that phenomenon. This does not impact the truthfulness of the witnesses' accounts--in fact, it increases them since they would have been highly motivated to find a way to explain away what they had seen. But they did not.
|link=Book of Mormon/Witnesses/Recant
|subject=Did the Book of Mormon witnesses ever recant?
|summary=Critics have tried to argue that some or all of the Witnesses recanted concerning their testimony. They were all faithful to their testimonies to the end of their lives, even though many of them had personal disagreements with Joseph Smith that caused them to leave the Church.
|response=
|authorsources=
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=All of the witness should have been much more vocal and been interviewed much more often. There are very few interviews done with the witnesses that provide any additional information or corroboration of their statements. You would think that these people, after seeing such a magnificent sight, would spend their time testifying to the world about their experience instead of largely just signing a prepared statement and avoiding interviews by the media. Only three of the eight witnesses made separate statements that they had handled the plates. They were Joseph's two brothers, Hyrum and Samuel, and John Whitmer.
|think=
*What? You mean they didn't? There are many testimonies and statements of the witnesses—especially David Whitmer.
*So, are we supposed to believe that these men would simply put their lives on hold for the next 50 years or so and just continue talking about their experience endlessly?
*They gave all the detail that there was to be had—what more are you looking for? There are only so many ways to describe an angel and a set of plates.
*Who said that they avoided interviews with "the media" (a 20th-century term if there ever was one). There are well-documented interviews with some of the witnesses in "the media." (See, for example, {{Book:Cook:David Whitmer Interviews}})
|response=
|authorsources=
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=And of course it would have helped had all the witnesses remained loyal to the Church for the rest of their lives instead of having most of them abandon it later on. It doesn't make much sense to leave the one, true Church of God if you have really received an indisputable witness that it was true. Why would these people risk being cast in Outer Darkness for all eternity for denying what they KNEW to be true unless they maybe had some doubts or knew it really wasn't true?
|response=
|think=
*If the witnesses did not really see what they claimed to have seen, then why did they not expose the deception when they had their fallings out with Joseph Smith and the Church? Why didn't a single witness expose the sham?
*Why not correctly state that the witnesses were ''not'' witnesses of the "one, true Church of God?" They were witnesses to the angel and the existence of the gold plates. That is all. They never denied their witness.
*Isn't it more persuasive to be alienated from Joseph Smith and the Church, and yet continue to insist that you'd seen the plates (and, for the three, the angel)?
*If the witnesses had all remained faithful for their entire lives, wouldn't MormonThink now be claiming that they had a "vested interest" in sticking to their story?
*Do you get the feeling that MormonThink wants to get rid of the witnesses however they can—even if the arguments contradict each other, and even if the complaints don't make sense?
|authorsources=
}}

==== ====
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=It's also quite possible that Oliver was in on a deception with Joseph, assuming the BOM story isn't true. If so, he could have helped convince the others that they were seeing experiencing something not real, like the second-sight experiences many people had at the time.
|think=
*If Oliver was "in on a deception" with Joseph, then why didn't he expose the deception after he had his falling out with Joseph?
*Why did Oliver continue to hold to his story of being a witness of the plates?
*Why didn't Oliver denounce the statement signed by him in every copy of the Book of Mormon?
}}

=={{Endnotes label}}==
#{{note|whitmer.js3}}Interview with Joseph Smith III et al. (Richmond, Missouri, July 1884), originally published in The Saints' Herald (28 January 1936). Also quoted in Richard Lloyd Anderson, Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1981), p. 88.
#{{note|whimter.believers.9}}David Whitmer, [http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/An_Address_to_All_Believers_in_Christ/Part_First/Chapter_I|''An Address to All Believers in Christ''], 1887.
#{{note|william.smith.1}} William B. Smith, ''William Smith on Mormonism'' (Lamoni, Iowa: Herald Steam Book and Job Office, 1883), 5-19, emphasis added. Reproduced in {{Book:Vogel:EMD|vol=1|pages=497}}

Website reviews/Exmormon Foundation/Richard Packham's media questions for Mitt Romney

2012-04-18T16:55:29Z

Awyatt: /* */

Website reviews/Exmormon Foundation/Richard Packham's media questions for Mitt Romney

2012-04-18T16:51:44Z

Awyatt: /* */

Website reviews/Exmormon Foundation/Richard Packham's media questions for Mitt Romney

2012-04-18T16:49:10Z

Awyatt: /* */

Website reviews/Exmormon Foundation/Richard Packham's media questions for Mitt Romney

2012-04-18T16:44:34Z

Awyatt: /* */

Website reviews/Exmormon Foundation/Richard Packham's media questions for Mitt Romney

2012-04-18T16:43:00Z

Awyatt: /* */

Website reviews/Exmormon Foundation/Richard Packham's media questions for Mitt Romney

2012-04-18T16:40:34Z

Awyatt: /* */

Website reviews/Exmormon Foundation/Richard Packham's media questions for Mitt Romney

2012-04-18T16:39:25Z

Awyatt: /* */

Website reviews/Exmormon Foundation/Richard Packham's media questions for Mitt Romney

2012-04-18T16:36:44Z

Awyatt: /* */

Website reviews/Exmormon Foundation/Richard Packham's media questions for Mitt Romney

2012-04-14T18:16:30Z

Awyatt: /* */

FAIR Study Aids/Gospel Doctrine/Book of Mormon/Lesson One

2011-12-29T20:12:06Z

Awyatt: /* Helpful Insights */

{{Articles FAIR copyright}} {{Articles Header 1}} {{Articles Header 2}} {{Articles Header 3}} {{Articles Header 4}} {{Articles Header 5}} {{Articles Header 6}} {{Articles Header 7}} {{Articles Header 8}} {{Articles Header 9}} {{Articles Header 10}}

=Lesson 1: "The Keystone of our Religion"=

==LDS Lesson Manual==

[http://lds.org/manual/book-of-mormon-gospel-doctrine-teachers-manual/lesson-1-the-keystone-of-our-religion?lang=eng Gospel Doctrine Teacher's Manual - Lesson 1: The Keystone of Our Religion]

==1. The Book of Mormon is the Keystone of Our Religion==
===Helpful Insights===
*The Keystone of Our Religion: The Book of Mormon is the keystone of our religion because the essence of our religion is revelation, and the Book of Mormon is tangible evidence that revelation has been received. This is why Terryl Givens calls the Book of Mormon the “sacred sign” of our faith. [Terryl L. Givens, By the Hand of Mormon: The American Scripture that Launched a New World Religion (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2002), 62-88]
*Witness of Christ: Of the 6,607 verses in the modern editions of the Book of Mormon, 3,925 of them make direct reference to Jesus Christ, an average of 1 reference to Christ every 1.7 verses. [Susan Easton Black, Finding Christ through the Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 1987), 16-18]
*Keystone Witness of Christ: If BoM is true, then the resurrected Christ was seen and touched by thousands of people in ancient America. Thus, Jesus really rose from the dead and the Atonement is real.
*Fullness of Doctrine: The Book of Mormon lays-out a six point formula as the “gospel” or “doctrine” of Christ. [http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=71&chapid=841]
*Keystone in Doctrine: If the BoM is true, then Joseph Smith is prophet and the doctrines taught in his later revelations are also true.
*Model for Testimony: The Book of Mormon presents a revolutionary model for revelation as a dialogue that ultimately provides the means for seeking one’s own testimony [http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/jbms/?vol=10&num=2&id=250]
*Keystone in Testimony: If a person gains a testimony of the BoM, then they also gain a testimony that (1) God exists, (2) Jesus Christ atonement is real, (3) Joseph Smith is a prophet, (4) the Church is true. [Introduction to the Book of Mormon]

===Potential Criticisms and Faithful Information===
*Some critics have said the Book of Mormon teachings of Christ are reflective of Joseph Smith’s environment, rather than an ancient Israelite's environment. Recent research actually shows that Book of Mormon teachings about the Messiah are consistent with ancient Jewish beliefs. See these presentations by [http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/papers/?paperID=6&chapterID=52 Kevin Christensen] or [http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/2003_Monotheism_Messiah_and_Mormons_Book.html Brant Gardner]
*The title page says Jesus Christ is the “Eternal God.” Some critics say this is evidence that Joseph Smith started out as a modalist or Trinitarian. [http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=13&num=2&id=392 Ari D. Brueing and David L. Paulson, "The Development of the Mormon Understanding of God," FARMS Review 13/2 pg. 114-139]
*Some critics complain the Book of Mormon does not contain the “fullness of doctrine” or the “fullness of Gospel” because it is missing distinctive “Mormon” doctrines. “Gospel” or “doctrine” as used in the Book of Mormon is not meant to be comprehensive [http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Contains_the_fulness_of_the_gospel]
*Some critics say that praying about the Book of Mormon is not an “objective” means of testing it and that the Bible is the only standard that can or should be used. This idea is contradicted by the Bible itself [http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Moroni%27s_promise]
*Other critics say that “Moroni’s challenge” is circular reasoning. Such critics are actually engaged in some circular reasoning of their own [http://ldsreasonandrevelation.blogspot.com/2011/04/moroni-103-5-and-truth-of-book-of.html#more]

===Faith Affirmations===

==2. Many Witnesses have Testified of the Book of Mormon==
===Helpful Insights===
*Angels and Books: The Joseph Smith story actually fits an ancient pattern where prophets are given a heavenly book or hidden record by an angelic messenger [http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=9&chapid=77] or [http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=71&chapid=773]
*In his 2009 General Conference talk, Elder Jeffrey R. Holland talked about how Joseph and Hyrum Smith went to their death bearing testimony of the Book of Mormon, a powerful evidence of its divinity ([http://lds.org/ensign/2009/11/safety-for-the-soul?lang=eng ''Ensign''])
*Various witnesses have left behind a description of the plates [http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Translation/Description_of_the_plates]
*Informal Witnesses: In addition to the official Book of Mormon witnesses, some others got to feel the plates while covered or got to see them under special circumstances ([http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Witnesses/Other_Book_of_Mormon_witnesses Other Book of Mormon Witnesses])

===Potential Criticisms and Faithful Information===
*Moroni’s Visit: Critics have attacked the story of Moroni’s visit is various ways. Here some of those criticisms are identified and responded to. [http://en.fairmormon.org/Moroni%27s_visit]
*Weight of the Plates: Some critics say the plates would have weighed too much to be lifted and carried as Joseph and others claimed to. This assumes the plates were pure gold [http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=71&chapid=847]
*The Three and Eight Witnesses: Various criticisms have been leveled at the Book of Mormon witnesses. All of these have been responded to by faithful Latter-day Saints. [http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Witnesses]
*Fraudulent Plates? Some critics suggest that Joseph Smith could have manufactured a fake set of plates. [http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Anachronisms/Gold_plates] and [http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Witnesses/Strangite_parallels]

===Faith Affirmations===
*Metal Plates: Since the coming forth of the Book of Mormon, numerous examples of writing on metal plates have been unearthed. Here are some examples. [http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=19&num=1&id=637] or [http://www.templestudy.com/2011/04/07/authentic-ancient-metal-plates/] or [http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Anachronisms/Metal_plates]
*Subscription: This is the ancient Near Eastern practice of placing the title and authorship of a text at the end of the record, rather than the beginning. Interestingly, Joseph Smith said the title page was a translation of the very last of the metal plates. [http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=98&chapid=1038]
*Doubled, Sealed, and Witnessed Documents: Joseph Smith and others who saw the plates said that a portion of them were sealed. This is consistent with known legal practices of the ancient Near-East. [http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/insights/?vol=21&num=6&id=200] or [http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=9&chapid=76]
*Despite leaving the Church, none of the witnesses ever denied their testimony of seeing the plates [http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Witnesses/Recant] or [http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=41&chapid=181]

==3. The Book of Mormon was Written for Our Day==
===Helpful Insights===
*The Book of Mormon is An Ancient Book: While the Book of Mormon was indeed written for our, it is important to remember that the Book of Mormon was not written in our day. Brant Gardner has explained it this way:

:“It is popular (and theologically appropriate) to claim that the Book of Mormon was written for our day. This statement emphasizes the modern value of the Book of Mormon. It necessarily treats the text ahistorically. Regardless of the value for our day and the obvious fact that it came forth in our day, it was not written in our day, nor in our language, nor in our culture. Even internally, there is little evidence that Mormon conceived of a future people who were significantly different from those he knew.” [Brant A. Gardner, Second Witness: Analytical and Contextual Commentary on the Book of Mormon, six volumes, (Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2007), 1: viii.]

Thus, it is important not impose modern standards and expectations on to the record. Of course we still can, and should, “liken” the text to our own lives, but at the same time caution must be taken to remember that “likening” is a tool for practical application, not a method of scriptural exegesis. Understanding this is important because many criticisms against the Book of Mormon rely on modern assumptions about the it, rather than what it actually says.

===Potential Criticisms and Faithful Information===
===Faith Affirmations===

==4. The Book of Mormon can Bring us Nearer to God==
===Helpful Insights===
===Potential Criticisms and Faithful Information===
*“Most Correct Book”: Many critics claim that because Joseph Smith said the Book of Mormon is the “most correct book” it should be error-free. These critics are taking this quote out of context. [http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/As_the_most_correct_book]
*Textual Changes: Some critics point to textual changes as evidence of changing theology or covering up mistakes. Most changes are minor edits to punctuation, spelling, and grammar. The few more significant changes have been examined and discussed by knowledgeable Latter-day Saints [http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Textual_changes]
===Faith Affirmations===

==Additional Information Related to the Introductory Material in the Book of Mormon==
In the Introduction to the Book of Mormon, it says that the Book of Mormon is a “record of God’s dealings with the ancient inhabitants of the Americas” and that the Lamanites are “among the ancestors of the American Indians.” This opens up a number issues related to Book of Mormon geography, archeology, populations, and modern DNA studies. The following maybe helpful to Gospel Doctrine instructors who would like to be prepared should any of these issues arise during their lesson:
*Archeology: Critics claim that archeology contradicts the Book of Mormon. [http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Archaeology]
*Geography: Most people assume that the Book of Mormon events spanned across the entire continent. A close reading of the text reveals fairly tight spatial relations. [http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Geography/New_World]
*DNA and the Book of Mormon: Some critics claim that DNA disproves the Book of Mormon, while some members have claimed that DNA provides evidence for the Book of Mormon. Both claims are incorrect. [http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/DNA_evidence]

FAIR Study Aids/Gospel Doctrine/Book of Mormon/Lesson One

2011-12-29T20:11:30Z

Awyatt: /* Helpful Insights */

{{Articles FAIR copyright}} {{Articles Header 1}} {{Articles Header 2}} {{Articles Header 3}} {{Articles Header 4}} {{Articles Header 5}} {{Articles Header 6}} {{Articles Header 7}} {{Articles Header 8}} {{Articles Header 9}} {{Articles Header 10}}

=Lesson 1: "The Keystone of our Religion"=

==LDS Lesson Manual==

[http://lds.org/manual/book-of-mormon-gospel-doctrine-teachers-manual/lesson-1-the-keystone-of-our-religion?lang=eng Gospel Doctrine Teacher's Manual - Lesson 1: The Keystone of Our Religion]

==1. The Book of Mormon is the Keystone of Our Religion==
===Helpful Insights===
*The Keystone of Our Religion: The Book of Mormon is the keystone of our religion because the essence of our religion is revelation, and the Book of Mormon is tangible evidence that revelation has been received. This is why Terryl Givens calls the Book of Mormon the “sacred sign” of our faith. [Terryl L. Givens, By the Hand of Mormon: The American Scripture that Launched a New World Religion (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2002), 62-88]
*Witness of Christ: Of the 6,607 verses in the modern editions of the Book of Mormon, 3,925 of them make direct reference to Jesus Christ, an average of 1 reference to Christ every 1.7 verses. [Susan Easton Black, Finding Christ through the Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 1987), 16-18]
*Keystone Witness of Christ: If BoM is true, then the resurrected Christ was seen and touched by thousands of people in ancient America. Thus, Jesus really rose from the dead and the Atonement is real.
*Fullness of Doctrine: The Book of Mormon lays-out a six point formula as the “gospel” or “doctrine” of Christ. [http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=71&chapid=841]
*Keystone in Doctrine: If the BoM is true, then Joseph Smith is prophet and the doctrines taught in his later revelations are also true.
*Modal for Testimony: The Book of Mormon presents a revolutionary model for revelation as a dialogue that ultimately provides the means for seeking one’s own testimony [http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/jbms/?vol=10&num=2&id=250]
*Keystone in Testimony: If a person gains a testimony of the BoM, then they also gain a testimony that (1) God exists, (2) Jesus Christ atonement is real, (3) Joseph Smith is a prophet, (4) the Church is true. [Introduction to the Book of Mormon]

===Potential Criticisms and Faithful Information===
*Some critics have said the Book of Mormon teachings of Christ are reflective of Joseph Smith’s environment, rather than an ancient Israelite's environment. Recent research actually shows that Book of Mormon teachings about the Messiah are consistent with ancient Jewish beliefs. See these presentations by [http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/papers/?paperID=6&chapterID=52 Kevin Christensen] or [http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/2003_Monotheism_Messiah_and_Mormons_Book.html Brant Gardner]
*The title page says Jesus Christ is the “Eternal God.” Some critics say this is evidence that Joseph Smith started out as a modalist or Trinitarian. [http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=13&num=2&id=392 Ari D. Brueing and David L. Paulson, "The Development of the Mormon Understanding of God," FARMS Review 13/2 pg. 114-139]
*Some critics complain the Book of Mormon does not contain the “fullness of doctrine” or the “fullness of Gospel” because it is missing distinctive “Mormon” doctrines. “Gospel” or “doctrine” as used in the Book of Mormon is not meant to be comprehensive [http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Contains_the_fulness_of_the_gospel]
*Some critics say that praying about the Book of Mormon is not an “objective” means of testing it and that the Bible is the only standard that can or should be used. This idea is contradicted by the Bible itself [http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Moroni%27s_promise]
*Other critics say that “Moroni’s challenge” is circular reasoning. Such critics are actually engaged in some circular reasoning of their own [http://ldsreasonandrevelation.blogspot.com/2011/04/moroni-103-5-and-truth-of-book-of.html#more]

===Faith Affirmations===

==2. Many Witnesses have Testified of the Book of Mormon==
===Helpful Insights===
*Angels and Books: The Joseph Smith story actually fits an ancient pattern where prophets are given a heavenly book or hidden record by an angelic messenger [http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=9&chapid=77] or [http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=71&chapid=773]
*In his 2009 General Conference talk, Elder Jeffrey R. Holland talked about how Joseph and Hyrum Smith went to their death bearing testimony of the Book of Mormon, a powerful evidence of its divinity ([http://lds.org/ensign/2009/11/safety-for-the-soul?lang=eng ''Ensign''])
*Various witnesses have left behind a description of the plates [http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Translation/Description_of_the_plates]
*Informal Witnesses: In addition to the official Book of Mormon witnesses, some others got to feel the plates while covered or got to see them under special circumstances ([http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Witnesses/Other_Book_of_Mormon_witnesses Other Book of Mormon Witnesses])

===Potential Criticisms and Faithful Information===
*Moroni’s Visit: Critics have attacked the story of Moroni’s visit is various ways. Here some of those criticisms are identified and responded to. [http://en.fairmormon.org/Moroni%27s_visit]
*Weight of the Plates: Some critics say the plates would have weighed too much to be lifted and carried as Joseph and others claimed to. This assumes the plates were pure gold [http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=71&chapid=847]
*The Three and Eight Witnesses: Various criticisms have been leveled at the Book of Mormon witnesses. All of these have been responded to by faithful Latter-day Saints. [http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Witnesses]
*Fraudulent Plates? Some critics suggest that Joseph Smith could have manufactured a fake set of plates. [http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Anachronisms/Gold_plates] and [http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Witnesses/Strangite_parallels]

===Faith Affirmations===
*Metal Plates: Since the coming forth of the Book of Mormon, numerous examples of writing on metal plates have been unearthed. Here are some examples. [http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=19&num=1&id=637] or [http://www.templestudy.com/2011/04/07/authentic-ancient-metal-plates/] or [http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Anachronisms/Metal_plates]
*Subscription: This is the ancient Near Eastern practice of placing the title and authorship of a text at the end of the record, rather than the beginning. Interestingly, Joseph Smith said the title page was a translation of the very last of the metal plates. [http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=98&chapid=1038]
*Doubled, Sealed, and Witnessed Documents: Joseph Smith and others who saw the plates said that a portion of them were sealed. This is consistent with known legal practices of the ancient Near-East. [http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/insights/?vol=21&num=6&id=200] or [http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=9&chapid=76]
*Despite leaving the Church, none of the witnesses ever denied their testimony of seeing the plates [http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Witnesses/Recant] or [http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=41&chapid=181]

==3. The Book of Mormon was Written for Our Day==
===Helpful Insights===
*The Book of Mormon is An Ancient Book: While the Book of Mormon was indeed written for our, it is important to remember that the Book of Mormon was not written in our day. Brant Gardner has explained it this way:

:“It is popular (and theologically appropriate) to claim that the Book of Mormon was written for our day. This statement emphasizes the modern value of the Book of Mormon. It necessarily treats the text ahistorically. Regardless of the value for our day and the obvious fact that it came forth in our day, it was not written in our day, nor in our language, nor in our culture. Even internally, there is little evidence that Mormon conceived of a future people who were significantly different from those he knew.” [Brant A. Gardner, Second Witness: Analytical and Contextual Commentary on the Book of Mormon, six volumes, (Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2007), 1: viii.]

Thus, it is important not impose modern standards and expectations on to the record. Of course we still can, and should, “liken” the text to our own lives, but at the same time caution must be taken to remember that “likening” is a tool for practical application, not a method of scriptural exegesis. Understanding this is important because many criticisms against the Book of Mormon rely on modern assumptions about the it, rather than what it actually says.

===Potential Criticisms and Faithful Information===
===Faith Affirmations===

==4. The Book of Mormon can Bring us Nearer to God==
===Helpful Insights===
===Potential Criticisms and Faithful Information===
*“Most Correct Book”: Many critics claim that because Joseph Smith said the Book of Mormon is the “most correct book” it should be error-free. These critics are taking this quote out of context. [http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/As_the_most_correct_book]
*Textual Changes: Some critics point to textual changes as evidence of changing theology or covering up mistakes. Most changes are minor edits to punctuation, spelling, and grammar. The few more significant changes have been examined and discussed by knowledgeable Latter-day Saints [http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Textual_changes]
===Faith Affirmations===

==Additional Information Related to the Introductory Material in the Book of Mormon==
In the Introduction to the Book of Mormon, it says that the Book of Mormon is a “record of God’s dealings with the ancient inhabitants of the Americas” and that the Lamanites are “among the ancestors of the American Indians.” This opens up a number issues related to Book of Mormon geography, archeology, populations, and modern DNA studies. The following maybe helpful to Gospel Doctrine instructors who would like to be prepared should any of these issues arise during their lesson:
*Archeology: Critics claim that archeology contradicts the Book of Mormon. [http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Archaeology]
*Geography: Most people assume that the Book of Mormon events spanned across the entire continent. A close reading of the text reveals fairly tight spatial relations. [http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Geography/New_World]
*DNA and the Book of Mormon: Some critics claim that DNA disproves the Book of Mormon, while some members have claimed that DNA provides evidence for the Book of Mormon. Both claims are incorrect. [http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/DNA_evidence]

FAIR Study Aids/Gospel Doctrine/Book of Mormon/Lesson One

2011-12-29T18:16:11Z

Awyatt: /* Faith Affirmations */

{{Articles FAIR copyright}} {{Articles Header 1}} {{Articles Header 2}} {{Articles Header 3}} {{Articles Header 4}} {{Articles Header 5}} {{Articles Header 6}} {{Articles Header 7}} {{Articles Header 8}} {{Articles Header 9}} {{Articles Header 10}}

=Lesson 1: "The Keystone of our Religion"=

==LDS Lesson Manual==

[http://lds.org/manual/book-of-mormon-gospel-doctrine-teachers-manual/lesson-1-the-keystone-of-our-religion?lang=eng Gospel Doctrine Teacher's Manual - Lesson 1: The Keystone of Our Religion]

==1. The Book of Mormon is the Keystone of Our Religion==
===Helpful Insights===
*The Keystone of Our Religion: The Book of Mormon is the keystone of our religion because the essence of our religion is revelation, and the Book of Mormon is tangible evidence that revelation has been received. This is why Terryl Givens calls the Book of Mormon the “sacred sign” of our faith. [Terryl L. Givens, By the Hand of Mormon: The American Scripture that Launched a New World Religion (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2002), 62-88]
*Witness of Christ: Of the 6,607 verses in the modern editions of the Book of Mormon, 3,925 of them make direct reference to Jesus Christ, an average of 1 reference to Christ every 1.7 verses. [Susan Easton Black, Finding Christ through the Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 1987), 16-18]
*Keystone Witness of Christ: If BoM is true, then the resurrected Christ was seen and touched by thousands of people in ancient America. Thus, Jesus really rose from the dead and the Atonement is real.
*Fullness of Doctrine: The Book of Mormon lays-out a six point formula as the “gospel” or “doctrine” of Christ. [http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=71&chapid=841]
*Keystone in Doctrine: If the BoM is true, then Joseph Smith is prophet and the doctrines taught in his later revelations are also true.
*Modal for Testimony: The Book of Mormon presents a revolutionary model for revelation as a dialogue that ultimately provides the means for seeking one’s own testimony [http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/jbms/?vol=10&num=2&id=250]
*Keystone in Testimony: If a person gains a testimony of the BoM, then they also gain a testimony that (1) God exists, (2) Jesus Christ atonement is real, (3) Joseph Smith is a prophet, (4) the Church is true. [Introduction to the Book of Mormon]

===Potential Criticisms and Faithful Information===
*Some critics have said the Book of Mormon teachings of Christ are reflective of Joseph Smith’s environment, rather than an ancient Israelite's environment. Recent research actually shows that Book of Mormon teachings about the Messiah are consistent with ancient Jewish beliefs. See these presentations by [http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/papers/?paperID=6&chapterID=52 Kevin Christensen] or [http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/2003_Monotheism_Messiah_and_Mormons_Book.html Brant Gardner]
*The title page says Jesus Christ is the “Eternal God.” Some critics say this is evidence that Joseph Smith started out as a modalist or Trinitarian. [http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=13&num=2&id=392 Ari D. Brueing and David L. Paulson, "The Development of the Mormon Understanding of God," FARMS Review 13/2 pg. 114-139]
*Some critics complain the Book of Mormon does not contain the “fullness of doctrine” or the “fullness of Gospel” because it is missing distinctive “Mormon” doctrines. “Gospel” or “doctrine” as used in the Book of Mormon is not meant to be comprehensive [http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Contains_the_fulness_of_the_gospel]
*Some critics say that praying about the Book of Mormon is not an “objective” means of testing it and that the Bible is the only standard that can or should be used. This idea is contradicted by the Bible itself [http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Moroni%27s_promise]
*Other critics say that “Moroni’s challenge” is circular reasoning. Such critics are actually engaged in some circular reasoning of their own [http://ldsreasonandrevelation.blogspot.com/2011/04/moroni-103-5-and-truth-of-book-of.html#more]

===Faith Affirmations===

==2. Many Witnesses have Testified of the Book of Mormon==
===Helpful Insights===
*Angels and Books: The Joseph Smith story actually fits an ancient pattern where prophets are given a heavenly book or hidden record by an angelic messenger [http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=9&chapid=77] or [http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=71&chapid=773]
*In his 2009 General Conference talk, Elder Jeffrey R. Holland talked about how Joseph and Hyrum Smith went to his death baring testimony of the Book of Mormon, a powerful evidence of its divinity ([http://lds.org/ensign/2009/11/safety-for-the-soul?lang=eng ''Ensign''])
*Various witnesses have left behind a description of the plates [http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Translation/Description_of_the_plates]
*Informal Witnesses: In addition to the official Book of Mormon witnesses, some others got to feel the plates while covered or got to see them under special circumstances ([http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Witnesses/Other_Book_of_Mormon_witnesses Other Book of Mormon Witnesses])

===Potential Criticisms and Faithful Information===
*Moroni’s Visit: Critics have attacked the story of Moroni’s visit is various ways. Here some of those criticisms are identified and responded to. [http://en.fairmormon.org/Moroni%27s_visit]
*Weight of the Plates: Some critics say the plates would have weighed too much to be lifted and carried as Joseph and others claimed to. This assumes the plates were pure gold [http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=71&chapid=847]
*The Three and Eight Witnesses: Various criticisms have been leveled at the Book of Mormon witnesses. All of these have been responded to by faithful Latter-day Saints. [http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Witnesses]
*Fraudulent Plates? Some critics suggest that Joseph Smith could have manufactured a fake set of plates. [http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Anachronisms/Gold_plates] and [http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Witnesses/Strangite_parallels]

===Faith Affirmations===
*Metal Plates: Since the coming forth of the Book of Mormon, numerous examples of writing on metal plates have been unearthed. Here are some examples. [http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=19&num=1&id=637] or [http://www.templestudy.com/2011/04/07/authentic-ancient-metal-plates/] or [http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Anachronisms/Metal_plates]
*Subscription: This is the ancient Near Eastern practice of placing the title and authorship of a text at the end of the record, rather than the beginning. Interestingly, Joseph Smith said the title page was a translation of the very last of the metal plates. [http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=98&chapid=1038]
*Doubled, Sealed, and Witnessed Documents: Joseph Smith and others who saw the plates said that a portion of them were sealed. This is consistent with known legal practices of the ancient Near-East. [http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/insights/?vol=21&num=6&id=200] or [http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=9&chapid=76]
*Despite leaving the Church, none of the witnesses ever denied their testimony of seeing the plates [http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Witnesses/Recant] or [http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=41&chapid=181]

==3. The Book of Mormon was Written for Our Day==
===Helpful Insights===
*The Book of Mormon is An Ancient Book: While the Book of Mormon was indeed written for our, it is important to remember that the Book of Mormon was not written in our day. Brant Gardner has explained it this way:

:“It is popular (and theologically appropriate) to claim that the Book of Mormon was written for our day. This statement emphasizes the modern value of the Book of Mormon. It necessarily treats the text ahistorically. Regardless of the value for our day and the obvious fact that it came forth in our day, it was not written in our day, nor in our language, nor in our culture. Even internally, there is little evidence that Mormon conceived of a future people who were significantly different from those he knew.” [Brant A. Gardner, Second Witness: Analytical and Contextual Commentary on the Book of Mormon, six volumes, (Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2007), 1: viii.]

Thus, it is important not impose modern standards and expectations on to the record. Of course we still can, and should, “liken” the text to our own lives, but at the same time caution must be taken to remember that “likening” is a tool for practical application, not a method of scriptural exegesis. Understanding this is important because many criticisms against the Book of Mormon rely on modern assumptions about the it, rather than what it actually says.

===Potential Criticisms and Faithful Information===
===Faith Affirmations===

==4. The Book of Mormon can Bring us Nearer to God==
===Helpful Insights===
===Potential Criticisms and Faithful Information===
*“Most Correct Book”: Many critics claim that because Joseph Smith said the Book of Mormon is the “most correct book” it should be error-free. These critics are taking this quote out of context. [http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/As_the_most_correct_book]
*Textual Changes: Some critics point to textual changes as evidence of changing theology or covering up mistakes. Most changes are minor edits to punctuation, spelling, and grammar. The few more significant changes have been examined and discussed by knowledgeable Latter-day Saints [http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Textual_changes]
===Faith Affirmations===

==Additional Information Related to the Introductory Material in the Book of Mormon==
In the Introduction to the Book of Mormon, it says that the Book of Mormon is a “record of God’s dealings with the ancient inhabitants of the Americas” and that the Lamanites are “among the ancestors of the American Indians.” This opens up a number issues related to Book of Mormon geography, archeology, populations, and modern DNA studies. The following maybe helpful to Gospel Doctrine instructors who would like to be prepared should any of these issues arise during their lesson:
*Archeology: Critics claim that archeology contradicts the Book of Mormon. [http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Archaeology]
*Geography: Most people assume that the Book of Mormon events spanned across the entire continent. A close reading of the text reveals fairly tight spatial relations. [http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Geography/New_World]
*DNA and the Book of Mormon: Some critics claim that DNA disproves the Book of Mormon, while some members have claimed that DNA provides evidence for the Book of Mormon. Both claims are incorrect. [http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/DNA_evidence]

FAIR Study Aids/Gospel Doctrine/Book of Mormon/Lesson One

2011-12-29T18:14:51Z

Awyatt: /* Potential Criticisms and Faithful Information */

{{Articles FAIR copyright}} {{Articles Header 1}} {{Articles Header 2}} {{Articles Header 3}} {{Articles Header 4}} {{Articles Header 5}} {{Articles Header 6}} {{Articles Header 7}} {{Articles Header 8}} {{Articles Header 9}} {{Articles Header 10}}

=Lesson 1: "The Keystone of our Religion"=

==LDS Lesson Manual==

[http://lds.org/manual/book-of-mormon-gospel-doctrine-teachers-manual/lesson-1-the-keystone-of-our-religion?lang=eng Gospel Doctrine Teacher's Manual - Lesson 1: The Keystone of Our Religion]

==1. The Book of Mormon is the Keystone of Our Religion==
===Helpful Insights===
*The Keystone of Our Religion: The Book of Mormon is the keystone of our religion because the essence of our religion is revelation, and the Book of Mormon is tangible evidence that revelation has been received. This is why Terryl Givens calls the Book of Mormon the “sacred sign” of our faith. [Terryl L. Givens, By the Hand of Mormon: The American Scripture that Launched a New World Religion (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2002), 62-88]
*Witness of Christ: Of the 6,607 verses in the modern editions of the Book of Mormon, 3,925 of them make direct reference to Jesus Christ, an average of 1 reference to Christ every 1.7 verses. [Susan Easton Black, Finding Christ through the Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 1987), 16-18]
*Keystone Witness of Christ: If BoM is true, then the resurrected Christ was seen and touched by thousands of people in ancient America. Thus, Jesus really rose from the dead and the Atonement is real.
*Fullness of Doctrine: The Book of Mormon lays-out a six point formula as the “gospel” or “doctrine” of Christ. [http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=71&chapid=841]
*Keystone in Doctrine: If the BoM is true, then Joseph Smith is prophet and the doctrines taught in his later revelations are also true.
*Modal for Testimony: The Book of Mormon presents a revolutionary model for revelation as a dialogue that ultimately provides the means for seeking one’s own testimony [http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/jbms/?vol=10&num=2&id=250]
*Keystone in Testimony: If a person gains a testimony of the BoM, then they also gain a testimony that (1) God exists, (2) Jesus Christ atonement is real, (3) Joseph Smith is a prophet, (4) the Church is true. [Introduction to the Book of Mormon]

===Potential Criticisms and Faithful Information===
*Some critics have said the Book of Mormon teachings of Christ are reflective of Joseph Smith’s environment, rather than an ancient Israelite's environment. Recent research actually shows that Book of Mormon teachings about the Messiah are consistent with ancient Jewish beliefs. See these presentations by [http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/papers/?paperID=6&chapterID=52 Kevin Christensen] or [http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/2003_Monotheism_Messiah_and_Mormons_Book.html Brant Gardner]
*The title page says Jesus Christ is the “Eternal God.” Some critics say this is evidence that Joseph Smith started out as a modalist or Trinitarian. [http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=13&num=2&id=392 Ari D. Brueing and David L. Paulson, "The Development of the Mormon Understanding of God," FARMS Review 13/2 pg. 114-139]
*Some critics complain the Book of Mormon does not contain the “fullness of doctrine” or the “fullness of Gospel” because it is missing distinctive “Mormon” doctrines. “Gospel” or “doctrine” as used in the Book of Mormon is not meant to be comprehensive [http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Contains_the_fulness_of_the_gospel]
*Some critics say that praying about the Book of Mormon is not an “objective” means of testing it and that the Bible is the only standard that can or should be used. This idea is contradicted by the Bible itself [http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Moroni%27s_promise]
*Other critics say that “Moroni’s challenge” is circular reasoning. Such critics are actually engaged in some circular reasoning of their own [http://ldsreasonandrevelation.blogspot.com/2011/04/moroni-103-5-and-truth-of-book-of.html#more]

===Faith Affirmations===

==2. Many Witnesses have Testified of the Book of Mormon==
===Helpful Insights===
*Angels and Books: The Joseph Smith story actually fits an ancient pattern where prophets are given a heavenly book or hidden record by an angelic messenger [http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=9&chapid=77] or [http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=71&chapid=773]
*In his 2009 General Conference talk, Elder Jeffrey R. Holland talked about how Joseph and Hyrum Smith went to his death baring testimony of the Book of Mormon, a powerful evidence of its divinity ([http://lds.org/ensign/2009/11/safety-for-the-soul?lang=eng ''Ensign''])
*Various witnesses have left behind a description of the plates [http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Translation/Description_of_the_plates]
*Informal Witnesses: In addition to the official Book of Mormon witnesses, some others got to feel the plates while covered or got to see them under special circumstances ([http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Witnesses/Other_Book_of_Mormon_witnesses Other Book of Mormon Witnesses])

===Potential Criticisms and Faithful Information===
*Moroni’s Visit: Critics have attacked the story of Moroni’s visit is various ways. Here some of those criticisms are identified and responded to. [http://en.fairmormon.org/Moroni%27s_visit]
*Weight of the Plates: Some critics say the plates would have weighed too much to be lifted and carried as Joseph and others claimed to. This assumes the plates were pure gold [http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=71&chapid=847]
*The Three and Eight Witnesses: Various criticisms have been leveled at the Book of Mormon witnesses. All of these have been responded to by faithful Latter-day Saints. [http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Witnesses]
*Fraudulent Plates? Some critics suggest that Joseph Smith could have manufactured a fake set of plates. [http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Anachronisms/Gold_plates] and [http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Witnesses/Strangite_parallels]

===Faith Affirmations===
*Metal Plates: Since the coming forth of the Book of Mormon, numerous examples of writing on metal plates have been unearthed. Here are some examples. [http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=19&num=1&id=637, or http://www.templestudy.com/2011/04/07/authentic-ancient-metal-plates/, or http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Anachronisms/Metal_plates]
*Subscriptio: This is the ancient Near Eastern practice of placing the title and authorship of a text at the end of the record, rather than the beginning. Interestingly, Joseph Smith said the title page was a translation of the very last of the metal plates. [http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=98&chapid=1038]
*Doubled, Sealed, and Witnessed Documents: Joseph Smith and others who saw the plates said that a portion of them were sealed. This is consistent with known legal practices of the ancient Near-East. [http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/insights/?vol=21&num=6&id=200, or http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=9&chapid=76]
*Despite leaving the Church, none of the witnesses ever denied their testimony of seeing the plates [http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Witnesses/Recant, or http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=41&chapid=181]

==3. The Book of Mormon was Written for Our Day==
===Helpful Insights===
*The Book of Mormon is An Ancient Book: While the Book of Mormon was indeed written for our, it is important to remember that the Book of Mormon was not written in our day. Brant Gardner has explained it this way:

:“It is popular (and theologically appropriate) to claim that the Book of Mormon was written for our day. This statement emphasizes the modern value of the Book of Mormon. It necessarily treats the text ahistorically. Regardless of the value for our day and the obvious fact that it came forth in our day, it was not written in our day, nor in our language, nor in our culture. Even internally, there is little evidence that Mormon conceived of a future people who were significantly different from those he knew.” [Brant A. Gardner, Second Witness: Analytical and Contextual Commentary on the Book of Mormon, six volumes, (Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2007), 1: viii.]

Thus, it is important not impose modern standards and expectations on to the record. Of course we still can, and should, “liken” the text to our own lives, but at the same time caution must be taken to remember that “likening” is a tool for practical application, not a method of scriptural exegesis. Understanding this is important because many criticisms against the Book of Mormon rely on modern assumptions about the it, rather than what it actually says.

===Potential Criticisms and Faithful Information===
===Faith Affirmations===

==4. The Book of Mormon can Bring us Nearer to God==
===Helpful Insights===
===Potential Criticisms and Faithful Information===
*“Most Correct Book”: Many critics claim that because Joseph Smith said the Book of Mormon is the “most correct book” it should be error-free. These critics are taking this quote out of context. [http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/As_the_most_correct_book]
*Textual Changes: Some critics point to textual changes as evidence of changing theology or covering up mistakes. Most changes are minor edits to punctuation, spelling, and grammar. The few more significant changes have been examined and discussed by knowledgeable Latter-day Saints [http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Textual_changes]
===Faith Affirmations===

==Additional Information Related to the Introductory Material in the Book of Mormon==
In the Introduction to the Book of Mormon, it says that the Book of Mormon is a “record of God’s dealings with the ancient inhabitants of the Americas” and that the Lamanites are “among the ancestors of the American Indians.” This opens up a number issues related to Book of Mormon geography, archeology, populations, and modern DNA studies. The following maybe helpful to Gospel Doctrine instructors who would like to be prepared should any of these issues arise during their lesson:
*Archeology: Critics claim that archeology contradicts the Book of Mormon. [http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Archaeology]
*Geography: Most people assume that the Book of Mormon events spanned across the entire continent. A close reading of the text reveals fairly tight spatial relations. [http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Geography/New_World]
*DNA and the Book of Mormon: Some critics claim that DNA disproves the Book of Mormon, while some members have claimed that DNA provides evidence for the Book of Mormon. Both claims are incorrect. [http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/DNA_evidence]

FAIR Study Aids/Gospel Doctrine/Book of Mormon/Lesson One

2011-12-29T18:14:14Z

Awyatt: /* Helpful Insights */

{{Articles FAIR copyright}} {{Articles Header 1}} {{Articles Header 2}} {{Articles Header 3}} {{Articles Header 4}} {{Articles Header 5}} {{Articles Header 6}} {{Articles Header 7}} {{Articles Header 8}} {{Articles Header 9}} {{Articles Header 10}}

=Lesson 1: "The Keystone of our Religion"=

==LDS Lesson Manual==

[http://lds.org/manual/book-of-mormon-gospel-doctrine-teachers-manual/lesson-1-the-keystone-of-our-religion?lang=eng Gospel Doctrine Teacher's Manual - Lesson 1: The Keystone of Our Religion]

==1. The Book of Mormon is the Keystone of Our Religion==
===Helpful Insights===
*The Keystone of Our Religion: The Book of Mormon is the keystone of our religion because the essence of our religion is revelation, and the Book of Mormon is tangible evidence that revelation has been received. This is why Terryl Givens calls the Book of Mormon the “sacred sign” of our faith. [Terryl L. Givens, By the Hand of Mormon: The American Scripture that Launched a New World Religion (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2002), 62-88]
*Witness of Christ: Of the 6,607 verses in the modern editions of the Book of Mormon, 3,925 of them make direct reference to Jesus Christ, an average of 1 reference to Christ every 1.7 verses. [Susan Easton Black, Finding Christ through the Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 1987), 16-18]
*Keystone Witness of Christ: If BoM is true, then the resurrected Christ was seen and touched by thousands of people in ancient America. Thus, Jesus really rose from the dead and the Atonement is real.
*Fullness of Doctrine: The Book of Mormon lays-out a six point formula as the “gospel” or “doctrine” of Christ. [http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=71&chapid=841]
*Keystone in Doctrine: If the BoM is true, then Joseph Smith is prophet and the doctrines taught in his later revelations are also true.
*Modal for Testimony: The Book of Mormon presents a revolutionary model for revelation as a dialogue that ultimately provides the means for seeking one’s own testimony [http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/jbms/?vol=10&num=2&id=250]
*Keystone in Testimony: If a person gains a testimony of the BoM, then they also gain a testimony that (1) God exists, (2) Jesus Christ atonement is real, (3) Joseph Smith is a prophet, (4) the Church is true. [Introduction to the Book of Mormon]

===Potential Criticisms and Faithful Information===
*Some critics have said the Book of Mormon teachings of Christ are reflective of Joseph Smith’s environment, rather than an ancient Israelite's environment. Recent research actually shows that Book of Mormon teachings about the Messiah are consistent with ancient Jewish beliefs. See these presentations by [http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/papers/?paperID=6&chapterID=52 Kevin Christensen] or [http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/2003_Monotheism_Messiah_and_Mormons_Book.html Brant Gardner]
*The title page says Jesus Christ is the “Eternal God.” Some critics say this is evidence that Joseph Smith started out as a modalist or Trinitarian. [http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=13&num=2&id=392 Ari D. Brueing and David L. Paulson, "The Development of the Mormon Understanding of God," FARMS Review 13/2 pg. 114-139]
*Some critics complain the Book of Mormon does not contain the “fullness of doctrine” or the “fullness of Gospel” because it is missing distinctive “Mormon” doctrines. “Gospel” or “doctrine” as used in the Book of Mormon is not meant to be comprehensive [http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Contains_the_fulness_of_the_gospel]
*Some critics say that praying about the Book of Mormon is not an “objective” means of testing it and that the Bible is the only standard that can or should be used. This idea is contradicted by the Bible itself [http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Moroni%27s_promise]
*Other critics say that “Moroni’s challenge” is circular reasoning. Such critics are actually engaged in some circular reasoning of their own [http://ldsreasonandrevelation.blogspot.com/2011/04/moroni-103-5-and-truth-of-book-of.html#more]

===Faith Affirmations===

==2. Many Witnesses have Testified of the Book of Mormon==
===Helpful Insights===
*Angels and Books: The Joseph Smith story actually fits an ancient pattern where prophets are given a heavenly book or hidden record by an angelic messenger [http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=9&chapid=77] or [http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=71&chapid=773]
*In his 2009 General Conference talk, Elder Jeffrey R. Holland talked about how Joseph and Hyrum Smith went to his death baring testimony of the Book of Mormon, a powerful evidence of its divinity ([http://lds.org/ensign/2009/11/safety-for-the-soul?lang=eng ''Ensign''])
*Various witnesses have left behind a description of the plates [http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Translation/Description_of_the_plates]
*Informal Witnesses: In addition to the official Book of Mormon witnesses, some others got to feel the plates while covered or got to see them under special circumstances ([http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Witnesses/Other_Book_of_Mormon_witnesses Other Book of Mormon Witnesses])

===Potential Criticisms and Faithful Information===
*Moroni’s Visit: Critics have attacked the story of Moroni’s visit is various ways. Here some of those criticisms are identified and responded to. [http://en.fairmormon.org/Moroni%27s_visit]
*Weight of the Plates: Some critics say the plates would have weighed too much to be lifted and carried as Joseph and others claimed to. This assumes the plates were pure gold [http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=71&chapid=847]
*The Three and Eight Witnesses: Various criticisms have been leveled at the Book of Mormon witnesses. All of these have been responded to by faithful Latter-day Saints. [http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Witnesses]
*Fraudulent Plates? Some critics suggest that Joseph Smith could have manufactured a fake set of plates. [http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Anachronisms/Gold_plates, and http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Witnesses/Strangite_parallels]
===Faith Affirmations===
*Metal Plates: Since the coming forth of the Book of Mormon, numerous examples of writing on metal plates have been unearthed. Here are some examples. [http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=19&num=1&id=637, or http://www.templestudy.com/2011/04/07/authentic-ancient-metal-plates/, or http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Anachronisms/Metal_plates]
*Subscriptio: This is the ancient Near Eastern practice of placing the title and authorship of a text at the end of the record, rather than the beginning. Interestingly, Joseph Smith said the title page was a translation of the very last of the metal plates. [http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=98&chapid=1038]
*Doubled, Sealed, and Witnessed Documents: Joseph Smith and others who saw the plates said that a portion of them were sealed. This is consistent with known legal practices of the ancient Near-East. [http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/insights/?vol=21&num=6&id=200, or http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=9&chapid=76]
*Despite leaving the Church, none of the witnesses ever denied their testimony of seeing the plates [http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Witnesses/Recant, or http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=41&chapid=181]

==3. The Book of Mormon was Written for Our Day==
===Helpful Insights===
*The Book of Mormon is An Ancient Book: While the Book of Mormon was indeed written for our, it is important to remember that the Book of Mormon was not written in our day. Brant Gardner has explained it this way:

:“It is popular (and theologically appropriate) to claim that the Book of Mormon was written for our day. This statement emphasizes the modern value of the Book of Mormon. It necessarily treats the text ahistorically. Regardless of the value for our day and the obvious fact that it came forth in our day, it was not written in our day, nor in our language, nor in our culture. Even internally, there is little evidence that Mormon conceived of a future people who were significantly different from those he knew.” [Brant A. Gardner, Second Witness: Analytical and Contextual Commentary on the Book of Mormon, six volumes, (Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2007), 1: viii.]

Thus, it is important not impose modern standards and expectations on to the record. Of course we still can, and should, “liken” the text to our own lives, but at the same time caution must be taken to remember that “likening” is a tool for practical application, not a method of scriptural exegesis. Understanding this is important because many criticisms against the Book of Mormon rely on modern assumptions about the it, rather than what it actually says.

===Potential Criticisms and Faithful Information===
===Faith Affirmations===

==4. The Book of Mormon can Bring us Nearer to God==
===Helpful Insights===
===Potential Criticisms and Faithful Information===
*“Most Correct Book”: Many critics claim that because Joseph Smith said the Book of Mormon is the “most correct book” it should be error-free. These critics are taking this quote out of context. [http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/As_the_most_correct_book]
*Textual Changes: Some critics point to textual changes as evidence of changing theology or covering up mistakes. Most changes are minor edits to punctuation, spelling, and grammar. The few more significant changes have been examined and discussed by knowledgeable Latter-day Saints [http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Textual_changes]
===Faith Affirmations===

==Additional Information Related to the Introductory Material in the Book of Mormon==
In the Introduction to the Book of Mormon, it says that the Book of Mormon is a “record of God’s dealings with the ancient inhabitants of the Americas” and that the Lamanites are “among the ancestors of the American Indians.” This opens up a number issues related to Book of Mormon geography, archeology, populations, and modern DNA studies. The following maybe helpful to Gospel Doctrine instructors who would like to be prepared should any of these issues arise during their lesson:
*Archeology: Critics claim that archeology contradicts the Book of Mormon. [http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Archaeology]
*Geography: Most people assume that the Book of Mormon events spanned across the entire continent. A close reading of the text reveals fairly tight spatial relations. [http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Geography/New_World]
*DNA and the Book of Mormon: Some critics claim that DNA disproves the Book of Mormon, while some members have claimed that DNA provides evidence for the Book of Mormon. Both claims are incorrect. [http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/DNA_evidence]

FAIR Study Aids/Gospel Doctrine/Book of Mormon/Lesson One

2011-12-29T18:12:32Z

Awyatt: /* Potential Criticisms and Faithful Information */

{{Articles FAIR copyright}} {{Articles Header 1}} {{Articles Header 2}} {{Articles Header 3}} {{Articles Header 4}} {{Articles Header 5}} {{Articles Header 6}} {{Articles Header 7}} {{Articles Header 8}} {{Articles Header 9}} {{Articles Header 10}}

=Lesson 1: "The Keystone of our Religion"=

==LDS Lesson Manual==

[http://lds.org/manual/book-of-mormon-gospel-doctrine-teachers-manual/lesson-1-the-keystone-of-our-religion?lang=eng Gospel Doctrine Teacher's Manual - Lesson 1: The Keystone of Our Religion]

==1. The Book of Mormon is the Keystone of Our Religion==
===Helpful Insights===
*The Keystone of Our Religion: The Book of Mormon is the keystone of our religion because the essence of our religion is revelation, and the Book of Mormon is tangible evidence that revelation has been received. This is why Terryl Givens calls the Book of Mormon the “sacred sign” of our faith. [Terryl L. Givens, By the Hand of Mormon: The American Scripture that Launched a New World Religion (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2002), 62-88]
*Witness of Christ: Of the 6,607 verses in the modern editions of the Book of Mormon, 3,925 of them make direct reference to Jesus Christ, an average of 1 reference to Christ every 1.7 verses. [Susan Easton Black, Finding Christ through the Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 1987), 16-18]
*Keystone Witness of Christ: If BoM is true, then the resurrected Christ was seen and touched by thousands of people in ancient America. Thus, Jesus really rose from the dead and the Atonement is real.
*Fullness of Doctrine: The Book of Mormon lays-out a six point formula as the “gospel” or “doctrine” of Christ. [http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=71&chapid=841]
*Keystone in Doctrine: If the BoM is true, then Joseph Smith is prophet and the doctrines taught in his later revelations are also true.
*Modal for Testimony: The Book of Mormon presents a revolutionary model for revelation as a dialogue that ultimately provides the means for seeking one’s own testimony [http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/jbms/?vol=10&num=2&id=250]
*Keystone in Testimony: If a person gains a testimony of the BoM, then they also gain a testimony that (1) God exists, (2) Jesus Christ atonement is real, (3) Joseph Smith is a prophet, (4) the Church is true. [Introduction to the Book of Mormon]

===Potential Criticisms and Faithful Information===
*Some critics have said the Book of Mormon teachings of Christ are reflective of Joseph Smith’s environment, rather than an ancient Israelite's environment. Recent research actually shows that Book of Mormon teachings about the Messiah are consistent with ancient Jewish beliefs. See these presentations by [http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/papers/?paperID=6&chapterID=52 Kevin Christensen] or [http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/2003_Monotheism_Messiah_and_Mormons_Book.html Brant Gardner]
*The title page says Jesus Christ is the “Eternal God.” Some critics say this is evidence that Joseph Smith started out as a modalist or Trinitarian. [http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=13&num=2&id=392 Ari D. Brueing and David L. Paulson, "The Development of the Mormon Understanding of God," FARMS Review 13/2 pg. 114-139]
*Some critics complain the Book of Mormon does not contain the “fullness of doctrine” or the “fullness of Gospel” because it is missing distinctive “Mormon” doctrines. “Gospel” or “doctrine” as used in the Book of Mormon is not meant to be comprehensive [http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Contains_the_fulness_of_the_gospel]
*Some critics say that praying about the Book of Mormon is not an “objective” means of testing it and that the Bible is the only standard that can or should be used. This idea is contradicted by the Bible itself [http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Moroni%27s_promise]
*Other critics say that “Moroni’s challenge” is circular reasoning. Such critics are actually engaged in some circular reasoning of their own [http://ldsreasonandrevelation.blogspot.com/2011/04/moroni-103-5-and-truth-of-book-of.html#more]

===Faith Affirmations===

==2. Many Witnesses have Testified of the Book of Mormon==
===Helpful Insights===
*Angels and Books: The Joseph Smith story actually fits an ancient pattern where prophets are given a heavenly book or hidden record by an angelic messenger [http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=9&chapid=77, or http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=71&chapid=773]
*In his 2009 General Conference talk, Elder Jeffrey R. Holland talked about how Joseph and Hyrum Smith went to his death baring testimony of the Book of Mormon, a powerful evidence of its divinity [http://lds.org/ensign/2009/11/safety-for-the-soul?lang=eng]
*Various witnesses have left behind a description of the plates [http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Translation/Description_of_the_plates]
*Informal Witnesses: In addition to the official Book of Mormon witnesses, some others got to feel the plates while covered, or got to see them under special circumstances [http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Witnesses/Other_Book_of_Mormon_witnesses]
===Potential Criticisms and Faithful Information===
*Moroni’s Visit: Critics have attacked the story of Moroni’s visit is various ways. Here some of those criticisms are identified and responded to. [http://en.fairmormon.org/Moroni%27s_visit]
*Weight of the Plates: Some critics say the plates would have weighed too much to be lifted and carried as Joseph and others claimed to. This assumes the plates were pure gold [http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=71&chapid=847]
*The Three and Eight Witnesses: Various criticisms have been leveled at the Book of Mormon witnesses. All of these have been responded to by faithful Latter-day Saints. [http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Witnesses]
*Fraudulent Plates? Some critics suggest that Joseph Smith could have manufactured a fake set of plates. [http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Anachronisms/Gold_plates, and http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Witnesses/Strangite_parallels]
===Faith Affirmations===
*Metal Plates: Since the coming forth of the Book of Mormon, numerous examples of writing on metal plates have been unearthed. Here are some examples. [http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=19&num=1&id=637, or http://www.templestudy.com/2011/04/07/authentic-ancient-metal-plates/, or http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Anachronisms/Metal_plates]
*Subscriptio: This is the ancient Near Eastern practice of placing the title and authorship of a text at the end of the record, rather than the beginning. Interestingly, Joseph Smith said the title page was a translation of the very last of the metal plates. [http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=98&chapid=1038]
*Doubled, Sealed, and Witnessed Documents: Joseph Smith and others who saw the plates said that a portion of them were sealed. This is consistent with known legal practices of the ancient Near-East. [http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/insights/?vol=21&num=6&id=200, or http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=9&chapid=76]
*Despite leaving the Church, none of the witnesses ever denied their testimony of seeing the plates [http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Witnesses/Recant, or http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=41&chapid=181]

==3. The Book of Mormon was Written for Our Day==
===Helpful Insights===
*The Book of Mormon is An Ancient Book: While the Book of Mormon was indeed written for our, it is important to remember that the Book of Mormon was not written in our day. Brant Gardner has explained it this way:

:“It is popular (and theologically appropriate) to claim that the Book of Mormon was written for our day. This statement emphasizes the modern value of the Book of Mormon. It necessarily treats the text ahistorically. Regardless of the value for our day and the obvious fact that it came forth in our day, it was not written in our day, nor in our language, nor in our culture. Even internally, there is little evidence that Mormon conceived of a future people who were significantly different from those he knew.” [Brant A. Gardner, Second Witness: Analytical and Contextual Commentary on the Book of Mormon, six volumes, (Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2007), 1: viii.]

Thus, it is important not impose modern standards and expectations on to the record. Of course we still can, and should, “liken” the text to our own lives, but at the same time caution must be taken to remember that “likening” is a tool for practical application, not a method of scriptural exegesis. Understanding this is important because many criticisms against the Book of Mormon rely on modern assumptions about the it, rather than what it actually says.

===Potential Criticisms and Faithful Information===
===Faith Affirmations===

==4. The Book of Mormon can Bring us Nearer to God==
===Helpful Insights===
===Potential Criticisms and Faithful Information===
*“Most Correct Book”: Many critics claim that because Joseph Smith said the Book of Mormon is the “most correct book” it should be error-free. These critics are taking this quote out of context. [http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/As_the_most_correct_book]
*Textual Changes: Some critics point to textual changes as evidence of changing theology or covering up mistakes. Most changes are minor edits to punctuation, spelling, and grammar. The few more significant changes have been examined and discussed by knowledgeable Latter-day Saints [http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Textual_changes]
===Faith Affirmations===

==Additional Information Related to the Introductory Material in the Book of Mormon==
In the Introduction to the Book of Mormon, it says that the Book of Mormon is a “record of God’s dealings with the ancient inhabitants of the Americas” and that the Lamanites are “among the ancestors of the American Indians.” This opens up a number issues related to Book of Mormon geography, archeology, populations, and modern DNA studies. The following maybe helpful to Gospel Doctrine instructors who would like to be prepared should any of these issues arise during their lesson:
*Archeology: Critics claim that archeology contradicts the Book of Mormon. [http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Archaeology]
*Geography: Most people assume that the Book of Mormon events spanned across the entire continent. A close reading of the text reveals fairly tight spatial relations. [http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Geography/New_World]
*DNA and the Book of Mormon: Some critics claim that DNA disproves the Book of Mormon, while some members have claimed that DNA provides evidence for the Book of Mormon. Both claims are incorrect. [http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/DNA_evidence]

FAIR Study Aids/Gospel Doctrine/Book of Mormon/Lesson One

2011-12-29T18:10:51Z

Awyatt: /* Potential Criticisms and Faithful Information */

{{Articles FAIR copyright}} {{Articles Header 1}} {{Articles Header 2}} {{Articles Header 3}} {{Articles Header 4}} {{Articles Header 5}} {{Articles Header 6}} {{Articles Header 7}} {{Articles Header 8}} {{Articles Header 9}} {{Articles Header 10}}

=Lesson 1: "The Keystone of our Religion"=

==LDS Lesson Manual==

[http://lds.org/manual/book-of-mormon-gospel-doctrine-teachers-manual/lesson-1-the-keystone-of-our-religion?lang=eng Gospel Doctrine Teacher's Manual - Lesson 1: The Keystone of Our Religion]

==1. The Book of Mormon is the Keystone of Our Religion==
===Helpful Insights===
*The Keystone of Our Religion: The Book of Mormon is the keystone of our religion because the essence of our religion is revelation, and the Book of Mormon is tangible evidence that revelation has been received. This is why Terryl Givens calls the Book of Mormon the “sacred sign” of our faith. [Terryl L. Givens, By the Hand of Mormon: The American Scripture that Launched a New World Religion (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2002), 62-88]
*Witness of Christ: Of the 6,607 verses in the modern editions of the Book of Mormon, 3,925 of them make direct reference to Jesus Christ, an average of 1 reference to Christ every 1.7 verses. [Susan Easton Black, Finding Christ through the Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 1987), 16-18]
*Keystone Witness of Christ: If BoM is true, then the resurrected Christ was seen and touched by thousands of people in ancient America. Thus, Jesus really rose from the dead and the Atonement is real.
*Fullness of Doctrine: The Book of Mormon lays-out a six point formula as the “gospel” or “doctrine” of Christ. [http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=71&chapid=841]
*Keystone in Doctrine: If the BoM is true, then Joseph Smith is prophet and the doctrines taught in his later revelations are also true.
*Modal for Testimony: The Book of Mormon presents a revolutionary model for revelation as a dialogue that ultimately provides the means for seeking one’s own testimony [http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/jbms/?vol=10&num=2&id=250]
*Keystone in Testimony: If a person gains a testimony of the BoM, then they also gain a testimony that (1) God exists, (2) Jesus Christ atonement is real, (3) Joseph Smith is a prophet, (4) the Church is true. [Introduction to the Book of Mormon]

===Potential Criticisms and Faithful Information===
*Some critics have said the Book of Mormon teachings of Christ are reflective of Joseph Smith’s environment, rather than an ancient Israelite's environment. Recent research actually shows that Book of Mormon teachings about the Messiah are consistent with ancient Jewish beliefs. See these presentations by [http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/papers/?paperID=6&chapterID=52 Kevin Christensen] or [http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/2003_Monotheism_Messiah_and_Mormons_Book.html Brant Gardner]
*The title page says Jesus Christ is the “Eternal God.” Some critics say this is evidence that Joseph Smith started out as a modalist or Trinitarian. [http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=13&num=2&id=392 Ari D. Brueing and David L. Paulson, "The Development of the Mormon Understanding of God," FARMS Review 13/2 pg. 114-139]
*Some critics complain the Book of Mormon does not contain the “fullness of doctrine” or the “fullness of Gospel” because it is missing distinctive “Mormon” doctrines. “Gospel” or “doctrine” as used in the Book of Mormon is not meant to be comprehensive [http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Contains_the_fulness_of_the_gospel]
*Some critics say that praying about the Book of Mormon is not an “objective” means of testing it and that the Biblie is the only standard that can or should be used. This idea is contradicted by the Bible itself [http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Moroni%27s_promise]
*Other critics say that “Moroni’s challenge” is circular reasoning. Such critics are actually engaged in some circular reasoning of their own [http://ldsreasonandrevelation.blogspot.com/2011/04/moroni-103-5-and-truth-of-book-of.html#more]

===Faith Affirmations===

==2. Many Witnesses have Testified of the Book of Mormon==
===Helpful Insights===
*Angels and Books: The Joseph Smith story actually fits an ancient pattern where prophets are given a heavenly book or hidden record by an angelic messenger [http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=9&chapid=77, or http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=71&chapid=773]
*In his 2009 General Conference talk, Elder Jeffrey R. Holland talked about how Joseph and Hyrum Smith went to his death baring testimony of the Book of Mormon, a powerful evidence of its divinity [http://lds.org/ensign/2009/11/safety-for-the-soul?lang=eng]
*Various witnesses have left behind a description of the plates [http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Translation/Description_of_the_plates]
*Informal Witnesses: In addition to the official Book of Mormon witnesses, some others got to feel the plates while covered, or got to see them under special circumstances [http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Witnesses/Other_Book_of_Mormon_witnesses]
===Potential Criticisms and Faithful Information===
*Moroni’s Visit: Critics have attacked the story of Moroni’s visit is various ways. Here some of those criticisms are identified and responded to. [http://en.fairmormon.org/Moroni%27s_visit]
*Weight of the Plates: Some critics say the plates would have weighed too much to be lifted and carried as Joseph and others claimed to. This assumes the plates were pure gold [http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=71&chapid=847]
*The Three and Eight Witnesses: Various criticisms have been leveled at the Book of Mormon witnesses. All of these have been responded to by faithful Latter-day Saints. [http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Witnesses]
*Fraudulent Plates? Some critics suggest that Joseph Smith could have manufactured a fake set of plates. [http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Anachronisms/Gold_plates, and http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Witnesses/Strangite_parallels]
===Faith Affirmations===
*Metal Plates: Since the coming forth of the Book of Mormon, numerous examples of writing on metal plates have been unearthed. Here are some examples. [http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=19&num=1&id=637, or http://www.templestudy.com/2011/04/07/authentic-ancient-metal-plates/, or http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Anachronisms/Metal_plates]
*Subscriptio: This is the ancient Near Eastern practice of placing the title and authorship of a text at the end of the record, rather than the beginning. Interestingly, Joseph Smith said the title page was a translation of the very last of the metal plates. [http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=98&chapid=1038]
*Doubled, Sealed, and Witnessed Documents: Joseph Smith and others who saw the plates said that a portion of them were sealed. This is consistent with known legal practices of the ancient Near-East. [http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/insights/?vol=21&num=6&id=200, or http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=9&chapid=76]
*Despite leaving the Church, none of the witnesses ever denied their testimony of seeing the plates [http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Witnesses/Recant, or http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=41&chapid=181]

==3. The Book of Mormon was Written for Our Day==
===Helpful Insights===
*The Book of Mormon is An Ancient Book: While the Book of Mormon was indeed written for our, it is important to remember that the Book of Mormon was not written in our day. Brant Gardner has explained it this way:

:“It is popular (and theologically appropriate) to claim that the Book of Mormon was written for our day. This statement emphasizes the modern value of the Book of Mormon. It necessarily treats the text ahistorically. Regardless of the value for our day and the obvious fact that it came forth in our day, it was not written in our day, nor in our language, nor in our culture. Even internally, there is little evidence that Mormon conceived of a future people who were significantly different from those he knew.” [Brant A. Gardner, Second Witness: Analytical and Contextual Commentary on the Book of Mormon, six volumes, (Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2007), 1: viii.]

Thus, it is important not impose modern standards and expectations on to the record. Of course we still can, and should, “liken” the text to our own lives, but at the same time caution must be taken to remember that “likening” is a tool for practical application, not a method of scriptural exegesis. Understanding this is important because many criticisms against the Book of Mormon rely on modern assumptions about the it, rather than what it actually says.

===Potential Criticisms and Faithful Information===
===Faith Affirmations===

==4. The Book of Mormon can Bring us Nearer to God==
===Helpful Insights===
===Potential Criticisms and Faithful Information===
*“Most Correct Book”: Many critics claim that because Joseph Smith said the Book of Mormon is the “most correct book” it should be error-free. These critics are taking this quote out of context. [http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/As_the_most_correct_book]
*Textual Changes: Some critics point to textual changes as evidence of changing theology or covering up mistakes. Most changes are minor edits to punctuation, spelling, and grammar. The few more significant changes have been examined and discussed by knowledgeable Latter-day Saints [http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Textual_changes]
===Faith Affirmations===

==Additional Information Related to the Introductory Material in the Book of Mormon==
In the Introduction to the Book of Mormon, it says that the Book of Mormon is a “record of God’s dealings with the ancient inhabitants of the Americas” and that the Lamanites are “among the ancestors of the American Indians.” This opens up a number issues related to Book of Mormon geography, archeology, populations, and modern DNA studies. The following maybe helpful to Gospel Doctrine instructors who would like to be prepared should any of these issues arise during their lesson:
*Archeology: Critics claim that archeology contradicts the Book of Mormon. [http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Archaeology]
*Geography: Most people assume that the Book of Mormon events spanned across the entire continent. A close reading of the text reveals fairly tight spatial relations. [http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Geography/New_World]
*DNA and the Book of Mormon: Some critics claim that DNA disproves the Book of Mormon, while some members have claimed that DNA provides evidence for the Book of Mormon. Both claims are incorrect. [http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/DNA_evidence]

FAIR Study Aids/Gospel Doctrine/Book of Mormon/Lesson One

2011-12-29T18:10:36Z

Awyatt: /* Potential Criticisms and Faithful Information */

{{Articles FAIR copyright}} {{Articles Header 1}} {{Articles Header 2}} {{Articles Header 3}} {{Articles Header 4}} {{Articles Header 5}} {{Articles Header 6}} {{Articles Header 7}} {{Articles Header 8}} {{Articles Header 9}} {{Articles Header 10}}

=Lesson 1: "The Keystone of our Religion"=

==LDS Lesson Manual==

[http://lds.org/manual/book-of-mormon-gospel-doctrine-teachers-manual/lesson-1-the-keystone-of-our-religion?lang=eng Gospel Doctrine Teacher's Manual - Lesson 1: The Keystone of Our Religion]

==1. The Book of Mormon is the Keystone of Our Religion==
===Helpful Insights===
*The Keystone of Our Religion: The Book of Mormon is the keystone of our religion because the essence of our religion is revelation, and the Book of Mormon is tangible evidence that revelation has been received. This is why Terryl Givens calls the Book of Mormon the “sacred sign” of our faith. [Terryl L. Givens, By the Hand of Mormon: The American Scripture that Launched a New World Religion (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2002), 62-88]
*Witness of Christ: Of the 6,607 verses in the modern editions of the Book of Mormon, 3,925 of them make direct reference to Jesus Christ, an average of 1 reference to Christ every 1.7 verses. [Susan Easton Black, Finding Christ through the Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 1987), 16-18]
*Keystone Witness of Christ: If BoM is true, then the resurrected Christ was seen and touched by thousands of people in ancient America. Thus, Jesus really rose from the dead and the Atonement is real.
*Fullness of Doctrine: The Book of Mormon lays-out a six point formula as the “gospel” or “doctrine” of Christ. [http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=71&chapid=841]
*Keystone in Doctrine: If the BoM is true, then Joseph Smith is prophet and the doctrines taught in his later revelations are also true.
*Modal for Testimony: The Book of Mormon presents a revolutionary model for revelation as a dialogue that ultimately provides the means for seeking one’s own testimony [http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/jbms/?vol=10&num=2&id=250]
*Keystone in Testimony: If a person gains a testimony of the BoM, then they also gain a testimony that (1) God exists, (2) Jesus Christ atonement is real, (3) Joseph Smith is a prophet, (4) the Church is true. [Introduction to the Book of Mormon]

===Potential Criticisms and Faithful Information===
*Some critics have said the Book of Mormon teachings of Christ are reflective of Joseph Smith’s environment, rather than an ancient Israelite's environment. Recent research actually shows that Book of Mormon teachings about the Messiah are consistent with ancient Jewish beliefs. See these presentations by [http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/papers/?paperID=6&chapterID=52 Kevin Christensen] or [http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/2003_Monotheism_Messiah_and_Mormons_Book.html]
*The title page says Jesus Christ is the “Eternal God.” Some critics say this is evidence that Joseph Smith started out as a modalist or Trinitarian. [http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=13&num=2&id=392 Ari D. Brueing and David L. Paulson, "The Development of the Mormon Understanding of God," FARMS Review 13/2 pg. 114-139]
*Some critics complain the Book of Mormon does not contain the “fullness of doctrine” or the “fullness of Gospel” because it is missing distinctive “Mormon” doctrines. “Gospel” or “doctrine” as used in the Book of Mormon is not meant to be comprehensive [http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Contains_the_fulness_of_the_gospel]
*Some critics say that praying about the Book of Mormon is not an “objective” means of testing it and that the Biblie is the only standard that can or should be used. This idea is contradicted by the Bible itself [http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Moroni%27s_promise]
*Other critics say that “Moroni’s challenge” is circular reasoning. Such critics are actually engaged in some circular reasoning of their own [http://ldsreasonandrevelation.blogspot.com/2011/04/moroni-103-5-and-truth-of-book-of.html#more]

===Faith Affirmations===

==2. Many Witnesses have Testified of the Book of Mormon==
===Helpful Insights===
*Angels and Books: The Joseph Smith story actually fits an ancient pattern where prophets are given a heavenly book or hidden record by an angelic messenger [http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=9&chapid=77, or http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=71&chapid=773]
*In his 2009 General Conference talk, Elder Jeffrey R. Holland talked about how Joseph and Hyrum Smith went to his death baring testimony of the Book of Mormon, a powerful evidence of its divinity [http://lds.org/ensign/2009/11/safety-for-the-soul?lang=eng]
*Various witnesses have left behind a description of the plates [http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Translation/Description_of_the_plates]
*Informal Witnesses: In addition to the official Book of Mormon witnesses, some others got to feel the plates while covered, or got to see them under special circumstances [http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Witnesses/Other_Book_of_Mormon_witnesses]
===Potential Criticisms and Faithful Information===
*Moroni’s Visit: Critics have attacked the story of Moroni’s visit is various ways. Here some of those criticisms are identified and responded to. [http://en.fairmormon.org/Moroni%27s_visit]
*Weight of the Plates: Some critics say the plates would have weighed too much to be lifted and carried as Joseph and others claimed to. This assumes the plates were pure gold [http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=71&chapid=847]
*The Three and Eight Witnesses: Various criticisms have been leveled at the Book of Mormon witnesses. All of these have been responded to by faithful Latter-day Saints. [http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Witnesses]
*Fraudulent Plates? Some critics suggest that Joseph Smith could have manufactured a fake set of plates. [http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Anachronisms/Gold_plates, and http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Witnesses/Strangite_parallels]
===Faith Affirmations===
*Metal Plates: Since the coming forth of the Book of Mormon, numerous examples of writing on metal plates have been unearthed. Here are some examples. [http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=19&num=1&id=637, or http://www.templestudy.com/2011/04/07/authentic-ancient-metal-plates/, or http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Anachronisms/Metal_plates]
*Subscriptio: This is the ancient Near Eastern practice of placing the title and authorship of a text at the end of the record, rather than the beginning. Interestingly, Joseph Smith said the title page was a translation of the very last of the metal plates. [http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=98&chapid=1038]
*Doubled, Sealed, and Witnessed Documents: Joseph Smith and others who saw the plates said that a portion of them were sealed. This is consistent with known legal practices of the ancient Near-East. [http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/insights/?vol=21&num=6&id=200, or http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=9&chapid=76]
*Despite leaving the Church, none of the witnesses ever denied their testimony of seeing the plates [http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Witnesses/Recant, or http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=41&chapid=181]

==3. The Book of Mormon was Written for Our Day==
===Helpful Insights===
*The Book of Mormon is An Ancient Book: While the Book of Mormon was indeed written for our, it is important to remember that the Book of Mormon was not written in our day. Brant Gardner has explained it this way:

:“It is popular (and theologically appropriate) to claim that the Book of Mormon was written for our day. This statement emphasizes the modern value of the Book of Mormon. It necessarily treats the text ahistorically. Regardless of the value for our day and the obvious fact that it came forth in our day, it was not written in our day, nor in our language, nor in our culture. Even internally, there is little evidence that Mormon conceived of a future people who were significantly different from those he knew.” [Brant A. Gardner, Second Witness: Analytical and Contextual Commentary on the Book of Mormon, six volumes, (Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2007), 1: viii.]

Thus, it is important not impose modern standards and expectations on to the record. Of course we still can, and should, “liken” the text to our own lives, but at the same time caution must be taken to remember that “likening” is a tool for practical application, not a method of scriptural exegesis. Understanding this is important because many criticisms against the Book of Mormon rely on modern assumptions about the it, rather than what it actually says.

===Potential Criticisms and Faithful Information===
===Faith Affirmations===

==4. The Book of Mormon can Bring us Nearer to God==
===Helpful Insights===
===Potential Criticisms and Faithful Information===
*“Most Correct Book”: Many critics claim that because Joseph Smith said the Book of Mormon is the “most correct book” it should be error-free. These critics are taking this quote out of context. [http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/As_the_most_correct_book]
*Textual Changes: Some critics point to textual changes as evidence of changing theology or covering up mistakes. Most changes are minor edits to punctuation, spelling, and grammar. The few more significant changes have been examined and discussed by knowledgeable Latter-day Saints [http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Textual_changes]
===Faith Affirmations===

==Additional Information Related to the Introductory Material in the Book of Mormon==
In the Introduction to the Book of Mormon, it says that the Book of Mormon is a “record of God’s dealings with the ancient inhabitants of the Americas” and that the Lamanites are “among the ancestors of the American Indians.” This opens up a number issues related to Book of Mormon geography, archeology, populations, and modern DNA studies. The following maybe helpful to Gospel Doctrine instructors who would like to be prepared should any of these issues arise during their lesson:
*Archeology: Critics claim that archeology contradicts the Book of Mormon. [http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Archaeology]
*Geography: Most people assume that the Book of Mormon events spanned across the entire continent. A close reading of the text reveals fairly tight spatial relations. [http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Geography/New_World]
*DNA and the Book of Mormon: Some critics claim that DNA disproves the Book of Mormon, while some members have claimed that DNA provides evidence for the Book of Mormon. Both claims are incorrect. [http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/DNA_evidence]

FAIR Study Aids/Gospel Doctrine/Book of Mormon/Lesson One

2011-12-29T18:10:13Z

Awyatt: /* Potential Criticisms and Faithful Information */

{{Articles FAIR copyright}} {{Articles Header 1}} {{Articles Header 2}} {{Articles Header 3}} {{Articles Header 4}} {{Articles Header 5}} {{Articles Header 6}} {{Articles Header 7}} {{Articles Header 8}} {{Articles Header 9}} {{Articles Header 10}}

=Lesson 1: "The Keystone of our Religion"=

==LDS Lesson Manual==

[http://lds.org/manual/book-of-mormon-gospel-doctrine-teachers-manual/lesson-1-the-keystone-of-our-religion?lang=eng Gospel Doctrine Teacher's Manual - Lesson 1: The Keystone of Our Religion]

==1. The Book of Mormon is the Keystone of Our Religion==
===Helpful Insights===
*The Keystone of Our Religion: The Book of Mormon is the keystone of our religion because the essence of our religion is revelation, and the Book of Mormon is tangible evidence that revelation has been received. This is why Terryl Givens calls the Book of Mormon the “sacred sign” of our faith. [Terryl L. Givens, By the Hand of Mormon: The American Scripture that Launched a New World Religion (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2002), 62-88]
*Witness of Christ: Of the 6,607 verses in the modern editions of the Book of Mormon, 3,925 of them make direct reference to Jesus Christ, an average of 1 reference to Christ every 1.7 verses. [Susan Easton Black, Finding Christ through the Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 1987), 16-18]
*Keystone Witness of Christ: If BoM is true, then the resurrected Christ was seen and touched by thousands of people in ancient America. Thus, Jesus really rose from the dead and the Atonement is real.
*Fullness of Doctrine: The Book of Mormon lays-out a six point formula as the “gospel” or “doctrine” of Christ. [http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=71&chapid=841]
*Keystone in Doctrine: If the BoM is true, then Joseph Smith is prophet and the doctrines taught in his later revelations are also true.
*Modal for Testimony: The Book of Mormon presents a revolutionary model for revelation as a dialogue that ultimately provides the means for seeking one’s own testimony [http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/jbms/?vol=10&num=2&id=250]
*Keystone in Testimony: If a person gains a testimony of the BoM, then they also gain a testimony that (1) God exists, (2) Jesus Christ atonement is real, (3) Joseph Smith is a prophet, (4) the Church is true. [Introduction to the Book of Mormon]

===Potential Criticisms and Faithful Information===
*Some critics have said the Book of Mormon teachings of Christ are reflective of Joseph Smith’s environment, rather than an ancient Israelite's environment. Recent research actually shows that Book of Mormon teachings about the Messiah are consistent with ancient Jewish beliefs. See these presentations by [Kevin Christensen|http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/papers/?paperID=6&chapterID=52], or [http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/2003_Monotheism_Messiah_and_Mormons_Book.html]
*The title page says Jesus Christ is the “Eternal God.” Some critics say this is evidence that Joseph Smith started out as a modalist or Trinitarian. [http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=13&num=2&id=392 Ari D. Brueing and David L. Paulson, "The Development of the Mormon Understanding of God," FARMS Review 13/2 pg. 114-139]
*Some critics complain the Book of Mormon does not contain the “fullness of doctrine” or the “fullness of Gospel” because it is missing distinctive “Mormon” doctrines. “Gospel” or “doctrine” as used in the Book of Mormon is not meant to be comprehensive [http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Contains_the_fulness_of_the_gospel]
*Some critics say that praying about the Book of Mormon is not an “objective” means of testing it and that the Biblie is the only standard that can or should be used. This idea is contradicted by the Bible itself [http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Moroni%27s_promise]
*Other critics say that “Moroni’s challenge” is circular reasoning. Such critics are actually engaged in some circular reasoning of their own [http://ldsreasonandrevelation.blogspot.com/2011/04/moroni-103-5-and-truth-of-book-of.html#more]

===Faith Affirmations===

==2. Many Witnesses have Testified of the Book of Mormon==
===Helpful Insights===
*Angels and Books: The Joseph Smith story actually fits an ancient pattern where prophets are given a heavenly book or hidden record by an angelic messenger [http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=9&chapid=77, or http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=71&chapid=773]
*In his 2009 General Conference talk, Elder Jeffrey R. Holland talked about how Joseph and Hyrum Smith went to his death baring testimony of the Book of Mormon, a powerful evidence of its divinity [http://lds.org/ensign/2009/11/safety-for-the-soul?lang=eng]
*Various witnesses have left behind a description of the plates [http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Translation/Description_of_the_plates]
*Informal Witnesses: In addition to the official Book of Mormon witnesses, some others got to feel the plates while covered, or got to see them under special circumstances [http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Witnesses/Other_Book_of_Mormon_witnesses]
===Potential Criticisms and Faithful Information===
*Moroni’s Visit: Critics have attacked the story of Moroni’s visit is various ways. Here some of those criticisms are identified and responded to. [http://en.fairmormon.org/Moroni%27s_visit]
*Weight of the Plates: Some critics say the plates would have weighed too much to be lifted and carried as Joseph and others claimed to. This assumes the plates were pure gold [http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=71&chapid=847]
*The Three and Eight Witnesses: Various criticisms have been leveled at the Book of Mormon witnesses. All of these have been responded to by faithful Latter-day Saints. [http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Witnesses]
*Fraudulent Plates? Some critics suggest that Joseph Smith could have manufactured a fake set of plates. [http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Anachronisms/Gold_plates, and http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Witnesses/Strangite_parallels]
===Faith Affirmations===
*Metal Plates: Since the coming forth of the Book of Mormon, numerous examples of writing on metal plates have been unearthed. Here are some examples. [http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=19&num=1&id=637, or http://www.templestudy.com/2011/04/07/authentic-ancient-metal-plates/, or http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Anachronisms/Metal_plates]
*Subscriptio: This is the ancient Near Eastern practice of placing the title and authorship of a text at the end of the record, rather than the beginning. Interestingly, Joseph Smith said the title page was a translation of the very last of the metal plates. [http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=98&chapid=1038]
*Doubled, Sealed, and Witnessed Documents: Joseph Smith and others who saw the plates said that a portion of them were sealed. This is consistent with known legal practices of the ancient Near-East. [http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/insights/?vol=21&num=6&id=200, or http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=9&chapid=76]
*Despite leaving the Church, none of the witnesses ever denied their testimony of seeing the plates [http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Witnesses/Recant, or http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=41&chapid=181]

==3. The Book of Mormon was Written for Our Day==
===Helpful Insights===
*The Book of Mormon is An Ancient Book: While the Book of Mormon was indeed written for our, it is important to remember that the Book of Mormon was not written in our day. Brant Gardner has explained it this way:

:“It is popular (and theologically appropriate) to claim that the Book of Mormon was written for our day. This statement emphasizes the modern value of the Book of Mormon. It necessarily treats the text ahistorically. Regardless of the value for our day and the obvious fact that it came forth in our day, it was not written in our day, nor in our language, nor in our culture. Even internally, there is little evidence that Mormon conceived of a future people who were significantly different from those he knew.” [Brant A. Gardner, Second Witness: Analytical and Contextual Commentary on the Book of Mormon, six volumes, (Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2007), 1: viii.]

Thus, it is important not impose modern standards and expectations on to the record. Of course we still can, and should, “liken” the text to our own lives, but at the same time caution must be taken to remember that “likening” is a tool for practical application, not a method of scriptural exegesis. Understanding this is important because many criticisms against the Book of Mormon rely on modern assumptions about the it, rather than what it actually says.

===Potential Criticisms and Faithful Information===
===Faith Affirmations===

==4. The Book of Mormon can Bring us Nearer to God==
===Helpful Insights===
===Potential Criticisms and Faithful Information===
*“Most Correct Book”: Many critics claim that because Joseph Smith said the Book of Mormon is the “most correct book” it should be error-free. These critics are taking this quote out of context. [http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/As_the_most_correct_book]
*Textual Changes: Some critics point to textual changes as evidence of changing theology or covering up mistakes. Most changes are minor edits to punctuation, spelling, and grammar. The few more significant changes have been examined and discussed by knowledgeable Latter-day Saints [http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Textual_changes]
===Faith Affirmations===

==Additional Information Related to the Introductory Material in the Book of Mormon==
In the Introduction to the Book of Mormon, it says that the Book of Mormon is a “record of God’s dealings with the ancient inhabitants of the Americas” and that the Lamanites are “among the ancestors of the American Indians.” This opens up a number issues related to Book of Mormon geography, archeology, populations, and modern DNA studies. The following maybe helpful to Gospel Doctrine instructors who would like to be prepared should any of these issues arise during their lesson:
*Archeology: Critics claim that archeology contradicts the Book of Mormon. [http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Archaeology]
*Geography: Most people assume that the Book of Mormon events spanned across the entire continent. A close reading of the text reveals fairly tight spatial relations. [http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Geography/New_World]
*DNA and the Book of Mormon: Some critics claim that DNA disproves the Book of Mormon, while some members have claimed that DNA provides evidence for the Book of Mormon. Both claims are incorrect. [http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/DNA_evidence]

FAIR Study Aids/Gospel Doctrine/Book of Mormon/Lesson One

2011-12-29T18:09:33Z

Awyatt: /* Potential Criticisms and Faithful Information */

{{Articles FAIR copyright}} {{Articles Header 1}} {{Articles Header 2}} {{Articles Header 3}} {{Articles Header 4}} {{Articles Header 5}} {{Articles Header 6}} {{Articles Header 7}} {{Articles Header 8}} {{Articles Header 9}} {{Articles Header 10}}

=Lesson 1: "The Keystone of our Religion"=

==LDS Lesson Manual==

[http://lds.org/manual/book-of-mormon-gospel-doctrine-teachers-manual/lesson-1-the-keystone-of-our-religion?lang=eng Gospel Doctrine Teacher's Manual - Lesson 1: The Keystone of Our Religion]

==1. The Book of Mormon is the Keystone of Our Religion==
===Helpful Insights===
*The Keystone of Our Religion: The Book of Mormon is the keystone of our religion because the essence of our religion is revelation, and the Book of Mormon is tangible evidence that revelation has been received. This is why Terryl Givens calls the Book of Mormon the “sacred sign” of our faith. [Terryl L. Givens, By the Hand of Mormon: The American Scripture that Launched a New World Religion (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2002), 62-88]
*Witness of Christ: Of the 6,607 verses in the modern editions of the Book of Mormon, 3,925 of them make direct reference to Jesus Christ, an average of 1 reference to Christ every 1.7 verses. [Susan Easton Black, Finding Christ through the Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 1987), 16-18]
*Keystone Witness of Christ: If BoM is true, then the resurrected Christ was seen and touched by thousands of people in ancient America. Thus, Jesus really rose from the dead and the Atonement is real.
*Fullness of Doctrine: The Book of Mormon lays-out a six point formula as the “gospel” or “doctrine” of Christ. [http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=71&chapid=841]
*Keystone in Doctrine: If the BoM is true, then Joseph Smith is prophet and the doctrines taught in his later revelations are also true.
*Modal for Testimony: The Book of Mormon presents a revolutionary model for revelation as a dialogue that ultimately provides the means for seeking one’s own testimony [http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/jbms/?vol=10&num=2&id=250]
*Keystone in Testimony: If a person gains a testimony of the BoM, then they also gain a testimony that (1) God exists, (2) Jesus Christ atonement is real, (3) Joseph Smith is a prophet, (4) the Church is true. [Introduction to the Book of Mormon]

===Potential Criticisms and Faithful Information===
*Some critics have said the Book of Mormon teachings of Christ are reflective of Joseph Smith’s environment, rather than an ancient Israelite's environment. Recent research actually shows that Book of Mormon teachings about the Messiah are consistent with ancient Jewish beliefs. See these presentations by [Kevin Christensen http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/papers/?paperID=6&chapterID=52], or [http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/2003_Monotheism_Messiah_and_Mormons_Book.html]
*The title page says Jesus Christ is the “Eternal God.” Some critics say this is evidence that Joseph Smith started out as a modalist or Trinitarian. [http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=13&num=2&id=392 Ari D. Brueing and David L. Paulson, "The Development of the Mormon Understanding of God," FARMS Review 13/2 pg. 114-139]
*Some critics complain the Book of Mormon does not contain the “fullness of doctrine” or the “fullness of Gospel” because it is missing distinctive “Mormon” doctrines. “Gospel” or “doctrine” as used in the Book of Mormon is not meant to be comprehensive [http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Contains_the_fulness_of_the_gospel]
*Some critics say that praying about the Book of Mormon is not an “objective” means of testing it and that the Biblie is the only standard that can or should be used. This idea is contradicted by the Bible itself [http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Moroni%27s_promise]
*Other critics say that “Moroni’s challenge” is circular reasoning. Such critics are actually engaged in some circular reasoning of their own [http://ldsreasonandrevelation.blogspot.com/2011/04/moroni-103-5-and-truth-of-book-of.html#more]

===Faith Affirmations===

==2. Many Witnesses have Testified of the Book of Mormon==
===Helpful Insights===
*Angels and Books: The Joseph Smith story actually fits an ancient pattern where prophets are given a heavenly book or hidden record by an angelic messenger [http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=9&chapid=77, or http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=71&chapid=773]
*In his 2009 General Conference talk, Elder Jeffrey R. Holland talked about how Joseph and Hyrum Smith went to his death baring testimony of the Book of Mormon, a powerful evidence of its divinity [http://lds.org/ensign/2009/11/safety-for-the-soul?lang=eng]
*Various witnesses have left behind a description of the plates [http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Translation/Description_of_the_plates]
*Informal Witnesses: In addition to the official Book of Mormon witnesses, some others got to feel the plates while covered, or got to see them under special circumstances [http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Witnesses/Other_Book_of_Mormon_witnesses]
===Potential Criticisms and Faithful Information===
*Moroni’s Visit: Critics have attacked the story of Moroni’s visit is various ways. Here some of those criticisms are identified and responded to. [http://en.fairmormon.org/Moroni%27s_visit]
*Weight of the Plates: Some critics say the plates would have weighed too much to be lifted and carried as Joseph and others claimed to. This assumes the plates were pure gold [http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=71&chapid=847]
*The Three and Eight Witnesses: Various criticisms have been leveled at the Book of Mormon witnesses. All of these have been responded to by faithful Latter-day Saints. [http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Witnesses]
*Fraudulent Plates? Some critics suggest that Joseph Smith could have manufactured a fake set of plates. [http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Anachronisms/Gold_plates, and http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Witnesses/Strangite_parallels]
===Faith Affirmations===
*Metal Plates: Since the coming forth of the Book of Mormon, numerous examples of writing on metal plates have been unearthed. Here are some examples. [http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=19&num=1&id=637, or http://www.templestudy.com/2011/04/07/authentic-ancient-metal-plates/, or http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Anachronisms/Metal_plates]
*Subscriptio: This is the ancient Near Eastern practice of placing the title and authorship of a text at the end of the record, rather than the beginning. Interestingly, Joseph Smith said the title page was a translation of the very last of the metal plates. [http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=98&chapid=1038]
*Doubled, Sealed, and Witnessed Documents: Joseph Smith and others who saw the plates said that a portion of them were sealed. This is consistent with known legal practices of the ancient Near-East. [http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/insights/?vol=21&num=6&id=200, or http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=9&chapid=76]
*Despite leaving the Church, none of the witnesses ever denied their testimony of seeing the plates [http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Witnesses/Recant, or http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=41&chapid=181]

==3. The Book of Mormon was Written for Our Day==
===Helpful Insights===
*The Book of Mormon is An Ancient Book: While the Book of Mormon was indeed written for our, it is important to remember that the Book of Mormon was not written in our day. Brant Gardner has explained it this way:

:“It is popular (and theologically appropriate) to claim that the Book of Mormon was written for our day. This statement emphasizes the modern value of the Book of Mormon. It necessarily treats the text ahistorically. Regardless of the value for our day and the obvious fact that it came forth in our day, it was not written in our day, nor in our language, nor in our culture. Even internally, there is little evidence that Mormon conceived of a future people who were significantly different from those he knew.” [Brant A. Gardner, Second Witness: Analytical and Contextual Commentary on the Book of Mormon, six volumes, (Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2007), 1: viii.]

Thus, it is important not impose modern standards and expectations on to the record. Of course we still can, and should, “liken” the text to our own lives, but at the same time caution must be taken to remember that “likening” is a tool for practical application, not a method of scriptural exegesis. Understanding this is important because many criticisms against the Book of Mormon rely on modern assumptions about the it, rather than what it actually says.

===Potential Criticisms and Faithful Information===
===Faith Affirmations===

==4. The Book of Mormon can Bring us Nearer to God==
===Helpful Insights===
===Potential Criticisms and Faithful Information===
*“Most Correct Book”: Many critics claim that because Joseph Smith said the Book of Mormon is the “most correct book” it should be error-free. These critics are taking this quote out of context. [http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/As_the_most_correct_book]
*Textual Changes: Some critics point to textual changes as evidence of changing theology or covering up mistakes. Most changes are minor edits to punctuation, spelling, and grammar. The few more significant changes have been examined and discussed by knowledgeable Latter-day Saints [http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Textual_changes]
===Faith Affirmations===

==Additional Information Related to the Introductory Material in the Book of Mormon==
In the Introduction to the Book of Mormon, it says that the Book of Mormon is a “record of God’s dealings with the ancient inhabitants of the Americas” and that the Lamanites are “among the ancestors of the American Indians.” This opens up a number issues related to Book of Mormon geography, archeology, populations, and modern DNA studies. The following maybe helpful to Gospel Doctrine instructors who would like to be prepared should any of these issues arise during their lesson:
*Archeology: Critics claim that archeology contradicts the Book of Mormon. [http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Archaeology]
*Geography: Most people assume that the Book of Mormon events spanned across the entire continent. A close reading of the text reveals fairly tight spatial relations. [http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Geography/New_World]
*DNA and the Book of Mormon: Some critics claim that DNA disproves the Book of Mormon, while some members have claimed that DNA provides evidence for the Book of Mormon. Both claims are incorrect. [http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/DNA_evidence]

FAIR Study Aids/Gospel Doctrine/Book of Mormon/Lesson One

2011-12-29T18:08:48Z

Awyatt: /* Potential Criticisms and Faithful Information */

{{Articles FAIR copyright}} {{Articles Header 1}} {{Articles Header 2}} {{Articles Header 3}} {{Articles Header 4}} {{Articles Header 5}} {{Articles Header 6}} {{Articles Header 7}} {{Articles Header 8}} {{Articles Header 9}} {{Articles Header 10}}

=Lesson 1: "The Keystone of our Religion"=

==LDS Lesson Manual==

[http://lds.org/manual/book-of-mormon-gospel-doctrine-teachers-manual/lesson-1-the-keystone-of-our-religion?lang=eng Gospel Doctrine Teacher's Manual - Lesson 1: The Keystone of Our Religion]

==1. The Book of Mormon is the Keystone of Our Religion==
===Helpful Insights===
*The Keystone of Our Religion: The Book of Mormon is the keystone of our religion because the essence of our religion is revelation, and the Book of Mormon is tangible evidence that revelation has been received. This is why Terryl Givens calls the Book of Mormon the “sacred sign” of our faith. [Terryl L. Givens, By the Hand of Mormon: The American Scripture that Launched a New World Religion (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2002), 62-88]
*Witness of Christ: Of the 6,607 verses in the modern editions of the Book of Mormon, 3,925 of them make direct reference to Jesus Christ, an average of 1 reference to Christ every 1.7 verses. [Susan Easton Black, Finding Christ through the Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 1987), 16-18]
*Keystone Witness of Christ: If BoM is true, then the resurrected Christ was seen and touched by thousands of people in ancient America. Thus, Jesus really rose from the dead and the Atonement is real.
*Fullness of Doctrine: The Book of Mormon lays-out a six point formula as the “gospel” or “doctrine” of Christ. [http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=71&chapid=841]
*Keystone in Doctrine: If the BoM is true, then Joseph Smith is prophet and the doctrines taught in his later revelations are also true.
*Modal for Testimony: The Book of Mormon presents a revolutionary model for revelation as a dialogue that ultimately provides the means for seeking one’s own testimony [http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/jbms/?vol=10&num=2&id=250]
*Keystone in Testimony: If a person gains a testimony of the BoM, then they also gain a testimony that (1) God exists, (2) Jesus Christ atonement is real, (3) Joseph Smith is a prophet, (4) the Church is true. [Introduction to the Book of Mormon]

===Potential Criticisms and Faithful Information===
*Some critics have said the Book of Mormon teachings of Christ are reflective of Joseph Smith’s environment, rather than an ancient Israelite's environment. Recent research actually shows that Book of Mormon teachings about the Messiah are consistent with ancient Jewish beliefs. See [http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/papers/?paperID=6&chapterID=52], or [http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/2003_Monotheism_Messiah_and_Mormons_Book.html]
*The title page says Jesus Christ is the “Eternal God.” Some critics say this is evidence that Joseph Smith started out as a modalist or Trinitarian. [http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=13&num=2&id=392 Ari D. Brueing and David L. Paulson, "The Development of the Mormon Understanding of God," FARMS Review 13/2 pg. 114-139]
*Some critics complain the Book of Mormon does not contain the “fullness of doctrine” or the “fullness of Gospel” because it is missing distinctive “Mormon” doctrines. “Gospel” or “doctrine” as used in the Book of Mormon is not meant to be comprehensive [http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Contains_the_fulness_of_the_gospel]
*Some critics say that praying about the Book of Mormon is not an “objective” means of testing it and that the Biblie is the only standard that can or should be used. This idea is contradicted by the Bible itself [http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Moroni%27s_promise]
*Other critics say that “Moroni’s challenge” is circular reasoning. Such critics are actually engaged in some circular reasoning of their own [http://ldsreasonandrevelation.blogspot.com/2011/04/moroni-103-5-and-truth-of-book-of.html#more]

===Faith Affirmations===

==2. Many Witnesses have Testified of the Book of Mormon==
===Helpful Insights===
*Angels and Books: The Joseph Smith story actually fits an ancient pattern where prophets are given a heavenly book or hidden record by an angelic messenger [http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=9&chapid=77, or http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=71&chapid=773]
*In his 2009 General Conference talk, Elder Jeffrey R. Holland talked about how Joseph and Hyrum Smith went to his death baring testimony of the Book of Mormon, a powerful evidence of its divinity [http://lds.org/ensign/2009/11/safety-for-the-soul?lang=eng]
*Various witnesses have left behind a description of the plates [http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Translation/Description_of_the_plates]
*Informal Witnesses: In addition to the official Book of Mormon witnesses, some others got to feel the plates while covered, or got to see them under special circumstances [http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Witnesses/Other_Book_of_Mormon_witnesses]
===Potential Criticisms and Faithful Information===
*Moroni’s Visit: Critics have attacked the story of Moroni’s visit is various ways. Here some of those criticisms are identified and responded to. [http://en.fairmormon.org/Moroni%27s_visit]
*Weight of the Plates: Some critics say the plates would have weighed too much to be lifted and carried as Joseph and others claimed to. This assumes the plates were pure gold [http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=71&chapid=847]
*The Three and Eight Witnesses: Various criticisms have been leveled at the Book of Mormon witnesses. All of these have been responded to by faithful Latter-day Saints. [http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Witnesses]
*Fraudulent Plates? Some critics suggest that Joseph Smith could have manufactured a fake set of plates. [http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Anachronisms/Gold_plates, and http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Witnesses/Strangite_parallels]
===Faith Affirmations===
*Metal Plates: Since the coming forth of the Book of Mormon, numerous examples of writing on metal plates have been unearthed. Here are some examples. [http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=19&num=1&id=637, or http://www.templestudy.com/2011/04/07/authentic-ancient-metal-plates/, or http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Anachronisms/Metal_plates]
*Subscriptio: This is the ancient Near Eastern practice of placing the title and authorship of a text at the end of the record, rather than the beginning. Interestingly, Joseph Smith said the title page was a translation of the very last of the metal plates. [http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=98&chapid=1038]
*Doubled, Sealed, and Witnessed Documents: Joseph Smith and others who saw the plates said that a portion of them were sealed. This is consistent with known legal practices of the ancient Near-East. [http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/insights/?vol=21&num=6&id=200, or http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=9&chapid=76]
*Despite leaving the Church, none of the witnesses ever denied their testimony of seeing the plates [http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Witnesses/Recant, or http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=41&chapid=181]

==3. The Book of Mormon was Written for Our Day==
===Helpful Insights===
*The Book of Mormon is An Ancient Book: While the Book of Mormon was indeed written for our, it is important to remember that the Book of Mormon was not written in our day. Brant Gardner has explained it this way:

:“It is popular (and theologically appropriate) to claim that the Book of Mormon was written for our day. This statement emphasizes the modern value of the Book of Mormon. It necessarily treats the text ahistorically. Regardless of the value for our day and the obvious fact that it came forth in our day, it was not written in our day, nor in our language, nor in our culture. Even internally, there is little evidence that Mormon conceived of a future people who were significantly different from those he knew.” [Brant A. Gardner, Second Witness: Analytical and Contextual Commentary on the Book of Mormon, six volumes, (Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2007), 1: viii.]

Thus, it is important not impose modern standards and expectations on to the record. Of course we still can, and should, “liken” the text to our own lives, but at the same time caution must be taken to remember that “likening” is a tool for practical application, not a method of scriptural exegesis. Understanding this is important because many criticisms against the Book of Mormon rely on modern assumptions about the it, rather than what it actually says.

===Potential Criticisms and Faithful Information===
===Faith Affirmations===

==4. The Book of Mormon can Bring us Nearer to God==
===Helpful Insights===
===Potential Criticisms and Faithful Information===
*“Most Correct Book”: Many critics claim that because Joseph Smith said the Book of Mormon is the “most correct book” it should be error-free. These critics are taking this quote out of context. [http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/As_the_most_correct_book]
*Textual Changes: Some critics point to textual changes as evidence of changing theology or covering up mistakes. Most changes are minor edits to punctuation, spelling, and grammar. The few more significant changes have been examined and discussed by knowledgeable Latter-day Saints [http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Textual_changes]
===Faith Affirmations===

==Additional Information Related to the Introductory Material in the Book of Mormon==
In the Introduction to the Book of Mormon, it says that the Book of Mormon is a “record of God’s dealings with the ancient inhabitants of the Americas” and that the Lamanites are “among the ancestors of the American Indians.” This opens up a number issues related to Book of Mormon geography, archeology, populations, and modern DNA studies. The following maybe helpful to Gospel Doctrine instructors who would like to be prepared should any of these issues arise during their lesson:
*Archeology: Critics claim that archeology contradicts the Book of Mormon. [http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Archaeology]
*Geography: Most people assume that the Book of Mormon events spanned across the entire continent. A close reading of the text reveals fairly tight spatial relations. [http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Geography/New_World]
*DNA and the Book of Mormon: Some critics claim that DNA disproves the Book of Mormon, while some members have claimed that DNA provides evidence for the Book of Mormon. Both claims are incorrect. [http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/DNA_evidence]

FAIR Study Aids/Gospel Doctrine/Book of Mormon/Lesson One

2011-12-29T18:06:45Z

Awyatt: /* Potential Criticisms and Faithful Information */

{{Articles FAIR copyright}} {{Articles Header 1}} {{Articles Header 2}} {{Articles Header 3}} {{Articles Header 4}} {{Articles Header 5}} {{Articles Header 6}} {{Articles Header 7}} {{Articles Header 8}} {{Articles Header 9}} {{Articles Header 10}}

=Lesson 1: "The Keystone of our Religion"=

==LDS Lesson Manual==

[http://lds.org/manual/book-of-mormon-gospel-doctrine-teachers-manual/lesson-1-the-keystone-of-our-religion?lang=eng Gospel Doctrine Teacher's Manual - Lesson 1: The Keystone of Our Religion]

==1. The Book of Mormon is the Keystone of Our Religion==
===Helpful Insights===
*The Keystone of Our Religion: The Book of Mormon is the keystone of our religion because the essence of our religion is revelation, and the Book of Mormon is tangible evidence that revelation has been received. This is why Terryl Givens calls the Book of Mormon the “sacred sign” of our faith. [Terryl L. Givens, By the Hand of Mormon: The American Scripture that Launched a New World Religion (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2002), 62-88]
*Witness of Christ: Of the 6,607 verses in the modern editions of the Book of Mormon, 3,925 of them make direct reference to Jesus Christ, an average of 1 reference to Christ every 1.7 verses. [Susan Easton Black, Finding Christ through the Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 1987), 16-18]
*Keystone Witness of Christ: If BoM is true, then the resurrected Christ was seen and touched by thousands of people in ancient America. Thus, Jesus really rose from the dead and the Atonement is real.
*Fullness of Doctrine: The Book of Mormon lays-out a six point formula as the “gospel” or “doctrine” of Christ. [http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=71&chapid=841]
*Keystone in Doctrine: If the BoM is true, then Joseph Smith is prophet and the doctrines taught in his later revelations are also true.
*Modal for Testimony: The Book of Mormon presents a revolutionary model for revelation as a dialogue that ultimately provides the means for seeking one’s own testimony [http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/jbms/?vol=10&num=2&id=250]
*Keystone in Testimony: If a person gains a testimony of the BoM, then they also gain a testimony that (1) God exists, (2) Jesus Christ atonement is real, (3) Joseph Smith is a prophet, (4) the Church is true. [Introduction to the Book of Mormon]

===Potential Criticisms and Faithful Information===
*Some critics have said the Book of Mormon teachings of Christ are reflective of Joseph Smith’s environment, rather than an ancient Israelite. Recent research actually shows that the Book of Mormon teachings about the Messiah are consistent with ancient Jewish beliefs. [http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/papers/?paperID=6&chapterID=52], or [http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/2003_Monotheism_Messiah_and_Mormons_Book.html]
*The title page says Jesus Christ is the “Eternal God.” Some critics say this is evidence that Joseph Smith started out as a modalist or Trinitarian. [http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=13&num=2&id=392 Ari D. Brueing and David L. Paulson, "The Development of the Mormon Understanding of God," FARMS Review 13/2 pg. 114-139]
*Some critics complain the Book of Mormon does not contain the “fullness of doctrine” or the “fullness of Gospel” because it is missing distinctive “Mormon” doctrines. “Gospel” or “doctrine” as used in the Book of Mormon is not meant to be comprehensive [http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Contains_the_fulness_of_the_gospel]
*Some critics say that praying about the Book of Mormon is not an “objective” means of testing it and that the Biblie is the only standard that can or should be used. This idea is contradicted by the Bible itself [http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Moroni%27s_promise]
*Other critics say that “Moroni’s challenge” is circular reasoning. Such critics are actually engaged in some circular reasoning of their own [http://ldsreasonandrevelation.blogspot.com/2011/04/moroni-103-5-and-truth-of-book-of.html#more]

===Faith Affirmations===

==2. Many Witnesses have Testified of the Book of Mormon==
===Helpful Insights===
*Angels and Books: The Joseph Smith story actually fits an ancient pattern where prophets are given a heavenly book or hidden record by an angelic messenger [http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=9&chapid=77, or http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=71&chapid=773]
*In his 2009 General Conference talk, Elder Jeffrey R. Holland talked about how Joseph and Hyrum Smith went to his death baring testimony of the Book of Mormon, a powerful evidence of its divinity [http://lds.org/ensign/2009/11/safety-for-the-soul?lang=eng]
*Various witnesses have left behind a description of the plates [http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Translation/Description_of_the_plates]
*Informal Witnesses: In addition to the official Book of Mormon witnesses, some others got to feel the plates while covered, or got to see them under special circumstances [http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Witnesses/Other_Book_of_Mormon_witnesses]
===Potential Criticisms and Faithful Information===
*Moroni’s Visit: Critics have attacked the story of Moroni’s visit is various ways. Here some of those criticisms are identified and responded to. [http://en.fairmormon.org/Moroni%27s_visit]
*Weight of the Plates: Some critics say the plates would have weighed too much to be lifted and carried as Joseph and others claimed to. This assumes the plates were pure gold [http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=71&chapid=847]
*The Three and Eight Witnesses: Various criticisms have been leveled at the Book of Mormon witnesses. All of these have been responded to by faithful Latter-day Saints. [http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Witnesses]
*Fraudulent Plates? Some critics suggest that Joseph Smith could have manufactured a fake set of plates. [http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Anachronisms/Gold_plates, and http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Witnesses/Strangite_parallels]
===Faith Affirmations===
*Metal Plates: Since the coming forth of the Book of Mormon, numerous examples of writing on metal plates have been unearthed. Here are some examples. [http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=19&num=1&id=637, or http://www.templestudy.com/2011/04/07/authentic-ancient-metal-plates/, or http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Anachronisms/Metal_plates]
*Subscriptio: This is the ancient Near Eastern practice of placing the title and authorship of a text at the end of the record, rather than the beginning. Interestingly, Joseph Smith said the title page was a translation of the very last of the metal plates. [http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=98&chapid=1038]
*Doubled, Sealed, and Witnessed Documents: Joseph Smith and others who saw the plates said that a portion of them were sealed. This is consistent with known legal practices of the ancient Near-East. [http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/insights/?vol=21&num=6&id=200, or http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=9&chapid=76]
*Despite leaving the Church, none of the witnesses ever denied their testimony of seeing the plates [http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Witnesses/Recant, or http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=41&chapid=181]

==3. The Book of Mormon was Written for Our Day==
===Helpful Insights===
*The Book of Mormon is An Ancient Book: While the Book of Mormon was indeed written for our, it is important to remember that the Book of Mormon was not written in our day. Brant Gardner has explained it this way:

:“It is popular (and theologically appropriate) to claim that the Book of Mormon was written for our day. This statement emphasizes the modern value of the Book of Mormon. It necessarily treats the text ahistorically. Regardless of the value for our day and the obvious fact that it came forth in our day, it was not written in our day, nor in our language, nor in our culture. Even internally, there is little evidence that Mormon conceived of a future people who were significantly different from those he knew.” [Brant A. Gardner, Second Witness: Analytical and Contextual Commentary on the Book of Mormon, six volumes, (Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2007), 1: viii.]

Thus, it is important not impose modern standards and expectations on to the record. Of course we still can, and should, “liken” the text to our own lives, but at the same time caution must be taken to remember that “likening” is a tool for practical application, not a method of scriptural exegesis. Understanding this is important because many criticisms against the Book of Mormon rely on modern assumptions about the it, rather than what it actually says.

===Potential Criticisms and Faithful Information===
===Faith Affirmations===

==4. The Book of Mormon can Bring us Nearer to God==
===Helpful Insights===
===Potential Criticisms and Faithful Information===
*“Most Correct Book”: Many critics claim that because Joseph Smith said the Book of Mormon is the “most correct book” it should be error-free. These critics are taking this quote out of context. [http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/As_the_most_correct_book]
*Textual Changes: Some critics point to textual changes as evidence of changing theology or covering up mistakes. Most changes are minor edits to punctuation, spelling, and grammar. The few more significant changes have been examined and discussed by knowledgeable Latter-day Saints [http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Textual_changes]
===Faith Affirmations===

==Additional Information Related to the Introductory Material in the Book of Mormon==
In the Introduction to the Book of Mormon, it says that the Book of Mormon is a “record of God’s dealings with the ancient inhabitants of the Americas” and that the Lamanites are “among the ancestors of the American Indians.” This opens up a number issues related to Book of Mormon geography, archeology, populations, and modern DNA studies. The following maybe helpful to Gospel Doctrine instructors who would like to be prepared should any of these issues arise during their lesson:
*Archeology: Critics claim that archeology contradicts the Book of Mormon. [http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Archaeology]
*Geography: Most people assume that the Book of Mormon events spanned across the entire continent. A close reading of the text reveals fairly tight spatial relations. [http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Geography/New_World]
*DNA and the Book of Mormon: Some critics claim that DNA disproves the Book of Mormon, while some members have claimed that DNA provides evidence for the Book of Mormon. Both claims are incorrect. [http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/DNA_evidence]

FAIR Study Aids/Gospel Doctrine/Book of Mormon/Lesson One

2011-12-29T18:05:58Z

Awyatt: /* Helpful Insights */

{{Articles FAIR copyright}} {{Articles Header 1}} {{Articles Header 2}} {{Articles Header 3}} {{Articles Header 4}} {{Articles Header 5}} {{Articles Header 6}} {{Articles Header 7}} {{Articles Header 8}} {{Articles Header 9}} {{Articles Header 10}}

=Lesson 1: "The Keystone of our Religion"=

==LDS Lesson Manual==

[http://lds.org/manual/book-of-mormon-gospel-doctrine-teachers-manual/lesson-1-the-keystone-of-our-religion?lang=eng Gospel Doctrine Teacher's Manual - Lesson 1: The Keystone of Our Religion]

==1. The Book of Mormon is the Keystone of Our Religion==
===Helpful Insights===
*The Keystone of Our Religion: The Book of Mormon is the keystone of our religion because the essence of our religion is revelation, and the Book of Mormon is tangible evidence that revelation has been received. This is why Terryl Givens calls the Book of Mormon the “sacred sign” of our faith. [Terryl L. Givens, By the Hand of Mormon: The American Scripture that Launched a New World Religion (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2002), 62-88]
*Witness of Christ: Of the 6,607 verses in the modern editions of the Book of Mormon, 3,925 of them make direct reference to Jesus Christ, an average of 1 reference to Christ every 1.7 verses. [Susan Easton Black, Finding Christ through the Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 1987), 16-18]
*Keystone Witness of Christ: If BoM is true, then the resurrected Christ was seen and touched by thousands of people in ancient America. Thus, Jesus really rose from the dead and the Atonement is real.
*Fullness of Doctrine: The Book of Mormon lays-out a six point formula as the “gospel” or “doctrine” of Christ. [http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=71&chapid=841]
*Keystone in Doctrine: If the BoM is true, then Joseph Smith is prophet and the doctrines taught in his later revelations are also true.
*Modal for Testimony: The Book of Mormon presents a revolutionary model for revelation as a dialogue that ultimately provides the means for seeking one’s own testimony [http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/jbms/?vol=10&num=2&id=250]
*Keystone in Testimony: If a person gains a testimony of the BoM, then they also gain a testimony that (1) God exists, (2) Jesus Christ atonement is real, (3) Joseph Smith is a prophet, (4) the Church is true. [Introduction to the Book of Mormon]

===Potential Criticisms and Faithful Information===
*Some critics have said the Book of Mormon teachings of Christ are reflective of Joseph Smith’s environment, rather than an ancient Israelite. Recent research actually shows that the Book of Mormon teachings about the Messiah are consistant with ancient Jewish beliefs. [http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/papers/?paperID=6&chapterID=52, or http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/2003_Monotheism_Messiah_and_Mormons_Book.html]
*The title page says Jesus Christ is the “Eternal God.” Some critics say this is evidence that Joseph Smith started out as a modalist or Trinitarian. [http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=13&num=2&id=392 Ari D. Brueing and David L. Paulson, "The Development of the Mormon Understanding of God," FARMS Review 13/2 pg. 114-139]
*Some critics complain the Book of Mormon does not contain the “fullness of doctrine” or the “fullness of Gospel” because it is missing distinctive “Mormon” doctrines. “Gospel” or “doctrine” as used in the Book of Mormon is not meant to be comprehensive [http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Contains_the_fulness_of_the_gospel]
*Some critics say that praying about the Book of Mormon is not an “objective” means of testing it and that the Biblie is the only standard that can or should be used. This idea is contradicted by the Bible itself [http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Moroni%27s_promise]
*Other critics say that “Moroni’s challenge” is circular reasoning. Such critics are actually engaged in some circular reasoning of their own [http://ldsreasonandrevelation.blogspot.com/2011/04/moroni-103-5-and-truth-of-book-of.html#more]

===Faith Affirmations===

==2. Many Witnesses have Testified of the Book of Mormon==
===Helpful Insights===
*Angels and Books: The Joseph Smith story actually fits an ancient pattern where prophets are given a heavenly book or hidden record by an angelic messenger [http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=9&chapid=77, or http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=71&chapid=773]
*In his 2009 General Conference talk, Elder Jeffrey R. Holland talked about how Joseph and Hyrum Smith went to his death baring testimony of the Book of Mormon, a powerful evidence of its divinity [http://lds.org/ensign/2009/11/safety-for-the-soul?lang=eng]
*Various witnesses have left behind a description of the plates [http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Translation/Description_of_the_plates]
*Informal Witnesses: In addition to the official Book of Mormon witnesses, some others got to feel the plates while covered, or got to see them under special circumstances [http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Witnesses/Other_Book_of_Mormon_witnesses]
===Potential Criticisms and Faithful Information===
*Moroni’s Visit: Critics have attacked the story of Moroni’s visit is various ways. Here some of those criticisms are identified and responded to. [http://en.fairmormon.org/Moroni%27s_visit]
*Weight of the Plates: Some critics say the plates would have weighed too much to be lifted and carried as Joseph and others claimed to. This assumes the plates were pure gold [http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=71&chapid=847]
*The Three and Eight Witnesses: Various criticisms have been leveled at the Book of Mormon witnesses. All of these have been responded to by faithful Latter-day Saints. [http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Witnesses]
*Fraudulent Plates? Some critics suggest that Joseph Smith could have manufactured a fake set of plates. [http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Anachronisms/Gold_plates, and http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Witnesses/Strangite_parallels]
===Faith Affirmations===
*Metal Plates: Since the coming forth of the Book of Mormon, numerous examples of writing on metal plates have been unearthed. Here are some examples. [http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=19&num=1&id=637, or http://www.templestudy.com/2011/04/07/authentic-ancient-metal-plates/, or http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Anachronisms/Metal_plates]
*Subscriptio: This is the ancient Near Eastern practice of placing the title and authorship of a text at the end of the record, rather than the beginning. Interestingly, Joseph Smith said the title page was a translation of the very last of the metal plates. [http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=98&chapid=1038]
*Doubled, Sealed, and Witnessed Documents: Joseph Smith and others who saw the plates said that a portion of them were sealed. This is consistent with known legal practices of the ancient Near-East. [http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/insights/?vol=21&num=6&id=200, or http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=9&chapid=76]
*Despite leaving the Church, none of the witnesses ever denied their testimony of seeing the plates [http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Witnesses/Recant, or http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=41&chapid=181]

==3. The Book of Mormon was Written for Our Day==
===Helpful Insights===
*The Book of Mormon is An Ancient Book: While the Book of Mormon was indeed written for our, it is important to remember that the Book of Mormon was not written in our day. Brant Gardner has explained it this way:

:“It is popular (and theologically appropriate) to claim that the Book of Mormon was written for our day. This statement emphasizes the modern value of the Book of Mormon. It necessarily treats the text ahistorically. Regardless of the value for our day and the obvious fact that it came forth in our day, it was not written in our day, nor in our language, nor in our culture. Even internally, there is little evidence that Mormon conceived of a future people who were significantly different from those he knew.” [Brant A. Gardner, Second Witness: Analytical and Contextual Commentary on the Book of Mormon, six volumes, (Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2007), 1: viii.]

Thus, it is important not impose modern standards and expectations on to the record. Of course we still can, and should, “liken” the text to our own lives, but at the same time caution must be taken to remember that “likening” is a tool for practical application, not a method of scriptural exegesis. Understanding this is important because many criticisms against the Book of Mormon rely on modern assumptions about the it, rather than what it actually says.

===Potential Criticisms and Faithful Information===
===Faith Affirmations===

==4. The Book of Mormon can Bring us Nearer to God==
===Helpful Insights===
===Potential Criticisms and Faithful Information===
*“Most Correct Book”: Many critics claim that because Joseph Smith said the Book of Mormon is the “most correct book” it should be error-free. These critics are taking this quote out of context. [http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/As_the_most_correct_book]
*Textual Changes: Some critics point to textual changes as evidence of changing theology or covering up mistakes. Most changes are minor edits to punctuation, spelling, and grammar. The few more significant changes have been examined and discussed by knowledgeable Latter-day Saints [http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Textual_changes]
===Faith Affirmations===

==Additional Information Related to the Introductory Material in the Book of Mormon==
In the Introduction to the Book of Mormon, it says that the Book of Mormon is a “record of God’s dealings with the ancient inhabitants of the Americas” and that the Lamanites are “among the ancestors of the American Indians.” This opens up a number issues related to Book of Mormon geography, archeology, populations, and modern DNA studies. The following maybe helpful to Gospel Doctrine instructors who would like to be prepared should any of these issues arise during their lesson:
*Archeology: Critics claim that archeology contradicts the Book of Mormon. [http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Archaeology]
*Geography: Most people assume that the Book of Mormon events spanned across the entire continent. A close reading of the text reveals fairly tight spatial relations. [http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Geography/New_World]
*DNA and the Book of Mormon: Some critics claim that DNA disproves the Book of Mormon, while some members have claimed that DNA provides evidence for the Book of Mormon. Both claims are incorrect. [http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/DNA_evidence]

Book of Mormon/Textual changes/"or out of the waters of baptism"

2011-04-02T17:28:08Z

Awyatt: /* Why was this change made? */

{{Articles FAIR copyright}} {{Articles Header 1}} {{Articles Header 2}} {{Articles Header 3}} {{Articles Header 4}} {{Articles Header 5}} {{Articles Header 6}} {{Articles Header 7}} {{Articles Header 8}} {{Articles Header 9}} {{Articles Header 10}}
{{BoMPortal}}
__NOTOC__

<table style="border-width: 1px; border-spacing: 5px; border-style: solid; border-color: white white black white; border-collapse: collapse; background-color: white;" cellpadding=7>
<tr style="vertical-align: top;">
<th style="border-bottom: 2px solid black; width: 16%;"> </th>
<th style="border-bottom: 2px solid black; width: 21%">Original manuscript</th>
<th style="border-bottom: 2px solid black; width: 21%">Printer's manuscript</th>
<th style="border-bottom: 2px solid black; width: 21%">1830 edition</th>
<th style="border-bottom: 2px solid black; width: 21%">1840 edition</th>
</tr>
<tr style="vertical-align: top;">
<td style="border-bottom: 1px solid black;">{{scripture|1|Nephi|20|1}}</td>
<td style="border-bottom: 1px solid black;">hea[rken & h]ear this O house of [J]acob which [are ca]lled by the name of [Israel &] are come forth out of the waters of Judah which swear by the na[me of] the Lord & make mention of the God of Israel yet they swear not in tru[t]h nor in righteousness</td>
<td style="border-bottom: 1px solid black;">hearken & hear this O house of <strike>Israel</strike> '''Jacob''' which are called by the name of Israel & are come forth out of the waters of Judah which swear by the name of the Lord & make mention of the God of Israel yet they swear not in truth nor in righteousness</td>
<td style="border-bottom: 1px solid black;">Hearken and hear this, O house of Jacob, which are called by the name of Israel, and are come forth out of the waters of Judah, which swear by the name of the Lord, and make mention of the God of Israel; yet they swear not in truth, nor in righteousness.</td>
<td style="border-bottom: 1px solid black;">Hearken and hear this, O house of Jacob, which are called by the name of Israel, and are come forth out of the waters of Judah <span style="color: red;">(or out of the waters of baptism)</span>, which swear by the name of the Lord, and make mention of the God of Israel; yet they swear not in truth, nor in righteousness.</td>
</tr>
</table>

(The [text in brackets] in the original manuscript are missing from the physical manuscript. The <strike>strikeouts</strike> and <'''insertions'''> in the printer's manuscript are in Joseph's hand.)

==Who made this change?==

It appears that this change was made by Joseph Smith.

==Why was this change made?==

It is thought that this simply records a prophetic commentary on Joseph Smith's part describing the proper interpretation of the phrase "waters of Judah." It is not regarded as an error, or likely part of the original Book of Mormon plates' text.

=={{Endnotes label}}==
''None''

=={{Further reading label}}==

==={{FAIR wiki articles label}}===
{{BoMWiki}}

==={{FAIR web site label}}===
*{{tg|url=http://fairlds.org/apol/ai282.html|topic=Changes in the Book of Mormon}}
*Royal Skousen, "Changes In the Book of Mormon," 2002 FAIR Conference proceedings.{{fairlink|url=http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/2002_Changes_in_the_Book_of_Mormon.html}}

==={{External links label}}===
{{BoMLinks}}

==={{Printed material label}}===
{{BoMCriticalText}}
{{BoMPrint}}
-->
{{Articles Footer 1}} {{Articles Footer 2}} {{Articles Footer 3}} {{Articles Footer 4}} {{Articles Footer 5}} {{Articles Footer 6}} {{Articles Footer 7}} {{Articles Footer 8}} {{Articles Footer 9}} {{Articles Footer 10}}

[[fr:Book of Mormon/Textual changes/"or out of the waters of baptism"]]

Book of Mormon/Textual changes/"or out of the waters of baptism"

2011-04-02T17:20:28Z

Awyatt: /* Why was this change made? */

{{Articles FAIR copyright}} {{Articles Header 1}} {{Articles Header 2}} {{Articles Header 3}} {{Articles Header 4}} {{Articles Header 5}} {{Articles Header 6}} {{Articles Header 7}} {{Articles Header 8}} {{Articles Header 9}} {{Articles Header 10}}
{{BoMPortal}}
__NOTOC__

<table style="border-width: 1px; border-spacing: 5px; border-style: solid; border-color: white white black white; border-collapse: collapse; background-color: white;" cellpadding=7>
<tr style="vertical-align: top;">
<th style="border-bottom: 2px solid black; width: 16%;"> </th>
<th style="border-bottom: 2px solid black; width: 21%">Original manuscript</th>
<th style="border-bottom: 2px solid black; width: 21%">Printer's manuscript</th>
<th style="border-bottom: 2px solid black; width: 21%">1830 edition</th>
<th style="border-bottom: 2px solid black; width: 21%">1840 edition</th>
</tr>
<tr style="vertical-align: top;">
<td style="border-bottom: 1px solid black;">{{scripture|1|Nephi|20|1}}</td>
<td style="border-bottom: 1px solid black;">hea[rken & h]ear this O house of [J]acob which [are ca]lled by the name of [Israel &] are come forth out of the waters of Judah which swear by the na[me of] the Lord & make mention of the God of Israel yet they swear not in tru[t]h nor in righteousness</td>
<td style="border-bottom: 1px solid black;">hearken & hear this O house of <strike>Israel</strike> '''Jacob''' which are called by the name of Israel & are come forth out of the waters of Judah which swear by the name of the Lord & make mention of the God of Israel yet they swear not in truth nor in righteousness</td>
<td style="border-bottom: 1px solid black;">Hearken and hear this, O house of Jacob, which are called by the name of Israel, and are come forth out of the waters of Judah, which swear by the name of the Lord, and make mention of the God of Israel; yet they swear not in truth, nor in righteousness.</td>
<td style="border-bottom: 1px solid black;">Hearken and hear this, O house of Jacob, which are called by the name of Israel, and are come forth out of the waters of Judah <span style="color: red;">(or out of the waters of baptism)</span>, which swear by the name of the Lord, and make mention of the God of Israel; yet they swear not in truth, nor in righteousness.</td>
</tr>
</table>

(The [text in brackets] in the original manuscript are missing from the physical manuscript. The <strike>strikeouts</strike> and <'''insertions'''> in the printer's manuscript are in Joseph's hand.)

==Why was this change made?==

It is thought that this simply records a prophetic commentary on Joseph Smith's part describing the proper interpretation of the phrase "waters of Judah." It is not regarded as an error, or likely part of the original Book of Mormon plates' text.

=={{Endnotes label}}==
''None''

=={{Further reading label}}==

==={{FAIR wiki articles label}}===
{{BoMWiki}}

==={{FAIR web site label}}===
*{{tg|url=http://fairlds.org/apol/ai282.html|topic=Changes in the Book of Mormon}}
*Royal Skousen, "Changes In the Book of Mormon," 2002 FAIR Conference proceedings.{{fairlink|url=http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/2002_Changes_in_the_Book_of_Mormon.html}}

==={{External links label}}===
{{BoMLinks}}

==={{Printed material label}}===
{{BoMCriticalText}}
{{BoMPrint}}
-->
{{Articles Footer 1}} {{Articles Footer 2}} {{Articles Footer 3}} {{Articles Footer 4}} {{Articles Footer 5}} {{Articles Footer 6}} {{Articles Footer 7}} {{Articles Footer 8}} {{Articles Footer 9}} {{Articles Footer 10}}

[[fr:Book of Mormon/Textual changes/"or out of the waters of baptism"]]

Homosexuality and the Church of Jesus Christ/Aversion therapy performed at BYU

2011-03-24T17:14:06Z

Awyatt: /* Aversion therapy is a standard technique */

{{Articles FAIR copyright}} {{Articles Header 1}} {{Articles Header 2}} {{Articles Header 3}} {{Articles Header 4}} {{Articles Header 5}} {{Articles Header 6}} {{Articles Header 7}} {{Articles Header 8}} {{Articles Header 9}} {{Articles Header 10}}

{{draft}}

=={{Question label}}==

* What was the history of BYU and aversion therapy for treating homosexuality?
* How did that relate to medical and psychological science as understood at that time?
* What was the role of the Church in BYU's treatments?

=={{Response label}}==

In the mid-1970s, a graduate student at Brigham Young University conducted a clinical study in the use of aversion therapy to treat ego-dystonic homosexuality. (More details of this study are provided, below.) At the time, homosexuality was considered a mental illness and aversion therapy was a standard practice for cure. Experiments were run on a volunteer basis adhering to the professional standards of the time. Even so, there is no indication that anyone from the church leadership was aware of the experiments. Church leadership is typically not involved in minute details of the daily activities of BYU such as approving standard procedures being run by graduate students.

There are reports of bishops counseling people to undergo aversion therapy. These reports have not been verified, but it would not be uncommon for bishops to counsel people to go to standard therapies recommended by professional societies. Each bishop has significant freedom to recommend what they feel is best for the people in their congregation. The church itself has never recommended aversion therapy.

President Kimball did quote from several reputable medical sources about how the practice of homosexuality could be abandoned through treatments, but he did not specify what treatments those were. The important thing for President Kimball and for the church is that sexual actions could be controlled. This is the same stance the Church has today, and is fully supported by modern medical associations.

Elder Oaks stated:

:"The Church rarely takes a position on which treatment techniques are appropriate, for medical doctors or for psychiatrists or psychologists and so on. The second point is that there are abusive practices that have been used in connection with various mental attitudes or feelings. Over-medication in respect to depression is an example that comes to mind. The aversive therapies that have been used in connection with same-sex attraction have contained some serious abuses that have been recognized over time within the professions. While we have no position about what the medical doctors do (except in very, very rare cases — abortion would be such an example), we are conscious that there are abuses and we don’t accept responsibility for those abuses. Even though they are addressed at helping people we would like to see helped, we can’t endorse every kind of technique that’s been used."

=== Aversion therapy is a standard technique ===

Aversion therapy is still used today for a variety of treatments, such as gambling, smoking, alcoholism, and violence. A 2010 article in Psychology Today states "To date, aversion therapy using shock and nausea is the only technique of quitting [smoking] that offers decent gambling odds." {{ref|smoking1}} The Encyclopedia of Mental Disorders has this entry for aversion therapy:

:A patient who consults a behavior therapist for aversion therapy can expect a fairly standard set of procedures. The therapist begins by assessing the problem, most likely measuring its frequency, severity, and the environment in which the undesirable behavior occurs. Although the therapeutic relationship is not the focus of treatment for the behavior therapist, therapists in this tradition believe that good rapport will facilitate a successful outcome. A positive relationship is also necessary to establish the patient's confidence in the rationale for exposing him or her to an uncomfortable stimulus. The therapist will design a treatment protocol and explain it to the patient. The most important choice the therapist makes is the type of aversive stimulus to employ. Depending upon the behavior to be changed, the preferred aversive stimulus is often electric stimulation delivered to the forearm or leg. {{ref|minddisorders1}}

Over the years, the methods have been refined and approved. Today, we have decades of research that were not available in the 1970s. It was not known where aversion therapy would be effective and where it would not be effective. The methods of the 1970s may seem crude compared to today's standards, but today's standards will probably seem crude in another 40 years. For whatever reason, aversion therapy is still a therapy used by mainstream psychologists.

The Church does not take a position on any therapy, except for the cases mentioned by Elder Oaks above. We only talk about the state of the art therapy so we have a better frame of reference when discussing aversion therapy.

=== History of aversion therapy and homosexuality ===

In 1966 Martin E.P. Seligman conducted a study at the University of Pennsylvania which showed positive results in applying aversion therapy to help people stop engaging in homosexual behavior. According to Seligman, this lead to "a great burst of enthusiasm about changing homosexuality [that] swept over the therapeutic community." {{ref|seligman.156}} Research was conducted by researchers from Harvard to King's College in London.

Historically, there were two types of homosexuality that were treated, ego-dystonic homosexuality and ego-syntonic homosexuality. The therapy administered at BYU was used to treat ego-dystonic homosexuality. This is when a patient experiences distress over their sexual orientation, and the goal of the therapy is to reduce that stress. Ego-dystonic homosexuality was considered a mental illness by the American Psychological Association until 1987, and is still considered a mental illness by the World Health Organization. {{ref|icd10online1}} Unlike other places, BYU never used aversion therapy to treat ego-sytonic homosexuality, which is where the patient is content with their sexual orientation.

Even after the declassification, aversion therapy could still be used to treat distress over sexual orientation, which is still classified as a sexual disorder in the DSM-IV. It was not until 1994, that the American Medical Association issued a report that stated "aversion therapy is no longer recommended for gay men and lesbians" {{ref|ama1}} and not until 2006 that using aversion therapy to treat homosexuality has been in violation of the codes of conduct and professional guidelines of the American Psychological Association and American Psychiatric Association.

In 2009, a task force was commissioned by the American Psychological Association to investigate therapies used to treat homosexuality, including aversion therapy. They reported:

:Early research on efforts to change sexual orientation focused heavily on interventions that include aversion techniques. Many of these studies did not set out to investigate harm. Nonetheless, these studies provide some suggestion that harm can occur from aversive efforts to change sexual orientation...

:We conclude that there is a dearth of scientifically sound research on the safety of SOCE. Early and recent research studies provide no clear indication of the prevalence of harmful outcomes among people who have undergone efforts to change their sexual orientation or the frequency of occurrence of harm because no study to date of adequate scientific rigor has been explicitly designed to do so. Thus, we cannot conclude how likely it is that harm will occur from SOCE. However, studies from both periods indicate that attempts to change sexual orientation may cause or exacerbate distress and poor mental health in some individuals, including depression and suicidal thoughts. The lack of rigorous research on the safety of SOCE represents a serious concern, as do studies that report perceptions of harm (cf. Lilienfeld, 2007). {{ref|apa1}}

==== Aversion therapy at BYU ====

In the mid-1970s a graduate student, Max McBride, conducted a study entitled ''Effect of Visual Stimuli in Electric Aversion Therapy''. From the reports of some participants, it appears that the study was conducted during 1974 and 1975 with the average length of treatment during the study being three months. The results of this study were published in August 1976 as McBride's PhD dissertation in the BYU Department of Psychology. As required by law, the study was conducted under the auspices of Dr. D. Eugene Thorne, who also served as McBride's PhD committee chairman. All study procedures followed common medical practice; McBride even thanks medical professionals at the Salt Lake City Veterans Hospital for their assistance in designing the study and help with statistical analysis.

The study consisted of male 17 participants, only 14 of which concluded the study. From the McBride dissertation we learn more about the participants:

:Seventeen male subjects were used in the study, 14 completed treatment. Selection was on the basis of clinical evidence of homosexuality; absence of psychosis (no prior history); desire for treatment; no history of epilepsy, alcoholism or drug addiction. The nature and extent of homosexual activity ranged from frequent sexual activity with multi-partner involvement to covert activity. Covert activity was restricted to deviant ruminations without significant involvement. Subjects were comparable as to level of formal education and age. All subjects were attending college as undergraduate or graduate students; their ages ranged from 18 to 31 years, with a mean of 23.6 years. All subjects who participated were active or semi-active members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. They were either self-referrals or referrals from various local agencies to Dr. D. Eugene Thorne of the Psychology Department at Brigham Young University. Each prospective subject was offered free treatment if he would participate fully in our research program.

:It was mandatory that all subjects chosen to participate sign and have witnessed a prepared statement explaining (a) the experimental nature of the treatment procedure, (b) the use of aversive electric shock, (c) the showing of 35 mm slides that might be construed by subject as possibly offensive, and (d) that Brigham Young University was not in any direct way endorsing the procedures used. This was to insure that all subjects were in full agreement and understanding as to what the treatment procedure would involve, provide and demand from them.

In the years since the study, some (but not all) of the study participants have talked publicly about their experiences. Some of these reports can be quite painful to read, as can similar reports from participants in studies at other universities and facilities of the time. While there is no doubt that the McBride study was traumatic to some of the individuals involved, it must be remembered that the study was not far-reaching, it was done according to common medical practice, all participants were volunteers, each participant had explained to them beforehand what the study would entail, and any participant could leave the study at any time they wanted. These caveats are not mentioned to minimize the statements of these participants in any manner; they are only made so that proper context for the study can be maintained in the face of agonizing reports.

As far as can be historically ascertained, the McBride study was the only study ever done at BYU in the area of aversion therapy and the treatment of homosexuality. It is interesting to note that BYU's contribution to the field of aversion therapy was not covered by the APA task force report. This was probably because they considered BYU's involvement to be too minor to include. Other universities had more participants and conducted their studies later than BYU. The role of BYU in aversion therapy research was very minimal, and was limited to treating ego-dystonic homosexuality.

Contrary to the assumptions of some, BYU did not pioneer the use of aversion therapy for this type of treatment and it stopped use of the therapy decades before the APA stopped recommending the practice. The university was simply one of many places that did research in the area when little was known about it. In fact, McBride's dissertation there are over 17 pages of documentation discussing other studies in which aversion therapy was applied to male homosexuality.

==== Aversion therapy at other universities ====

A significant number of hospitals and universities historically offered aversion therapy as a way to treat homosexuality. It would be impossible to list all of them, but here are a few of the major places where people were involved in research and development of using aversion therapy to treat homosexuality:

* The University of New South Wales {{ref|sciencedirect1}}
* Joint project from Harvard and University of Chicago {{ref|harvard.chicago1}}
* The Royal College of Psychiatrists {{ref|royal.college1}}
* University of Vermont {{ref|univofvermont1}}
* University of Glasgow {{ref|glasow1}}
* Illinois State University {{ref|illinoisstate1}}
* University of Louisville {{ref|louisville1}}
* Glenside Hospital {{ref|glenside1}}
* University of Toronto {{ref|toronto1}}
* King's College, London {{ref|kings1}}
* University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee {{ref|wisconsin1}}
* Crumpsall Hospital {{ref|crumpsall1}}
* Allan Memorial Institute {{ref|allan1}}
* Northeast Guidance Center {{ref|northeast1}}
* Center for Behavior Change {{ref|behaviorchange1}}
* University of Pennsylvania

=== Purpose of psychological therapy ===

The goal of therapy is to help the patient reach their desired end. One of the fundamentals is patient self-determination. The therapist does not set the goals, but the patient. Aversion therapy is not administered to smokers as a way to torture them, but to help them achieve their goal of being smoke-free.

The therapy at BYU was administered towards people who felt distress about their sexual orientation. Distress is not a good thing. The purpose of therapy was to relieve stress. If it was known that aversion therapy would be harmful, then they probably wouldn't have administered it. People were asking for help to change their sexual orientation, major medical associations said aversion therapy would help them, so why not try to help them with the best medical knowledge available at the time?

It is unfortunate that these methods that were meant to help may have caused or exacerbated distress and poor mental health, especially depression and suicidal thoughts. (For more information on suicides, see [[Mormonism and gender issues/Same-sex attraction/Suicide|Same-sex attraction/Suicide]].) There is an inherent risk in therapy for mental illnesses. Unfortunately, these risks were not fully understood in the 1970s.

=== Academic freedom at BYU ===
{{Main|Mormonism and education}}

When we hear of negative consequences from these therapies, some people wonder what the church could have done to stop it. Unfortunately, there was little that the church could have done. The church did not endorse BYU's experiments. They don't typically endorse any experiments at BYU. Some people have the wrong impression that the church mandates what experiments are done, and which are not. This is not true. Even at BYU, people have a variety of opinions and approaches for doing things.

The Church rarely interferes with what is done at BYU, and there would have been little reason for the Church to stop the experiments as it was conducted according to then-standard practices. Graduate students at BYU have significant freedom to pursue whatever academic interests they want. Especially in areas such as psychological research and therapy, BYU relies heavily on standards set forth by professional associations. This is partially needed so the school can be accredited. If the school starts imposing their own standards, rather than those used by professional associations, it could loose accreditation.

Besides the problem of making up their own standards, it is contrary to Mormonism to command in all things. Mormons are encouraged to think for themselves, and find their own answers to questions. Doctrine and Covenants 58:26 reads:

:For behold, it is not meet that I should command in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant; wherefore he receiveth no reward.

Encouraging academic freedom and individual agency unfortunately means that sometimes people will make mistakes. Sometimes they will run experiments and not have them turn out the way they want to. However, the answer is not to do away with academic freedom.

=={{Conclusion label}}==

Like many other places in the western world, aversion therapy was conducted by a graduate student at BYU in the 1970s. These experiments were conducted following standards published by professional societies, and was only conducted on adults who gave their permission. Like most experiments at BYU, they were designed and conducted by researchers at the University. For better or for worse, the Church typically does not interfere with standard experiments run by graduate students. Given the knowledge available at the time, the church had little reason to interfere with these experiments.

=={{Endnotes label}}==
#{{note|smoking1}}Nigel Barber, Ph.D., [http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-human-beast/201002/smoking-most-effective-quitting-technique-little-known "Smoking: Most effective quitting technique little known,"] February 17, 2010
#{{note|minddisorders1}} [http://www.minddisorders.com/A-Br/Aversion-therapy.html "Aversion Therapy,"] ''Encyclopedia of Mental Disorders''
#{{note|seligman.156}} (p. 156, Seligman, Martin E.P., What You Can Change and What You Can't: The Complete Guide to Self Improvement Knopf, 1993; ISBN 0-679-41024-4)
#{{note|icd10online1}}[http://apps.who.int/classifications/apps/icd/icd10online/?gf60.htm+f661]
#{{note|ama1}} (Health Care Needs of Gay Men and Lesbians in the U.S. American Medical Association Report, 1994)
#{{note|apa1}}[http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/therapeutic-response.pdf]
#{{note|sciencedirect1}}[http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V5W-45XTVVT-89&_user=10&_coverDate=12%2F31%2F1981&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1681661053&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=a942e6089eba7694d0116091f6f51b38&searchtype=a]
#{{note|harvard.chicago1}}[http://archpsyc.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/25/4/314]
#{{note|royal.college1}}[http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/abstract/115/529/1417]; [http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/citation/115/520/339]
#{{note|univofvermont1}}[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/4690218]; [http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/abn/81/1/60/]
#{{note|glasgow1}}[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1812608/?page=1]
#{{note|illinoisstate1}}[http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V5V-46JGXS6-4&_user=10&_coverDate=09%2F30%2F1972&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1681836896&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=99693da1b0a79bafb66badcd1de34ba6&searchtype=a]
#{{note|louisville1}}[http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B7XMW-4K664R0-8&_user=10&_coverDate=03%2F31%2F1975&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1683127764&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=f2a618b828f15769fd42d213612da034&searchtype=a]
#{{note|glenside1}}[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1957923/pdf/brmedj02859-0056.pdf]
#{{note|toronto1}}[http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B7XMW-4K605GH-9&_user=10&_coverDate=04%2F30%2F1971&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1683142140&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=9ea2a557c8b953234e666f603596e72a&searchtype=a] [http://www.mhamic.org/sources/freund.htm] {{nw}}
#{{note|kings1}}[http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V5W-4VT1WJ3-C&_user=10&_coverDate=12%2F31%2F1972&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1683171148&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=1dbf2c8194438bf0daa9dc176d847b3f&searchtype=a] {{nw}}
#{{note|wisconsin1}}Richard W. Hansonb, and Vincent J. Adesso, [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V5V-46KC6WM-1D&_user=10&_coverDate=12%2F31%2F1972&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=32d542dfb72d160bd92504744f3ef810&searchtype=a "A multiple behavioral approach to male homosexual behavior: A case study"], ''Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry'' Volume 3, Issue 4, December 1972, Pages 323-325
#{{note|crumpsall1}}M. J. MacCulloch and M. P. Feldman, [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1842087/?page=1 "Aversion therapy in management of 43 homosexuals."], ''British Medical Journal 1967 June 3; 2(5552): 594–597.
#{{note|allan1}}[http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B7XMW-4K605KB-4&_user=10&_coverDate=01%2F31%2F1972&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1683181121&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=384b29ea4d021e09974f7f263e31ee6a&searchtype=a] {{nw}}
#{{note|northeast1}}[http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B7XMW-4K664PP-7&_user=10&_coverDate=10%2F31%2F1975&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1681671317&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=93ae98d985c42fe37a42148137749fbf&searchtype=a#fn1] {{nw}}
#{{note|behaviorchange1}}[http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V5W-4VS5RSF-8&_user=10&_coverDate=05%2F31%2F1973&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1681676165&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=8e09375e2e0e0fd272dc6c3994853f79&searchtype=a] {{nw}}

=={{Further reading label}}==

==={{FAIR wiki articles label}}===
{{SSA wiki}}

==={{FAIR web site label}}===
{{SSA FAIR}}

==={{External links label}}===
{{SSA links}}

==={{Printed material label}}===
{{SSA print}}

{{Articles Footer 1}} {{Articles Footer 2}} {{Articles Footer 3}} {{Articles Footer 4}} {{Articles Footer 5}} {{Articles Footer 6}} {{Articles Footer 7}} {{Articles Footer 8}} {{Articles Footer 9}} {{Articles Footer 10}}

Homosexuality and the Church of Jesus Christ/Aversion therapy performed at BYU

2011-03-23T21:21:43Z

Awyatt: /* Aversion therapy at BYU */

{{Articles FAIR copyright}} {{Articles Header 1}} {{Articles Header 2}} {{Articles Header 3}} {{Articles Header 4}} {{Articles Header 5}} {{Articles Header 6}} {{Articles Header 7}} {{Articles Header 8}} {{Articles Header 9}} {{Articles Header 10}}

{{draft}}

=={{Question label}}==

* What was the history of BYU and aversion therapy for treating homosexuality?
* How did that relate to medical and psychological science as understood at that time?
* What was the role of the Church in BYU's treatments?

=={{Response label}}==

In the mid-1970s, a graduate student at Brigham Young University conducted a clinical study in the use of aversion therapy to treat ego-dystonic homosexuality. (More details of this study are provided, below.) At the time, homosexuality was considered a mental illness and aversion therapy was a standard practice for cure. Experiments were run on a volunteer basis adhering to the professional standards of the time. Even so, there is no indication that anyone from the church leadership was aware of the experiments. Church leadership is typically not involved in minute details of the daily activities of BYU such as approving standard procedures being run by graduate students.

There are reports of bishops counseling people to undergo aversion therapy. These reports have not been verified, but it would not be uncommon for bishops to counsel people to go to standard therapies recommended by professional societies. Each bishop has significant freedom to recommend what they feel is best for the people in their congregation. The church itself has never recommended aversion therapy.

President Kimball did quote from several reputable medical sources about how the practice of homosexuality could be abandoned through treatments, but he did not specify what treatments those were. The important thing for President Kimball and for the church is that sexual actions could be controlled. This is the same stance the Church has today, and is fully supported by modern medical associations.

Elder Oaks stated:

:"The Church rarely takes a position on which treatment techniques are appropriate, for medical doctors or for psychiatrists or psychologists and so on. The second point is that there are abusive practices that have been used in connection with various mental attitudes or feelings. Over-medication in respect to depression is an example that comes to mind. The aversive therapies that have been used in connection with same-sex attraction have contained some serious abuses that have been recognized over time within the professions. While we have no position about what the medical doctors do (except in very, very rare cases — abortion would be such an example), we are conscious that there are abuses and we don’t accept responsibility for those abuses. Even though they are addressed at helping people we would like to see helped, we can’t endorse every kind of technique that’s been used."

=== Aversion therapy is a standard technique ===

Aversion therapy is still used today for a variety of treatments, such as gambling, smoking, alcoholism, and violence. A 2010 article in Psychology Today states "To date, aversion therapy using shock and nausea is the only technique of quitting [smoking] that offers decent gambling odds."[http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-human-beast/201002/smoking-most-effective-quitting-technique-little-known] The Encyclopedia of Mental Disorders has this entry for aversion therapy:

:A patient who consults a behavior therapist for aversion therapy can expect a fairly standard set of procedures. The therapist begins by assessing the problem, most likely measuring its frequency, severity, and the environment in which the undesirable behavior occurs. Although the therapeutic relationship is not the focus of treatment for the behavior therapist, therapists in this tradition believe that good rapport will facilitate a successful outcome. A positive relationship is also necessary to establish the patient's confidence in the rationale for exposing him or her to an uncomfortable stimulus. The therapist will design a treatment protocol and explain it to the patient. The most important choice the therapist makes is the type of aversive stimulus to employ. Depending upon the behavior to be changed, the preferred aversive stimulus is often electric stimulation delivered to the forearm or leg. [http://www.minddisorders.com/A-Br/Aversion-therapy.html]

Over the years, the methods have been refined and approved. Today, we have decades of research that were not available in the 1970s. It was not known where aversion therapy would be effective and where it would not be effective. The methods of the 1970s may seem crude compared to today's standards, but today's standards will probably seem crude in another 40 years. For whatever reason, aversion therapy is still a therapy used by mainstream psychologists.

We do NOT take a position on any therapy, except for the cases mentioned by Elder Oaks above. We only talk about the state of the art therapy so we have a better frame of reference when discussing aversion therapy.

=== History of aversion therapy and homosexuality ===

In 1966 Martin E.P. Seligman conducted a study at the University of Pennsylvania which showed positive results in applying aversion therapy to help people stop engaging in homosexual behavior. According to Seligman, this lead to "a great burst of enthusiasm about changing homosexuality [that] swept over the therapeutic community." (p. 156, Seligman, Martin E.P., What You Can Change and What You Can't: The Complete Guide to Self Improvement Knopf, 1993; ISBN 0-679-41024-4) Research was conducted by researchers from Harvard to King's College in London.

Historically, there were two types of homosexuality that were treated, ego-dystonic homosexuality and ego-syntonic homosexuality. The therapy administered at BYU was used to treat ego-dystonic homosexuality. This is when a patient experiences distress over their sexual orientation, and the goal of the therapy is to reduce that stress. Ego-dystonic homosexuality was considered a mental illness by the American Psychological Association until 1987, and is still considered a mental illness by the World Health Organization. [http://apps.who.int/classifications/apps/icd/icd10online/?gf60.htm+f661] Unlike other places, BYU never used aversion therapy to treat ego-sytonic homosexuality, which is where the patient is content with their sexual orientation.

Even after the declassification, aversion therapy could still be used to treat distress over sexual orientation, which is still classified as a sexual disorder in the DSM-IV. It was not until 1994, that the American Medical Association issued a report that stated "aversion therapy is no longer recommended for gay men and lesbians" (Health Care Needs of Gay Men and Lesbians in the U.S. American Medical Association Report, 1994) and not until 2006 that using aversion therapy to treat homosexuality has been in violation of the codes of conduct and professional guidelines of the American Psychological Association and American Psychiatric Association.

In 2009, a task force was commissioned by the American Psychological Association to investigate therapies used to treat homosexuality, including aversion therapy. They reported:

:Early research on efforts to change sexual orientation focused heavily on interventions that include aversion techniques. Many of these studies did not set out to investigate harm. Nonetheless, these studies provide some suggestion that harm can occur from aversive efforts to change sexual orientation...

:We conclude that there is a dearth of scientifically sound research on the safety of SOCE. Early and recent research studies provide no clear indication of the prevalence of harmful outcomes among people who have undergone efforts to change their sexual orientation or the frequency of occurrence of harm because no study to date of adequate scientific rigor has been explicitly designed to do so. Thus, we cannot conclude how likely it is that harm will occur from SOCE. However, studies from both periods indicate that attempts to change sexual orientation may cause or exacerbate distress and poor mental health in some individuals, including depression and suicidal thoughts. The lack of rigorous research on the safety of SOCE represents a serious concern, as do studies that report perceptions of harm (cf. Lilienfeld, 2007).[http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/therapeutic-response.pdf]

==== Aversion therapy at BYU ====

In the mid-1970s a graduate student, Max McBride, conducted a study entitled ''Effect of Visual Stimuli in Electric Aversion Therapy''. From the reports of some participants, it appears that the study was conducted during 1974 and 1975 with the average length of treatment during the study being three months. The results of this study were published in August 1976 as McBride's PhD dissertation in the BYU Department of Psychology. As required by law, the study was conducted under the auspices of Dr. D. Eugene Thorne, who also served as McBride's PhD committee chairman. All study procedures followed common medical practice; McBride even thanks medical professionals at the Salt Lake City Veterans Hospital for their assistance in designing the study and help with statistical analysis.

The study consisted of male 17 participants, only 14 of which concluded the study. From the McBride dissertation we learn more about the participants:

:Seventeen male subjects were used in the study, 14 completed treatment. Selection was on the basis of clinical evidence of homosexuality; absence of psychosis (no prior history); desire for treatment; no history of epilepsy, alcoholism or drug addiction. The nature and extent of homosexual activity ranged from frequent sexual activity with multi-partner involvement to covert activity. Covert activity was restricted to deviant ruminations without significant involvement. Subjects were comparable as to level of formal education and age. All subjects were attending college as undergraduate or graduate students; their ages ranged from 18 to 31 years, with a mean of 23.6 years. All subjects who participated were active or semi-active members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. They were either self-referrals or referrals from various local agencies to Dr. D. Eugene Thorne of the Psychology Department at Brigham Young University. Each prospective subject was offered free treatment if he would participate fully in our research program.

:It was mandatory that all subjects chosen to participate sign and have witnessed a prepared statement explaining (a) the experimental nature of the treatment procedure, (b) the use of aversive electric shock, (c) the showing of 35 mm slides that might be construed by subject as possibly offensive, and (d) that Brigham Young University was not in any direct way endorsing the procedures used. This was to insure that all subjects were in full agreement and understanding as to what the treatment procedure would involve, provide and demand from them.

In the years since the study, some (but not all) of the study participants have talked publicly about their experiences. Some of these reports can be quite painful to read, as can similar reports from participants in studies at other universities and facilities of the time. While there is no doubt that the McBride study was traumatic to some of the individuals involved, it must be remembered that the study was not far-reaching, it was done according to common medical practice, all participants were volunteers, each participant had explained to them beforehand what the study would entail, and any participant could leave the study at any time they wanted. These caveats are not mentioned to minimize the statements of these participants in any manner; they are only made so that proper context for the study can be maintained in the face of agonizing reports.

As far as can be historically ascertained, the McBride study was the only study ever done at BYU in the area of aversion therapy and the treatment of homosexuality. It is interesting to note that BYU's contribution to the field of aversion therapy was not covered by the APA task force report. This was probably because they considered BYU's involvement to be too minor to include. Other universities had more participants and conducted their studies later than BYU. The role of BYU in aversion therapy research was very minimal, and was limited to treating ego-dystonic homosexuality.

Contrary to the assumptions of some, BYU did not pioneer the use of aversion therapy for this type of treatment and it stopped use of the therapy decades before the APA stopped recommending the practice. The university was simply one of many places that did research in the area when little was known about it. In fact, McBride's dissertation there are over 17 pages of documentation discussing other studies in which aversion therapy was applied to male homosexuality.

==== Aversion therapy at other universities ====

A significant number of hospitals and universities historically offered aversion therapy as a way to treat homosexuality. It would be impossible to list all of them, but here are a few of the major places where people were involved in research and development of using aversion therapy to treat homosexuality:

* The University of New South Wales [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V5W-45XTVVT-89&_user=10&_coverDate=12%2F31%2F1981&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1681661053&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=a942e6089eba7694d0116091f6f51b38&searchtype=a]

* Joint project from Harvard and University of Chicago [http://archpsyc.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/25/4/314]

* The Royal College of Psychiatrists [http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/abstract/115/529/1417] [http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/citation/115/520/339]

* University of Vermont [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/4690218] [http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/abn/81/1/60/]

* University of Glasglow [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1812608/?page=1]

* Illinois State University [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V5V-46JGXS6-4&_user=10&_coverDate=09%2F30%2F1972&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1681836896&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=99693da1b0a79bafb66badcd1de34ba6&searchtype=a]

* University of Louisville [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B7XMW-4K664R0-8&_user=10&_coverDate=03%2F31%2F1975&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1683127764&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=f2a618b828f15769fd42d213612da034&searchtype=a]

* Glenside Hospital [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1957923/pdf/brmedj02859-0056.pdf]

* University of Toronto [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B7XMW-4K605GH-9&_user=10&_coverDate=04%2F30%2F1971&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1683142140&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=9ea2a557c8b953234e666f603596e72a&searchtype=a] [http://www.mhamic.org/sources/freund.htm]

* King's College, London [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V5W-4VT1WJ3-C&_user=10&_coverDate=12%2F31%2F1972&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1683171148&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=1dbf2c8194438bf0daa9dc176d847b3f&searchtype=a]

* University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V5V-46KC6WM-1D&_user=10&_coverDate=12%2F31%2F1972&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=32d542dfb72d160bd92504744f3ef810&searchtype=a]

* Crumpsall Hospital [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1842087/?page=1]

* Allan Memorial Institute [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B7XMW-4K605KB-4&_user=10&_coverDate=01%2F31%2F1972&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1683181121&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=384b29ea4d021e09974f7f263e31ee6a&searchtype=a]

* Northeast Guidance Center [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B7XMW-4K664PP-7&_user=10&_coverDate=10%2F31%2F1975&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1681671317&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=93ae98d985c42fe37a42148137749fbf&searchtype=a#fn1]

* Center for Behavior Change [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V5W-4VS5RSF-8&_user=10&_coverDate=05%2F31%2F1973&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1681676165&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=8e09375e2e0e0fd272dc6c3994853f79&searchtype=a]

* University of Pennsylvania

=== Purpose of psychological therapy ===

The goal of therapy is to help the patient reach their desired end. One of the fundamentals is patient self-determination. The therapist does not set the goals, but the patient. Aversion therapy is not administered to smokers as a way to torture them, but to help them achieve their goal of being smoke-free.

The therapy at BYU was administered towards people who felt distress about their sexual orientation. Distress is not a good thing. The purpose of therapy was to relieve stress. If it was known that aversion therapy would be harmful, then they probably wouldn't have administered it. People were asking for help to change their sexual orientation, major medical associations said aversion therapy would help them, so why not try to help them with the best medical knowledge available at the time?

It is unfortunate that these methods that were meant to help may have caused or exacerbated distress and poor mental health, especially depression and suicidal thoughts. (For more information on suicides, see [[Mormonism and gender issues/Same-sex attraction/Suicide|Same-sex attraction/Suicide]].) There is an inherent risk in therapy for mental illnesses. Unfortunately, these risks were not fully understood in the 1970s.

=== Academic freedom at BYU ===
{{Main|Mormonism and education}}

When we hear of negative consequences from these therapies, some people wonder what the church could have done to stop it. Unfortunately, there was little that the church could have done. The church did not endorse BYU's experiments. They don't typically endorse any experiments at BYU. Some people have the wrong impression that the church mandates what experiments are done, and which are not. This is not true. Even at BYU, people have a variety of opinions and approaches for doing things.

The Church rarely interferes with what is done at BYU, and there would have been little reason for the Church to stop the experiments as it was conducted according to then-standard practices. Graduate students at BYU have significant freedom to pursue whatever academic interests they want. Especially in areas such as psychological research and therapy, BYU relies heavily on standards set forth by professional associations. This is partially needed so the school can be accredited. If the school starts imposing their own standards, rather than those used by professional associations, it could loose accreditation.

Besides the problem of making up their own standards, it is contrary to Mormonism to command in all things. Mormons are encouraged to think for themselves, and find their own answers to questions. Doctrine and Covenants 58:26 reads:

:For behold, it is not meet that I should command in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant; wherefore he receiveth no reward.

Encouraging academic freedom and individual agency unfortunately means that sometimes people will make mistakes. Sometimes they will run experiments and not have them turn out the way they want to. However, the answer is not to do away with academic freedom.

=={{Conclusion label}}==

Like many other places in the western world, aversion therapy was conducted by a graduate student at BYU in the 1970s. These experiments were conducted following standards published by professional societies, and was only conducted on adults who gave their permission. Like most experiments at BYU, they were designed and conducted by researchers at the University. For better or for worse, the Church typically does not interfere with standard experiments run by graduate students. Given the knowledge available at the time, the church had little reason to interfere with these experiments.

=={{Endnotes label}}==

=={{Further reading label}}==

==={{FAIR wiki articles label}}===
{{SSA wiki}}

==={{FAIR web site label}}===
{{SSA FAIR}}

==={{External links label}}===
{{SSA links}}

==={{Printed material label}}===
{{SSA print}}

{{Articles Footer 1}} {{Articles Footer 2}} {{Articles Footer 3}} {{Articles Footer 4}} {{Articles Footer 5}} {{Articles Footer 6}} {{Articles Footer 7}} {{Articles Footer 8}} {{Articles Footer 9}} {{Articles Footer 10}}

Homosexuality and the Church of Jesus Christ/Aversion therapy performed at BYU

2011-03-23T18:35:44Z

Awyatt: /* Aversion therapy at BYU */

{{Articles FAIR copyright}} {{Articles Header 1}} {{Articles Header 2}} {{Articles Header 3}} {{Articles Header 4}} {{Articles Header 5}} {{Articles Header 6}} {{Articles Header 7}} {{Articles Header 8}} {{Articles Header 9}} {{Articles Header 10}}

{{draft}}

=={{Question label}}==

* What was the history of BYU and aversion therapy for treating homosexuality?
* How did that relate to medical and psychological science as understood at that time?
* What was the role of the Church in BYU's treatments?

=={{Response label}}==

In the mid-1970s, a graduate student at Brigham Young University conducted a clinical study in the use of aversion therapy to treat ego-dystonic homosexuality. (More details of this study are provided, below.) At the time, homosexuality was considered a mental illness and aversion therapy was a standard practice for cure. Experiments were run on a volunteer basis adhering to the professional standards of the time. Even so, there is no indication that anyone from the church leadership was aware of the experiments. Church leadership is typically not involved in minute details of the daily activities of BYU such as approving standard procedures being run by graduate students.

There are reports of bishops counseling people to undergo aversion therapy. These reports have not been verified, but it would not be uncommon for bishops to counsel people to go to standard therapies recommended by professional societies. Each bishop has significant freedom to recommend what they feel is best for the people in their congregation. The church itself has never recommended aversion therapy.

President Kimball did quote from several reputable medical sources about how the practice of homosexuality could be abandoned through treatments, but he did not specify what treatments those were. The important thing for President Kimball and for the church is that sexual actions could be controlled. This is the same stance the Church has today, and is fully supported by modern medical associations.

Elder Oaks stated:

:"The Church rarely takes a position on which treatment techniques are appropriate, for medical doctors or for psychiatrists or psychologists and so on. The second point is that there are abusive practices that have been used in connection with various mental attitudes or feelings. Over-medication in respect to depression is an example that comes to mind. The aversive therapies that have been used in connection with same-sex attraction have contained some serious abuses that have been recognized over time within the professions. While we have no position about what the medical doctors do (except in very, very rare cases — abortion would be such an example), we are conscious that there are abuses and we don’t accept responsibility for those abuses. Even though they are addressed at helping people we would like to see helped, we can’t endorse every kind of technique that’s been used."

=== Aversion therapy is a standard technique ===

Aversion therapy is still used today for a variety of treatments, such as gambling, smoking, alcoholism, and violence. A 2010 article in Psychology Today states "To date, aversion therapy using shock and nausea is the only technique of quitting [smoking] that offers decent gambling odds."[http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-human-beast/201002/smoking-most-effective-quitting-technique-little-known] The Encyclopedia of Mental Disorders has this entry for aversion therapy:

:A patient who consults a behavior therapist for aversion therapy can expect a fairly standard set of procedures. The therapist begins by assessing the problem, most likely measuring its frequency, severity, and the environment in which the undesirable behavior occurs. Although the therapeutic relationship is not the focus of treatment for the behavior therapist, therapists in this tradition believe that good rapport will facilitate a successful outcome. A positive relationship is also necessary to establish the patient's confidence in the rationale for exposing him or her to an uncomfortable stimulus. The therapist will design a treatment protocol and explain it to the patient. The most important choice the therapist makes is the type of aversive stimulus to employ. Depending upon the behavior to be changed, the preferred aversive stimulus is often electric stimulation delivered to the forearm or leg. [http://www.minddisorders.com/A-Br/Aversion-therapy.html]

Over the years, the methods have been refined and approved. Today, we have decades of research that were not available in the 1970s. It was not known where aversion therapy would be effective and where it would not be effective. The methods of the 1970s may seem crude compared to today's standards, but today's standards will probably seem crude in another 40 years. For whatever reason, aversion therapy is still a therapy used by mainstream psychologists.

We do NOT take a position on any therapy, except for the cases mentioned by Elder Oaks above. We only talk about the state of the art therapy so we have a better frame of reference when discussing aversion therapy.

=== History of aversion therapy and homosexuality ===

In 1966 Martin E.P. Seligman conducted a study at the University of Pennsylvania which showed positive results in applying aversion therapy to help people stop engaging in homosexual behavior. According to Seligman, this lead to "a great burst of enthusiasm about changing homosexuality [that] swept over the therapeutic community." (p. 156, Seligman, Martin E.P., What You Can Change and What You Can't: The Complete Guide to Self Improvement Knopf, 1993; ISBN 0-679-41024-4) Research was conducted by researchers from Harvard to King's College in London.

Historically, there were two types of homosexuality that were treated, ego-dystonic homosexuality and ego-syntonic homosexuality. The therapy administered at BYU was used to treat ego-dystonic homosexuality. This is when a patient experiences distress over their sexual orientation, and the goal of the therapy is to reduce that stress. Ego-dystonic homosexuality was considered a mental illness by the American Psychological Association until 1987, and is still considered a mental illness by the World Health Organization. [http://apps.who.int/classifications/apps/icd/icd10online/?gf60.htm+f661] Unlike other places, BYU never used aversion therapy to treat ego-sytonic homosexuality, which is where the patient is content with their sexual orientation.

Even after the declassification, aversion therapy could still be used to treat distress over sexual orientation, which is still classified as a sexual disorder in the DSM-IV. It was not until 1994, that the American Medical Association issued a report that stated "aversion therapy is no longer recommended for gay men and lesbians" (Health Care Needs of Gay Men and Lesbians in the U.S. American Medical Association Report, 1994) and not until 2006 that using aversion therapy to treat homosexuality has been in violation of the codes of conduct and professional guidelines of the American Psychological Association and American Psychiatric Association.

In 2009, a task force was commissioned by the American Psychological Association to investigate therapies used to treat homosexuality, including aversion therapy. They reported:

:Early research on efforts to change sexual orientation focused heavily on interventions that include aversion techniques. Many of these studies did not set out to investigate harm. Nonetheless, these studies provide some suggestion that harm can occur from aversive efforts to change sexual orientation...

:We conclude that there is a dearth of scientifically sound research on the safety of SOCE. Early and recent research studies provide no clear indication of the prevalence of harmful outcomes among people who have undergone efforts to change their sexual orientation or the frequency of occurrence of harm because no study to date of adequate scientific rigor has been explicitly designed to do so. Thus, we cannot conclude how likely it is that harm will occur from SOCE. However, studies from both periods indicate that attempts to change sexual orientation may cause or exacerbate distress and poor mental health in some individuals, including depression and suicidal thoughts. The lack of rigorous research on the safety of SOCE represents a serious concern, as do studies that report perceptions of harm (cf. Lilienfeld, 2007).[http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/therapeutic-response.pdf]

==== Aversion therapy at BYU ====

In the mid-1970s a graduate student, Max McBride, conducted a study entitled ''Effect of Visual Stimuli in Electric Aversion Therapy''. From the reports of some participants, it appears that the study was conducted during 1974 and 1975 with the average length of treatment during the study being three months. The results of this study were published in August 1976 as his PhD dissertation in the BYU Department of Psychology. As required by law, the study was conducted under the auspices of Dr. D. Eugene Thorne, who also served as McBride's PhD committee chairman. All study procedures followed common medical practice; McBride even thanks medical professionals at the Salt Lake City Veterans Hospital for their assistance in designing the study and help with statistical analysis.

The study consisted of male 17 participants, only 14 of which concluded the study. From the McBride dissertation we learn more about the participants:

:Seventeen male subjects were used in the study, 14 completed treatment. Selection was on the basis of clinical evidence of homosexuality; absence of psychosis (no prior history); desire for treatment; no history of epilepsy, alcoholism or drug addiction. The nature and extent of homosexual activity ranged from frequent sexual activity with multi-partner involvement to covert activity. Covert activity was restricted to deviant ruminations without significant involvement. Subjects were comparable as to level of formal education and age. All subjects were attending college as undergraduate or graduate students; their ages ranged from 18 to 31 years, with a mean of 23.6 years. All subjects who participated were active or semi-active members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. They were either self-referrals or referrals from various local agencies to Dr. D. Eugene Thorne of the Psychology Department at Brigham Young University. Each prospective subject was offered free treatment if he would participate fully in our research program.

:It was mandatory that all subjects chosen to participate sign and have witnessed a prepared statement explaining (a) the experimental nature of the treatment procedure, (b) the use of aversive electric shock, (c) the showing of 35 mm slides that might be construed by subject as possibly offensive, and (d) that Brigham Young University was not in any direct way endorsing the procedures used. This was to insure that all subjects were in full agreement and understanding as to what the treatment procedure would involve, provide and demand from them.

In the years since the study, some (but not all) of the study participants have talked publicly about their experiences. Some of these reports can be quite painful to read, as can similar reports from participants in studies at other universities and facilities of the time. While there is no doubt that the McBride study was traumatic to some of the individuals involved, it must be remembered that the study was not far-reaching, it was done according to common medical practice, all participants were volunteers, each participant had explained to them beforehand what the study would entail, and any participant could leave the study at any time they wanted. These caveats are not mentioned to minimize the statements of these participants in any manner; they are only made so that proper context for the study can be maintained in the face of agonizing reports.

As far as can be historically ascertained, the McBride study was the only study ever done at BYU in the area of aversion therapy and the treatment of homosexuality. It is interesting to note that BYU's contribution to the field of aversion therapy was not covered by the APA task force report. This was probably because they considered BYU's involvement to be too minor to include. Other universities had more participants and conducted their studies later than BYU. The role of BYU in aversion therapy research was very minimal, and was limited to treating ego-dystonic homosexuality.

Contrary to the assumptions of some, BYU did not pioneer the use of aversion therapy for this type of treatment and it stopped use of the therapy decades before the APA stopped recommending the practice. The university was simply one of many places that did research in the area when little was known about it. In fact, McBride's dissertation there are over 17 pages of documentation discussing other studies in which aversion therapy was applied to male homosexuality.

==== Aversion therapy at other universities ====

A significant number of hospitals and universities historically offered aversion therapy as a way to treat homosexuality. It would be impossible to list all of them, but here are a few of the major places where people were involved in research and development of using aversion therapy to treat homosexuality:

* The University of New South Wales [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V5W-45XTVVT-89&_user=10&_coverDate=12%2F31%2F1981&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1681661053&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=a942e6089eba7694d0116091f6f51b38&searchtype=a]

* Joint project from Harvard and University of Chicago [http://archpsyc.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/25/4/314]

* The Royal College of Psychiatrists [http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/abstract/115/529/1417] [http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/citation/115/520/339]

* University of Vermont [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/4690218] [http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/abn/81/1/60/]

* University of Glasglow [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1812608/?page=1]

* Illinois State University [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V5V-46JGXS6-4&_user=10&_coverDate=09%2F30%2F1972&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1681836896&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=99693da1b0a79bafb66badcd1de34ba6&searchtype=a]

* University of Louisville [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B7XMW-4K664R0-8&_user=10&_coverDate=03%2F31%2F1975&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1683127764&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=f2a618b828f15769fd42d213612da034&searchtype=a]

* Glenside Hospital [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1957923/pdf/brmedj02859-0056.pdf]

* University of Toronto [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B7XMW-4K605GH-9&_user=10&_coverDate=04%2F30%2F1971&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1683142140&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=9ea2a557c8b953234e666f603596e72a&searchtype=a] [http://www.mhamic.org/sources/freund.htm]

* King's College, London [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V5W-4VT1WJ3-C&_user=10&_coverDate=12%2F31%2F1972&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1683171148&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=1dbf2c8194438bf0daa9dc176d847b3f&searchtype=a]

* University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V5V-46KC6WM-1D&_user=10&_coverDate=12%2F31%2F1972&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=32d542dfb72d160bd92504744f3ef810&searchtype=a]

* Crumpsall Hospital [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1842087/?page=1]

* Allan Memorial Institute [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B7XMW-4K605KB-4&_user=10&_coverDate=01%2F31%2F1972&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1683181121&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=384b29ea4d021e09974f7f263e31ee6a&searchtype=a]

* Northeast Guidance Center [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B7XMW-4K664PP-7&_user=10&_coverDate=10%2F31%2F1975&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1681671317&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=93ae98d985c42fe37a42148137749fbf&searchtype=a#fn1]

* Center for Behavior Change [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V5W-4VS5RSF-8&_user=10&_coverDate=05%2F31%2F1973&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1681676165&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=8e09375e2e0e0fd272dc6c3994853f79&searchtype=a]

* University of Pennsylvania

=== Purpose of psychological therapy ===

The goal of therapy is to help the patient reach their desired end. One of the fundamentals is patient self-determination. The therapist does not set the goals, but the patient. Aversion therapy is not administered to smokers as a way to torture them, but to help them achieve their goal of being smoke-free.

The therapy at BYU was administered towards people who felt distress about their sexual orientation. Distress is not a good thing. The purpose of therapy was to relieve stress. If it was known that aversion therapy would be harmful, then they probably wouldn't have administered it. People were asking for help to change their sexual orientation, major medical associations said aversion therapy would help them, so why not try to help them with the best medical knowledge available at the time?

It is unfortunate that these methods that were meant to help may have caused or exacerbated distress and poor mental health, especially depression and suicidal thoughts. (For more information on suicides, see [[Mormonism and gender issues/Same-sex attraction/Suicide|Same-sex attraction/Suicide]].) There is an inherent risk in therapy for mental illnesses. Unfortunately, these risks were not fully understood in the 1970s.

=== Academic freedom at BYU ===
{{Main|Mormonism and education}}

When we hear of negative consequences from these therapies, some people wonder what the church could have done to stop it. Unfortunately, there was little that the church could have done. The church did not endorse BYU's experiments. They don't typically endorse any experiments at BYU. Some people have the wrong impression that the church mandates what experiments are done, and which are not. This is not true. Even at BYU, people have a variety of opinions and approaches for doing things.

The Church rarely interferes with what is done at BYU, and there would have been little reason for the Church to stop the experiments as it was conducted according to then-standard practices. Graduate students at BYU have significant freedom to pursue whatever academic interests they want. Especially in areas such as psychological research and therapy, BYU relies heavily on standards set forth by professional associations. This is partially needed so the school can be accredited. If the school starts imposing their own standards, rather than those used by professional associations, it could loose accreditation.

Besides the problem of making up their own standards, it is contrary to Mormonism to command in all things. Mormons are encouraged to think for themselves, and find their own answers to questions. Doctrine and Covenants 58:26 reads:

:For behold, it is not meet that I should command in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant; wherefore he receiveth no reward.

Encouraging academic freedom and individual agency unfortunately means that sometimes people will make mistakes. Sometimes they will run experiments and not have them turn out the way they want to. However, the answer is not to do away with academic freedom.

=={{Conclusion label}}==

Like many other places in the western world, aversion therapy was conducted by a graduate student at BYU in the 1970s. These experiments were conducted following standards published by professional societies, and was only conducted on adults who gave their permission. Like most experiments at BYU, they were designed and conducted by researchers at the University. For better or for worse, the Church typically does not interfere with standard experiments run by graduate students. Given the knowledge available at the time, the church had little reason to interfere with these experiments.

=={{Endnotes label}}==

=={{Further reading label}}==

==={{FAIR wiki articles label}}===
{{SSA wiki}}

==={{FAIR web site label}}===
{{SSA FAIR}}

==={{External links label}}===
{{SSA links}}

==={{Printed material label}}===
{{SSA print}}

{{Articles Footer 1}} {{Articles Footer 2}} {{Articles Footer 3}} {{Articles Footer 4}} {{Articles Footer 5}} {{Articles Footer 6}} {{Articles Footer 7}} {{Articles Footer 8}} {{Articles Footer 9}} {{Articles Footer 10}}

Homosexuality and the Church of Jesus Christ/Aversion therapy performed at BYU

2011-03-23T17:09:11Z

Awyatt: /* Aversion therapy at BYU */

{{Articles FAIR copyright}} {{Articles Header 1}} {{Articles Header 2}} {{Articles Header 3}} {{Articles Header 4}} {{Articles Header 5}} {{Articles Header 6}} {{Articles Header 7}} {{Articles Header 8}} {{Articles Header 9}} {{Articles Header 10}}

{{draft}}

=={{Question label}}==

* What was the history of BYU and aversion therapy for treating homosexuality?
* How did that relate to medical and psychological science as understood at that time?
* What was the role of the Church in BYU's treatments?

=={{Response label}}==

In the mid-1970s, a graduate student at Brigham Young University conducted a clinical study in the use of aversion therapy to treat ego-dystonic homosexuality. (More details of this study are provided, below.) At the time, homosexuality was considered a mental illness and aversion therapy was a standard practice for cure. Experiments were run on a volunteer basis adhering to the professional standards of the time. Even so, there is no indication that anyone from the church leadership was aware of the experiments. Church leadership is typically not involved in minute details of the daily activities of BYU such as approving standard procedures being run by graduate students.

There are reports of bishops counseling people to undergo aversion therapy. These reports have not been verified, but it would not be uncommon for bishops to counsel people to go to standard therapies recommended by professional societies. Each bishop has significant freedom to recommend what they feel is best for the people in their congregation. The church itself has never recommended aversion therapy.

President Kimball did quote from several reputable medical sources about how the practice of homosexuality could be abandoned through treatments, but he did not specify what treatments those were. The important thing for President Kimball and for the church is that sexual actions could be controlled. This is the same stance the Church has today, and is fully supported by modern medical associations.

Elder Oaks stated:

:"The Church rarely takes a position on which treatment techniques are appropriate, for medical doctors or for psychiatrists or psychologists and so on. The second point is that there are abusive practices that have been used in connection with various mental attitudes or feelings. Over-medication in respect to depression is an example that comes to mind. The aversive therapies that have been used in connection with same-sex attraction have contained some serious abuses that have been recognized over time within the professions. While we have no position about what the medical doctors do (except in very, very rare cases — abortion would be such an example), we are conscious that there are abuses and we don’t accept responsibility for those abuses. Even though they are addressed at helping people we would like to see helped, we can’t endorse every kind of technique that’s been used."

=== Aversion therapy is a standard technique ===

Aversion therapy is still used today for a variety of treatments, such as gambling, smoking, alcoholism, and violence. A 2010 article in Psychology Today states "To date, aversion therapy using shock and nausea is the only technique of quitting [smoking] that offers decent gambling odds."[http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-human-beast/201002/smoking-most-effective-quitting-technique-little-known] The Encyclopedia of Mental Disorders has this entry for aversion therapy:

:A patient who consults a behavior therapist for aversion therapy can expect a fairly standard set of procedures. The therapist begins by assessing the problem, most likely measuring its frequency, severity, and the environment in which the undesirable behavior occurs. Although the therapeutic relationship is not the focus of treatment for the behavior therapist, therapists in this tradition believe that good rapport will facilitate a successful outcome. A positive relationship is also necessary to establish the patient's confidence in the rationale for exposing him or her to an uncomfortable stimulus. The therapist will design a treatment protocol and explain it to the patient. The most important choice the therapist makes is the type of aversive stimulus to employ. Depending upon the behavior to be changed, the preferred aversive stimulus is often electric stimulation delivered to the forearm or leg. [http://www.minddisorders.com/A-Br/Aversion-therapy.html]

Over the years, the methods have been refined and approved. Today, we have decades of research that were not available in the 1970s. It was not known where aversion therapy would be effective and where it would not be effective. The methods of the 1970s may seem crude compared to today's standards, but today's standards will probably seem crude in another 40 years. For whatever reason, aversion therapy is still a therapy used by mainstream psychologists.

We do NOT take a position on any therapy, except for the cases mentioned by Elder Oaks above. We only talk about the state of the art therapy so we have a better frame of reference when discussing aversion therapy.

=== History of aversion therapy and homosexuality ===

In 1966 Martin E.P. Seligman conducted a study at the University of Pennsylvania which showed positive results in applying aversion therapy to help people stop engaging in homosexual behavior. According to Seligman, this lead to "a great burst of enthusiasm about changing homosexuality [that] swept over the therapeutic community." (p. 156, Seligman, Martin E.P., What You Can Change and What You Can't: The Complete Guide to Self Improvement Knopf, 1993; ISBN 0-679-41024-4) Research was conducted by researchers from Harvard to King's College in London.

Historically, there were two types of homosexuality that were treated, ego-dystonic homosexuality and ego-syntonic homosexuality. The therapy administered at BYU was used to treat ego-dystonic homosexuality. This is when a patient experiences distress over their sexual orientation, and the goal of the therapy is to reduce that stress. Ego-dystonic homosexuality was considered a mental illness by the American Psychological Association until 1987, and is still considered a mental illness by the World Health Organization. [http://apps.who.int/classifications/apps/icd/icd10online/?gf60.htm+f661] Unlike other places, BYU never used aversion therapy to treat ego-sytonic homosexuality, which is where the patient is content with their sexual orientation.

Even after the declassification, aversion therapy could still be used to treat distress over sexual orientation, which is still classified as a sexual disorder in the DSM-IV. It was not until 1994, that the American Medical Association issued a report that stated "aversion therapy is no longer recommended for gay men and lesbians" (Health Care Needs of Gay Men and Lesbians in the U.S. American Medical Association Report, 1994) and not until 2006 that using aversion therapy to treat homosexuality has been in violation of the codes of conduct and professional guidelines of the American Psychological Association and American Psychiatric Association.

In 2009, a task force was commissioned by the American Psychological Association to investigate therapies used to treat homosexuality, including aversion therapy. They reported:

:Early research on efforts to change sexual orientation focused heavily on interventions that include aversion techniques. Many of these studies did not set out to investigate harm. Nonetheless, these studies provide some suggestion that harm can occur from aversive efforts to change sexual orientation...

:We conclude that there is a dearth of scientifically sound research on the safety of SOCE. Early and recent research studies provide no clear indication of the prevalence of harmful outcomes among people who have undergone efforts to change their sexual orientation or the frequency of occurrence of harm because no study to date of adequate scientific rigor has been explicitly designed to do so. Thus, we cannot conclude how likely it is that harm will occur from SOCE. However, studies from both periods indicate that attempts to change sexual orientation may cause or exacerbate distress and poor mental health in some individuals, including depression and suicidal thoughts. The lack of rigorous research on the safety of SOCE represents a serious concern, as do studies that report perceptions of harm (cf. Lilienfeld, 2007).[http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/therapeutic-response.pdf]

==== Aversion therapy at BYU ====

In the mid-1970s a graduate student, Max McBride, conducted a study entitled ''Effect of Visual Stimuli in Electric Aversion Therapy''. The results of this study were published as his PhD dissertation in the BYU Department of Psychology. As required by law, the study was conducted under the auspices of Dr. D. Eugene Thorne, who also served as McBride's PhD committee chairman. All study procedures followed common medical practice; McBride even thanks medical professionals at the Salt Lake City Veterans Hospital for their assistance in designing the study and help with statistical analysis.

The study consisted of male 17 participants, only 14 of which concluded the study. From the McBride dissertation we learn more about the participants:

:Seventeen male subjects were used in the study, 14 completed treatment. Selection was on the basis of clinical evidence of homosexuality; absence of psychosis (no prior history); desire for treatment; no history of epilepsy, alcoholism or drug addiction. The nature and extent of homosexual activity ranged from frequent sexual activity with multi-partner involvement to covert activity. Covert activity was restricted to deviant ruminations without significant involvement. Subjects were comparable as to level of formal education and age. All subjects were attending college as undergraduate or graduate students; their ages ranged from 18 to 31 years, with a mean of 23.6 years. All subjects who participated were active or semi-active members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. They were either self-referrals or referrals from various local agencies to Dr. D. Eugene Thorne of the Psychology Department at Brigham Young University. Each prospective subject was offered free treatment if he would participate fully in our research program.

:It was mandatory that all subjects chosen to participate sign and have witnessed a prepared statement explaining (a) the experimental nature of the treatment procedure, (b) the use of aversive electric shock, (c) the showing of 35 mm slides that might be construed by subject as possibly offensive, and (d) that Brigham Young University was not in any direct way endorsing the procedures used. This was to insure that all subjects were in full agreement and understanding as to what the treatment procedure would involve, provide and demand from them.

In the years since the study, some (but not all) of the study participants have talked publicly about their experiences. Some of these reports can be quite painful to read, as can similar reports from participants in studies at other universities and facilities of the time. While there is no doubt that the McBride study was traumatic to some of the individuals involved, it must be remembered that the study was not far-reaching, it was done according to common medical practice, all participants were volunteers, each participant had explained to them beforehand what the study would entail, and any participant could leave the study at any time they wanted. These caveats are not mentioned to minimize the statements of these participants in any manner; they are only made so that proper context for the study can be maintained in the face of agonizing reports.

As far as can be historically ascertained, the McBride study was the only study ever done at BYU in the area of aversion therapy and the treatment of homosexuality. It is interesting to note that BYU's contribution to the field of aversion therapy was not covered by the APA task force report. This was probably because they considered BYU's involvement to be too minor to include. Other universities had more participants and conducted their studies later than BYU. The role of BYU in aversion therapy research was very minimal, and was limited to treating ego-dystonic homosexuality.

Contrary to the assumptions of some, BYU did not pioneer the use of aversion therapy for this type of treatment and it stopped use of the therapy decades before the APA stopped recommending the practice. The university was simply one of many places that did research in the area when little was known about it. In fact, McBride's dissertation there are over 17 pages of documentation discussing other studies in which aversion therapy was applied to male homosexuality.

==== Aversion therapy at other universities ====

A significant number of hospitals and universities historically offered aversion therapy as a way to treat homosexuality. It would be impossible to list all of them, but here are a few of the major places where people were involved in research and development of using aversion therapy to treat homosexuality:

* The University of New South Wales [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V5W-45XTVVT-89&_user=10&_coverDate=12%2F31%2F1981&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1681661053&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=a942e6089eba7694d0116091f6f51b38&searchtype=a]

* Joint project from Harvard and University of Chicago [http://archpsyc.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/25/4/314]

* The Royal College of Psychiatrists [http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/abstract/115/529/1417] [http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/citation/115/520/339]

* University of Vermont [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/4690218] [http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/abn/81/1/60/]

* University of Glasglow [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1812608/?page=1]

* Illinois State University [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V5V-46JGXS6-4&_user=10&_coverDate=09%2F30%2F1972&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1681836896&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=99693da1b0a79bafb66badcd1de34ba6&searchtype=a]

* University of Louisville [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B7XMW-4K664R0-8&_user=10&_coverDate=03%2F31%2F1975&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1683127764&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=f2a618b828f15769fd42d213612da034&searchtype=a]

* Glenside Hospital [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1957923/pdf/brmedj02859-0056.pdf]

* University of Toronto [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B7XMW-4K605GH-9&_user=10&_coverDate=04%2F30%2F1971&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1683142140&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=9ea2a557c8b953234e666f603596e72a&searchtype=a] [http://www.mhamic.org/sources/freund.htm]

* King's College, London [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V5W-4VT1WJ3-C&_user=10&_coverDate=12%2F31%2F1972&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1683171148&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=1dbf2c8194438bf0daa9dc176d847b3f&searchtype=a]

* University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V5V-46KC6WM-1D&_user=10&_coverDate=12%2F31%2F1972&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=32d542dfb72d160bd92504744f3ef810&searchtype=a]

* Crumpsall Hospital [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1842087/?page=1]

* Allan Memorial Institute [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B7XMW-4K605KB-4&_user=10&_coverDate=01%2F31%2F1972&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1683181121&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=384b29ea4d021e09974f7f263e31ee6a&searchtype=a]

* Northeast Guidance Center [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B7XMW-4K664PP-7&_user=10&_coverDate=10%2F31%2F1975&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1681671317&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=93ae98d985c42fe37a42148137749fbf&searchtype=a#fn1]

* Center for Behavior Change [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V5W-4VS5RSF-8&_user=10&_coverDate=05%2F31%2F1973&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1681676165&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=8e09375e2e0e0fd272dc6c3994853f79&searchtype=a]

* University of Pennsylvania

=== Purpose of psychological therapy ===

The goal of therapy is to help the patient reach their desired end. One of the fundamentals is patient self-determination. The therapist does not set the goals, but the patient. Aversion therapy is not administered to smokers as a way to torture them, but to help them achieve their goal of being smoke-free.

The therapy at BYU was administered towards people who felt distress about their sexual orientation. Distress is not a good thing. The purpose of therapy was to relieve stress. If it was known that aversion therapy would be harmful, then they probably wouldn't have administered it. People were asking for help to change their sexual orientation, major medical associations said aversion therapy would help them, so why not try to help them with the best medical knowledge available at the time?

It is unfortunate that these methods that were meant to help may have caused or exacerbated distress and poor mental health, especially depression and suicidal thoughts. (For more information on suicides, see [[Mormonism and gender issues/Same-sex attraction/Suicide|Same-sex attraction/Suicide]].) There is an inherent risk in therapy for mental illnesses. Unfortunately, these risks were not fully understood in the 1970s.

=== Academic freedom at BYU ===
{{Main|Mormonism and education}}

When we hear of negative consequences from these therapies, some people wonder what the church could have done to stop it. Unfortunately, there was little that the church could have done. The church did not endorse BYU's experiments. They don't typically endorse any experiments at BYU. Some people have the wrong impression that the church mandates what experiments are done, and which are not. This is not true. Even at BYU, people have a variety of opinions and approaches for doing things.

The Church rarely interferes with what is done at BYU, and there would have been little reason for the Church to stop the experiments as it was conducted according to then-standard practices. Graduate students at BYU have significant freedom to pursue whatever academic interests they want. Especially in areas such as psychological research and therapy, BYU relies heavily on standards set forth by professional associations. This is partially needed so the school can be accredited. If the school starts imposing their own standards, rather than those used by professional associations, it could loose accreditation.

Besides the problem of making up their own standards, it is contrary to Mormonism to command in all things. Mormons are encouraged to think for themselves, and find their own answers to questions. Doctrine and Covenants 58:26 reads:

:For behold, it is not meet that I should command in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant; wherefore he receiveth no reward.

Encouraging academic freedom and individual agency unfortunately means that sometimes people will make mistakes. Sometimes they will run experiments and not have them turn out the way they want to. However, the answer is not to do away with academic freedom.

=={{Conclusion label}}==

Like many other places in the western world, aversion therapy was conducted by a graduate student at BYU in the 1970s. These experiments were conducted following standards published by professional societies, and was only conducted on adults who gave their permission. Like most experiments at BYU, they were designed and conducted by researchers at the University. For better or for worse, the Church typically does not interfere with standard experiments run by graduate students. Given the knowledge available at the time, the church had little reason to interfere with these experiments.

=={{Endnotes label}}==

=={{Further reading label}}==

==={{FAIR wiki articles label}}===
{{SSA wiki}}

==={{FAIR web site label}}===
{{SSA FAIR}}

==={{External links label}}===
{{SSA links}}

==={{Printed material label}}===
{{SSA print}}

{{Articles Footer 1}} {{Articles Footer 2}} {{Articles Footer 3}} {{Articles Footer 4}} {{Articles Footer 5}} {{Articles Footer 6}} {{Articles Footer 7}} {{Articles Footer 8}} {{Articles Footer 9}} {{Articles Footer 10}}

Homosexuality and the Church of Jesus Christ/Aversion therapy performed at BYU

2011-03-23T17:08:16Z

Awyatt: /* Aversion therapy at BYU */

{{Articles FAIR copyright}} {{Articles Header 1}} {{Articles Header 2}} {{Articles Header 3}} {{Articles Header 4}} {{Articles Header 5}} {{Articles Header 6}} {{Articles Header 7}} {{Articles Header 8}} {{Articles Header 9}} {{Articles Header 10}}

{{draft}}

=={{Question label}}==

* What was the history of BYU and aversion therapy for treating homosexuality?
* How did that relate to medical and psychological science as understood at that time?
* What was the role of the Church in BYU's treatments?

=={{Response label}}==

In the mid-1970s, a graduate student at Brigham Young University conducted a clinical study in the use of aversion therapy to treat ego-dystonic homosexuality. (More details of this study are provided, below.) At the time, homosexuality was considered a mental illness and aversion therapy was a standard practice for cure. Experiments were run on a volunteer basis adhering to the professional standards of the time. Even so, there is no indication that anyone from the church leadership was aware of the experiments. Church leadership is typically not involved in minute details of the daily activities of BYU such as approving standard procedures being run by graduate students.

There are reports of bishops counseling people to undergo aversion therapy. These reports have not been verified, but it would not be uncommon for bishops to counsel people to go to standard therapies recommended by professional societies. Each bishop has significant freedom to recommend what they feel is best for the people in their congregation. The church itself has never recommended aversion therapy.

President Kimball did quote from several reputable medical sources about how the practice of homosexuality could be abandoned through treatments, but he did not specify what treatments those were. The important thing for President Kimball and for the church is that sexual actions could be controlled. This is the same stance the Church has today, and is fully supported by modern medical associations.

Elder Oaks stated:

:"The Church rarely takes a position on which treatment techniques are appropriate, for medical doctors or for psychiatrists or psychologists and so on. The second point is that there are abusive practices that have been used in connection with various mental attitudes or feelings. Over-medication in respect to depression is an example that comes to mind. The aversive therapies that have been used in connection with same-sex attraction have contained some serious abuses that have been recognized over time within the professions. While we have no position about what the medical doctors do (except in very, very rare cases — abortion would be such an example), we are conscious that there are abuses and we don’t accept responsibility for those abuses. Even though they are addressed at helping people we would like to see helped, we can’t endorse every kind of technique that’s been used."

=== Aversion therapy is a standard technique ===

Aversion therapy is still used today for a variety of treatments, such as gambling, smoking, alcoholism, and violence. A 2010 article in Psychology Today states "To date, aversion therapy using shock and nausea is the only technique of quitting [smoking] that offers decent gambling odds."[http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-human-beast/201002/smoking-most-effective-quitting-technique-little-known] The Encyclopedia of Mental Disorders has this entry for aversion therapy:

:A patient who consults a behavior therapist for aversion therapy can expect a fairly standard set of procedures. The therapist begins by assessing the problem, most likely measuring its frequency, severity, and the environment in which the undesirable behavior occurs. Although the therapeutic relationship is not the focus of treatment for the behavior therapist, therapists in this tradition believe that good rapport will facilitate a successful outcome. A positive relationship is also necessary to establish the patient's confidence in the rationale for exposing him or her to an uncomfortable stimulus. The therapist will design a treatment protocol and explain it to the patient. The most important choice the therapist makes is the type of aversive stimulus to employ. Depending upon the behavior to be changed, the preferred aversive stimulus is often electric stimulation delivered to the forearm or leg. [http://www.minddisorders.com/A-Br/Aversion-therapy.html]

Over the years, the methods have been refined and approved. Today, we have decades of research that were not available in the 1970s. It was not known where aversion therapy would be effective and where it would not be effective. The methods of the 1970s may seem crude compared to today's standards, but today's standards will probably seem crude in another 40 years. For whatever reason, aversion therapy is still a therapy used by mainstream psychologists.

We do NOT take a position on any therapy, except for the cases mentioned by Elder Oaks above. We only talk about the state of the art therapy so we have a better frame of reference when discussing aversion therapy.

=== History of aversion therapy and homosexuality ===

In 1966 Martin E.P. Seligman conducted a study at the University of Pennsylvania which showed positive results in applying aversion therapy to help people stop engaging in homosexual behavior. According to Seligman, this lead to "a great burst of enthusiasm about changing homosexuality [that] swept over the therapeutic community." (p. 156, Seligman, Martin E.P., What You Can Change and What You Can't: The Complete Guide to Self Improvement Knopf, 1993; ISBN 0-679-41024-4) Research was conducted by researchers from Harvard to King's College in London.

Historically, there were two types of homosexuality that were treated, ego-dystonic homosexuality and ego-syntonic homosexuality. The therapy administered at BYU was used to treat ego-dystonic homosexuality. This is when a patient experiences distress over their sexual orientation, and the goal of the therapy is to reduce that stress. Ego-dystonic homosexuality was considered a mental illness by the American Psychological Association until 1987, and is still considered a mental illness by the World Health Organization. [http://apps.who.int/classifications/apps/icd/icd10online/?gf60.htm+f661] Unlike other places, BYU never used aversion therapy to treat ego-sytonic homosexuality, which is where the patient is content with their sexual orientation.

Even after the declassification, aversion therapy could still be used to treat distress over sexual orientation, which is still classified as a sexual disorder in the DSM-IV. It was not until 1994, that the American Medical Association issued a report that stated "aversion therapy is no longer recommended for gay men and lesbians" (Health Care Needs of Gay Men and Lesbians in the U.S. American Medical Association Report, 1994) and not until 2006 that using aversion therapy to treat homosexuality has been in violation of the codes of conduct and professional guidelines of the American Psychological Association and American Psychiatric Association.

In 2009, a task force was commissioned by the American Psychological Association to investigate therapies used to treat homosexuality, including aversion therapy. They reported:

:Early research on efforts to change sexual orientation focused heavily on interventions that include aversion techniques. Many of these studies did not set out to investigate harm. Nonetheless, these studies provide some suggestion that harm can occur from aversive efforts to change sexual orientation...

:We conclude that there is a dearth of scientifically sound research on the safety of SOCE. Early and recent research studies provide no clear indication of the prevalence of harmful outcomes among people who have undergone efforts to change their sexual orientation or the frequency of occurrence of harm because no study to date of adequate scientific rigor has been explicitly designed to do so. Thus, we cannot conclude how likely it is that harm will occur from SOCE. However, studies from both periods indicate that attempts to change sexual orientation may cause or exacerbate distress and poor mental health in some individuals, including depression and suicidal thoughts. The lack of rigorous research on the safety of SOCE represents a serious concern, as do studies that report perceptions of harm (cf. Lilienfeld, 2007).[http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/therapeutic-response.pdf]

==== Aversion therapy at BYU ====

In the mid-1970s a graduate student, Max McBride, conducted a study entitled ''Effect of Visual Stimuli in Electric Aversion Therapy''. The results of this study were published as his PhD dissertation in the BYU Department of Psychology. As required by law, the study was conducted under the auspices of Dr. D. Eugene Thorne, who also served as McBride's PhD committee chairman. All study procedures followed common medical practice; McBride even thanks medical professionals at the Salt Lake City Veterans Hospital for their assistance in designing the study and help with statistical analysis.

The study consisted of male 17 participants, only 14 of which concluded the study. From the McBride dissertation we learn more about the participants:

:Seventeen male subjects were used in the study, 14 completed treatment. Selection was on the basis of clinical evidence of homosexuality; absence of psychosis (no prior history); desire for treatment; no history of epilepsy, alcoholism or drug addiction. The nature and extent of homosexual activity ranged from frequent sexual activity with multi-partner involvement to covert activity. Covert activity was restricted to deviant ruminations without significant involvement. Subjects were comparable as to level of formal education and age. All subjects were attending college as undergraduate or graduate students; their ages ranged from 18 to 31 years, with a mean of 23.6 years. All subjects who participated were active or semi-active members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. They were either self-referrals or referrals from various local agencies to Dr. D. Eugene Thorne of the Psychology Department at Brigham Young University. Each prospective subject was offered free treatment if he would participate fully in our research program.

:It was mandatory that all subjects chosen to participate sign and have witnessed a prepared statement explaining (a) the experimental nature of the treatment procedure, (b) the use of aversive electric shock, (c) the showing of 35 mm slides that might be construed by subject as possibly offensive, and (d) that Brigham Young University was not in any direct way endorsing the procedures used. This was to insure that all subjects were in full agreement and understanding as to what the treatment procedure would involve, provide and demand from them.

In the years since the study, some (but not all) of the study participants have talked about their experiences. Some of these reports can be quite painful to read, as can similar reports from participants in studies at other universities and facilities of the time. While there is no doubt that the McBride study was traumatic to some of the individuals involved, it must be remembered that the study was not far-reaching, it was done according to common medical practice, all participants were volunteers, each participant had explained to them beforehand what the study would entail, and any participant could leave the study at any time they wanted. These caveats are not mentioned to minimize the statements of these participants in any manner; they are only made so that proper context for the study can be maintained in the face of agonizing reports.

As far as can be historically ascertained, the McBride study was the only study ever done at BYU in the area of aversion therapy and the treatment of homosexuality. It is interesting to note that BYU's contribution to the field of aversion therapy was not covered by the APA task force report. This was probably because they considered BYU's involvement to be too minor to include. Other universities had more participants and conducted their studies later than BYU. The role of BYU in aversion therapy research was very minimal, and was limited to treating ego-dystonic homosexuality.

Contrary to the assumptions of some, BYU did not pioneer the use of aversion therapy for this type of treatment and it stopped use of the therapy decades before the APA stopped recommending the practice. The university was simply one of many places that did research in the area when little was known about it. In fact, McBride's dissertation there are over 17 pages of documentation discussing other studies in which aversion therapy was applied to male homosexuality.

==== Aversion therapy at other universities ====

A significant number of hospitals and universities historically offered aversion therapy as a way to treat homosexuality. It would be impossible to list all of them, but here are a few of the major places where people were involved in research and development of using aversion therapy to treat homosexuality:

* The University of New South Wales [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V5W-45XTVVT-89&_user=10&_coverDate=12%2F31%2F1981&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1681661053&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=a942e6089eba7694d0116091f6f51b38&searchtype=a]

* Joint project from Harvard and University of Chicago [http://archpsyc.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/25/4/314]

* The Royal College of Psychiatrists [http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/abstract/115/529/1417] [http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/citation/115/520/339]

* University of Vermont [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/4690218] [http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/abn/81/1/60/]

* University of Glasglow [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1812608/?page=1]

* Illinois State University [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V5V-46JGXS6-4&_user=10&_coverDate=09%2F30%2F1972&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1681836896&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=99693da1b0a79bafb66badcd1de34ba6&searchtype=a]

* University of Louisville [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B7XMW-4K664R0-8&_user=10&_coverDate=03%2F31%2F1975&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1683127764&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=f2a618b828f15769fd42d213612da034&searchtype=a]

* Glenside Hospital [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1957923/pdf/brmedj02859-0056.pdf]

* University of Toronto [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B7XMW-4K605GH-9&_user=10&_coverDate=04%2F30%2F1971&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1683142140&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=9ea2a557c8b953234e666f603596e72a&searchtype=a] [http://www.mhamic.org/sources/freund.htm]

* King's College, London [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V5W-4VT1WJ3-C&_user=10&_coverDate=12%2F31%2F1972&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1683171148&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=1dbf2c8194438bf0daa9dc176d847b3f&searchtype=a]

* University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V5V-46KC6WM-1D&_user=10&_coverDate=12%2F31%2F1972&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=32d542dfb72d160bd92504744f3ef810&searchtype=a]

* Crumpsall Hospital [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1842087/?page=1]

* Allan Memorial Institute [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B7XMW-4K605KB-4&_user=10&_coverDate=01%2F31%2F1972&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1683181121&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=384b29ea4d021e09974f7f263e31ee6a&searchtype=a]

* Northeast Guidance Center [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B7XMW-4K664PP-7&_user=10&_coverDate=10%2F31%2F1975&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1681671317&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=93ae98d985c42fe37a42148137749fbf&searchtype=a#fn1]

* Center for Behavior Change [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V5W-4VS5RSF-8&_user=10&_coverDate=05%2F31%2F1973&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1681676165&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=8e09375e2e0e0fd272dc6c3994853f79&searchtype=a]

* University of Pennsylvania

=== Purpose of psychological therapy ===

The goal of therapy is to help the patient reach their desired end. One of the fundamentals is patient self-determination. The therapist does not set the goals, but the patient. Aversion therapy is not administered to smokers as a way to torture them, but to help them achieve their goal of being smoke-free.

The therapy at BYU was administered towards people who felt distress about their sexual orientation. Distress is not a good thing. The purpose of therapy was to relieve stress. If it was known that aversion therapy would be harmful, then they probably wouldn't have administered it. People were asking for help to change their sexual orientation, major medical associations said aversion therapy would help them, so why not try to help them with the best medical knowledge available at the time?

It is unfortunate that these methods that were meant to help may have caused or exacerbated distress and poor mental health, especially depression and suicidal thoughts. (For more information on suicides, see [[Mormonism and gender issues/Same-sex attraction/Suicide|Same-sex attraction/Suicide]].) There is an inherent risk in therapy for mental illnesses. Unfortunately, these risks were not fully understood in the 1970s.

=== Academic freedom at BYU ===
{{Main|Mormonism and education}}

When we hear of negative consequences from these therapies, some people wonder what the church could have done to stop it. Unfortunately, there was little that the church could have done. The church did not endorse BYU's experiments. They don't typically endorse any experiments at BYU. Some people have the wrong impression that the church mandates what experiments are done, and which are not. This is not true. Even at BYU, people have a variety of opinions and approaches for doing things.

The Church rarely interferes with what is done at BYU, and there would have been little reason for the Church to stop the experiments as it was conducted according to then-standard practices. Graduate students at BYU have significant freedom to pursue whatever academic interests they want. Especially in areas such as psychological research and therapy, BYU relies heavily on standards set forth by professional associations. This is partially needed so the school can be accredited. If the school starts imposing their own standards, rather than those used by professional associations, it could loose accreditation.

Besides the problem of making up their own standards, it is contrary to Mormonism to command in all things. Mormons are encouraged to think for themselves, and find their own answers to questions. Doctrine and Covenants 58:26 reads:

:For behold, it is not meet that I should command in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant; wherefore he receiveth no reward.

Encouraging academic freedom and individual agency unfortunately means that sometimes people will make mistakes. Sometimes they will run experiments and not have them turn out the way they want to. However, the answer is not to do away with academic freedom.

=={{Conclusion label}}==

Like many other places in the western world, aversion therapy was conducted by a graduate student at BYU in the 1970s. These experiments were conducted following standards published by professional societies, and was only conducted on adults who gave their permission. Like most experiments at BYU, they were designed and conducted by researchers at the University. For better or for worse, the Church typically does not interfere with standard experiments run by graduate students. Given the knowledge available at the time, the church had little reason to interfere with these experiments.

=={{Endnotes label}}==

=={{Further reading label}}==

==={{FAIR wiki articles label}}===
{{SSA wiki}}

==={{FAIR web site label}}===
{{SSA FAIR}}

==={{External links label}}===
{{SSA links}}

==={{Printed material label}}===
{{SSA print}}

{{Articles Footer 1}} {{Articles Footer 2}} {{Articles Footer 3}} {{Articles Footer 4}} {{Articles Footer 5}} {{Articles Footer 6}} {{Articles Footer 7}} {{Articles Footer 8}} {{Articles Footer 9}} {{Articles Footer 10}}

Homosexuality and the Church of Jesus Christ/Aversion therapy performed at BYU

2011-03-23T16:27:38Z

Awyatt: /* {{Question label}} */

{{Articles FAIR copyright}} {{Articles Header 1}} {{Articles Header 2}} {{Articles Header 3}} {{Articles Header 4}} {{Articles Header 5}} {{Articles Header 6}} {{Articles Header 7}} {{Articles Header 8}} {{Articles Header 9}} {{Articles Header 10}}

{{draft}}

=={{Question label}}==

* What was the history of BYU and aversion therapy for treating homosexuality?
* How did that relate to medical and psychological science as understood at that time?
* What was the role of the Church in BYU's treatments?

=={{Response label}}==

In the mid-1970s, a graduate student at Brigham Young University conducted a clinical study in the use of aversion therapy to treat ego-dystonic homosexuality. (More details of this study are provided, below.) At the time, homosexuality was considered a mental illness and aversion therapy was a standard practice for cure. Experiments were run on a volunteer basis adhering to the professional standards of the time. Even so, there is no indication that anyone from the church leadership was aware of the experiments. Church leadership is typically not involved in minute details of the daily activities of BYU such as approving standard procedures being run by graduate students.

There are reports of bishops counseling people to undergo aversion therapy. These reports have not been verified, but it would not be uncommon for bishops to counsel people to go to standard therapies recommended by professional societies. Each bishop has significant freedom to recommend what they feel is best for the people in their congregation. The church itself has never recommended aversion therapy.

President Kimball did quote from several reputable medical sources about how the practice of homosexuality could be abandoned through treatments, but he did not specify what treatments those were. The important thing for President Kimball and for the church is that sexual actions could be controlled. This is the same stance the Church has today, and is fully supported by modern medical associations.

Elder Oaks stated:

:"The Church rarely takes a position on which treatment techniques are appropriate, for medical doctors or for psychiatrists or psychologists and so on. The second point is that there are abusive practices that have been used in connection with various mental attitudes or feelings. Over-medication in respect to depression is an example that comes to mind. The aversive therapies that have been used in connection with same-sex attraction have contained some serious abuses that have been recognized over time within the professions. While we have no position about what the medical doctors do (except in very, very rare cases — abortion would be such an example), we are conscious that there are abuses and we don’t accept responsibility for those abuses. Even though they are addressed at helping people we would like to see helped, we can’t endorse every kind of technique that’s been used."

=== Aversion therapy is a standard technique ===

Aversion therapy is still used today for a variety of treatments, such as gambling, smoking, alcoholism, and violence. A 2010 article in Psychology Today states "To date, aversion therapy using shock and nausea is the only technique of quitting [smoking] that offers decent gambling odds."[http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-human-beast/201002/smoking-most-effective-quitting-technique-little-known] The Encyclopedia of Mental Disorders has this entry for aversion therapy:

:A patient who consults a behavior therapist for aversion therapy can expect a fairly standard set of procedures. The therapist begins by assessing the problem, most likely measuring its frequency, severity, and the environment in which the undesirable behavior occurs. Although the therapeutic relationship is not the focus of treatment for the behavior therapist, therapists in this tradition believe that good rapport will facilitate a successful outcome. A positive relationship is also necessary to establish the patient's confidence in the rationale for exposing him or her to an uncomfortable stimulus. The therapist will design a treatment protocol and explain it to the patient. The most important choice the therapist makes is the type of aversive stimulus to employ. Depending upon the behavior to be changed, the preferred aversive stimulus is often electric stimulation delivered to the forearm or leg. [http://www.minddisorders.com/A-Br/Aversion-therapy.html]

Over the years, the methods have been refined and approved. Today, we have decades of research that were not available in the 1970s. It was not known where aversion therapy would be effective and where it would not be effective. The methods of the 1970s may seem crude compared to today's standards, but today's standards will probably seem crude in another 40 years. For whatever reason, aversion therapy is still a therapy used by mainstream psychologists.

We do NOT take a position on any therapy, except for the cases mentioned by Elder Oaks above. We only talk about the state of the art therapy so we have a better frame of reference when discussing aversion therapy.

=== History of aversion therapy and homosexuality ===

In 1966 Martin E.P. Seligman conducted a study at the University of Pennsylvania which showed positive results in applying aversion therapy to help people stop engaging in homosexual behavior. According to Seligman, this lead to "a great burst of enthusiasm about changing homosexuality [that] swept over the therapeutic community." (p. 156, Seligman, Martin E.P., What You Can Change and What You Can't: The Complete Guide to Self Improvement Knopf, 1993; ISBN 0-679-41024-4) Research was conducted by researchers from Harvard to King's College in London.

Historically, there were two types of homosexuality that were treated, ego-dystonic homosexuality and ego-syntonic homosexuality. The therapy administered at BYU was used to treat ego-dystonic homosexuality. This is when a patient experiences distress over their sexual orientation, and the goal of the therapy is to reduce that stress. Ego-dystonic homosexuality was considered a mental illness by the American Psychological Association until 1987, and is still considered a mental illness by the World Health Organization. [http://apps.who.int/classifications/apps/icd/icd10online/?gf60.htm+f661] Unlike other places, BYU never used aversion therapy to treat ego-sytonic homosexuality, which is where the patient is content with their sexual orientation.

Even after the declassification, aversion therapy could still be used to treat distress over sexual orientation, which is still classified as a sexual disorder in the DSM-IV. It was not until 1994, that the American Medical Association issued a report that stated "aversion therapy is no longer recommended for gay men and lesbians" (Health Care Needs of Gay Men and Lesbians in the U.S. American Medical Association Report, 1994) and not until 2006 that using aversion therapy to treat homosexuality has been in violation of the codes of conduct and professional guidelines of the American Psychological Association and American Psychiatric Association.

In 2009, a task force was commissioned by the American Psychological Association to investigate therapies used to treat homosexuality, including aversion therapy. They reported:

:Early research on efforts to change sexual orientation focused heavily on interventions that include aversion techniques. Many of these studies did not set out to investigate harm. Nonetheless, these studies provide some suggestion that harm can occur from aversive efforts to change sexual orientation...

:We conclude that there is a dearth of scientifically sound research on the safety of SOCE. Early and recent research studies provide no clear indication of the prevalence of harmful outcomes among people who have undergone efforts to change their sexual orientation or the frequency of occurrence of harm because no study to date of adequate scientific rigor has been explicitly designed to do so. Thus, we cannot conclude how likely it is that harm will occur from SOCE. However, studies from both periods indicate that attempts to change sexual orientation may cause or exacerbate distress and poor mental health in some individuals, including depression and suicidal thoughts. The lack of rigorous research on the safety of SOCE represents a serious concern, as do studies that report perceptions of harm (cf. Lilienfeld, 2007).[http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/therapeutic-response.pdf]

==== Aversion therapy at BYU ====

In the mid-1970s a graduate student, Max McBride, conducted a study entitled ''Effect of Visual Stimuli in Electric Aversion Therapy''. The results of this study were published as his PhD dissertation in the BYU Department of Psychology. As required by law, the study was conducted under the auspices of Dr. D. Eugene Thorne, who also served as McBride's PhD committee chairman. All study procedures followed common medical practice; McBride even thanks medical professionals at the Salt Lake City Veterans Hospital for their assistance in designing the study and help with statistical analysis.

The study consisted of male 17 participants, only 14 of which concluded the study. From the McBride dissertation we learn more about the participants:

:Seventeen male subjects were used in the study, 14 completed treatment. Selection was on the basis of clinical evidence of homosexuality; absence of psychosis (no prior history); desire for treatment; no history of epilepsy, alcoholism or drug addiction. The nature and extent of homosexual activity ranged from frequent sexual activity with multi-partner involvement to covert activity. Covert activity was restricted to deviant ruminations without significant involvement. Subjects were comparable as to level of formal education and age. All subjects were attending college as undergraduate or graduate students; their ages ranged from 18 to 31 years, with a mean of 23.6 years. All subjects who participated were active or semi-active members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. They were either self-referrals or referrals from various local agencies to Dr. D. Eugene Thorn of the Psychology Department at Brigham Young University. Each prospective subject was offered free treatment if he would participate fully in our research program.

:It was mandatory that all subjects chosen to participate sign and have witnessed a prepared statement explaining (a) the experimental nature of the treatment procedure, (b) the use of aversive electric shock, (c) the showing of 35 mm slides that might be construed by subject as possibly offensive, and (d) that Brigham Young University was not in any direct way endorsing the procedures used. This was to insure that all subjects were in full agreement and understanding as to what the treatment procedure would involve, provide and demand from them.

In the years since the study, some (but not all) of the study participants have talked about their experiences. Some of these reports can be quite painful to read, as can similar reports from participants in studies at other universities and facilities of the time. While there is no doubt that the McBride study was traumatic to some of the individuals involved, it must be remembered that the study was not far-reaching, it was done according to common medical practice, all participants were volunteers, each participant had explained to them beforehand what the study would entail, and any participant could leave the study at any time they wanted. These caveats are not mentioned to minimize the statements of these participants in any manner; they are only made so that proper context for the study can be maintained in the face of agonizing reports.

As far as can be historically ascertained, the McBride study was the only study ever done at BYU in the area of aversion therapy and the treatment of homosexual tendencies. It is interesting to note that BYU's contribution to the field of aversion therapy was not covered by the APA task force report. This was probably because they considered BYU's involvement to be too minor to include. Other universities had more participants and conducted their studies later than BYU. The role of BYU in aversion therapy research was very minimal, and was limited to treating ego-dystonic homosexuality.

Contrary to the assumptions of some, BYU did not pioneer the use of aversion therapy for this type of treatment and it stopped use of the therapy decades before the APA stopped recommending the practice. The university was simply one of many places that did research in the area when little was known about it. In fact, McBride's dissertation there are over 17 pages of documentation discussing other studies in which aversion therapy was applied to male homosexuality.

==== Aversion therapy at other universities ====

A significant number of hospitals and universities historically offered aversion therapy as a way to treat homosexuality. It would be impossible to list all of them, but here are a few of the major places where people were involved in research and development of using aversion therapy to treat homosexuality:

* The University of New South Wales [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V5W-45XTVVT-89&_user=10&_coverDate=12%2F31%2F1981&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1681661053&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=a942e6089eba7694d0116091f6f51b38&searchtype=a]

* Joint project from Harvard and University of Chicago [http://archpsyc.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/25/4/314]

* The Royal College of Psychiatrists [http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/abstract/115/529/1417] [http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/citation/115/520/339]

* University of Vermont [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/4690218] [http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/abn/81/1/60/]

* University of Glasglow [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1812608/?page=1]

* Illinois State University [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V5V-46JGXS6-4&_user=10&_coverDate=09%2F30%2F1972&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1681836896&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=99693da1b0a79bafb66badcd1de34ba6&searchtype=a]

* University of Louisville [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B7XMW-4K664R0-8&_user=10&_coverDate=03%2F31%2F1975&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1683127764&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=f2a618b828f15769fd42d213612da034&searchtype=a]

* Glenside Hospital [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1957923/pdf/brmedj02859-0056.pdf]

* University of Toronto [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B7XMW-4K605GH-9&_user=10&_coverDate=04%2F30%2F1971&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1683142140&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=9ea2a557c8b953234e666f603596e72a&searchtype=a] [http://www.mhamic.org/sources/freund.htm]

* King's College, London [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V5W-4VT1WJ3-C&_user=10&_coverDate=12%2F31%2F1972&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1683171148&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=1dbf2c8194438bf0daa9dc176d847b3f&searchtype=a]

* University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V5V-46KC6WM-1D&_user=10&_coverDate=12%2F31%2F1972&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=32d542dfb72d160bd92504744f3ef810&searchtype=a]

* Crumpsall Hospital [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1842087/?page=1]

* Allan Memorial Institute [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B7XMW-4K605KB-4&_user=10&_coverDate=01%2F31%2F1972&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1683181121&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=384b29ea4d021e09974f7f263e31ee6a&searchtype=a]

* Northeast Guidance Center [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B7XMW-4K664PP-7&_user=10&_coverDate=10%2F31%2F1975&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1681671317&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=93ae98d985c42fe37a42148137749fbf&searchtype=a#fn1]

* Center for Behavior Change [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V5W-4VS5RSF-8&_user=10&_coverDate=05%2F31%2F1973&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1681676165&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=8e09375e2e0e0fd272dc6c3994853f79&searchtype=a]

* University of Pennsylvania

=== Purpose of psychological therapy ===

The goal of therapy is to help the patient reach their desired end. One of the fundamentals is patient self-determination. The therapist does not set the goals, but the patient. Aversion therapy is not administered to smokers as a way to torture them, but to help them achieve their goal of being smoke-free.

The therapy at BYU was administered towards people who felt distress about their sexual orientation. Distress is not a good thing. The purpose of therapy was to relieve stress. If it was known that aversion therapy would be harmful, then they probably wouldn't have administered it. People were asking for help to change their sexual orientation, major medical associations said aversion therapy would help them, so why not try to help them with the best medical knowledge available at the time?

It is unfortunate that these methods that were meant to help may have caused or exacerbated distress and poor mental health, especially depression and suicidal thoughts. (For more information on suicides, see [[Mormonism and gender issues/Same-sex attraction/Suicide|Same-sex attraction/Suicide]].) There is an inherent risk in therapy for mental illnesses. Unfortunately, these risks were not fully understood in the 1970s.

=== Academic freedom at BYU ===
{{Main|Mormonism and education}}

When we hear of negative consequences from these therapies, some people wonder what the church could have done to stop it. Unfortunately, there was little that the church could have done. The church did not endorse BYU's experiments. They don't typically endorse any experiments at BYU. Some people have the wrong impression that the church mandates what experiments are done, and which are not. This is not true. Even at BYU, people have a variety of opinions and approaches for doing things.

The Church rarely interferes with what is done at BYU, and there would have been little reason for the Church to stop the experiments as it was conducted according to then-standard practices. Graduate students at BYU have significant freedom to pursue whatever academic interests they want. Especially in areas such as psychological research and therapy, BYU relies heavily on standards set forth by professional associations. This is partially needed so the school can be accredited. If the school starts imposing their own standards, rather than those used by professional associations, it could loose accreditation.

Besides the problem of making up their own standards, it is contrary to Mormonism to command in all things. Mormons are encouraged to think for themselves, and find their own answers to questions. Doctrine and Covenants 58:26 reads:

:For behold, it is not meet that I should command in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant; wherefore he receiveth no reward.

Encouraging academic freedom and individual agency unfortunately means that sometimes people will make mistakes. Sometimes they will run experiments and not have them turn out the way they want to. However, the answer is not to do away with academic freedom.

=={{Conclusion label}}==

Like many other places in the western world, aversion therapy was conducted by a graduate student at BYU in the 1970s. These experiments were conducted following standards published by professional societies, and was only conducted on adults who gave their permission. Like most experiments at BYU, they were designed and conducted by researchers at the University. For better or for worse, the Church typically does not interfere with standard experiments run by graduate students. Given the knowledge available at the time, the church had little reason to interfere with these experiments.

=={{Endnotes label}}==

=={{Further reading label}}==

==={{FAIR wiki articles label}}===
{{SSA wiki}}

==={{FAIR web site label}}===
{{SSA FAIR}}

==={{External links label}}===
{{SSA links}}

==={{Printed material label}}===
{{SSA print}}

{{Articles Footer 1}} {{Articles Footer 2}} {{Articles Footer 3}} {{Articles Footer 4}} {{Articles Footer 5}} {{Articles Footer 6}} {{Articles Footer 7}} {{Articles Footer 8}} {{Articles Footer 9}} {{Articles Footer 10}}

Homosexuality and the Church of Jesus Christ/Aversion therapy performed at BYU

2011-03-23T16:18:42Z

Awyatt: /* Aversion therapy at other universities */

{{Articles FAIR copyright}} {{Articles Header 1}} {{Articles Header 2}} {{Articles Header 3}} {{Articles Header 4}} {{Articles Header 5}} {{Articles Header 6}} {{Articles Header 7}} {{Articles Header 8}} {{Articles Header 9}} {{Articles Header 10}}

{{draft}}

=={{Question label}}==

* What was the history of BYU and aversion therapy for treating homosexuality?
* How did that relate to modern science at that time?
* What was the role of the Church in BYU's treatments

=={{Response label}}==

In the mid-1970s, a graduate student at Brigham Young University conducted a clinical study in the use of aversion therapy to treat ego-dystonic homosexuality. (More details of this study are provided, below.) At the time, homosexuality was considered a mental illness and aversion therapy was a standard practice for cure. Experiments were run on a volunteer basis adhering to the professional standards of the time. Even so, there is no indication that anyone from the church leadership was aware of the experiments. Church leadership is typically not involved in minute details of the daily activities of BYU such as approving standard procedures being run by graduate students.

There are reports of bishops counseling people to undergo aversion therapy. These reports have not been verified, but it would not be uncommon for bishops to counsel people to go to standard therapies recommended by professional societies. Each bishop has significant freedom to recommend what they feel is best for the people in their congregation. The church itself has never recommended aversion therapy.

President Kimball did quote from several reputable medical sources about how the practice of homosexuality could be abandoned through treatments, but he did not specify what treatments those were. The important thing for President Kimball and for the church is that sexual actions could be controlled. This is the same stance the Church has today, and is fully supported by modern medical associations.

Elder Oaks stated:

:"The Church rarely takes a position on which treatment techniques are appropriate, for medical doctors or for psychiatrists or psychologists and so on. The second point is that there are abusive practices that have been used in connection with various mental attitudes or feelings. Over-medication in respect to depression is an example that comes to mind. The aversive therapies that have been used in connection with same-sex attraction have contained some serious abuses that have been recognized over time within the professions. While we have no position about what the medical doctors do (except in very, very rare cases — abortion would be such an example), we are conscious that there are abuses and we don’t accept responsibility for those abuses. Even though they are addressed at helping people we would like to see helped, we can’t endorse every kind of technique that’s been used."

=== Aversion therapy is a standard technique ===

Aversion therapy is still used today for a variety of treatments, such as gambling, smoking, alcoholism, and violence. A 2010 article in Psychology Today states "To date, aversion therapy using shock and nausea is the only technique of quitting [smoking] that offers decent gambling odds."[http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-human-beast/201002/smoking-most-effective-quitting-technique-little-known] The Encyclopedia of Mental Disorders has this entry for aversion therapy:

:A patient who consults a behavior therapist for aversion therapy can expect a fairly standard set of procedures. The therapist begins by assessing the problem, most likely measuring its frequency, severity, and the environment in which the undesirable behavior occurs. Although the therapeutic relationship is not the focus of treatment for the behavior therapist, therapists in this tradition believe that good rapport will facilitate a successful outcome. A positive relationship is also necessary to establish the patient's confidence in the rationale for exposing him or her to an uncomfortable stimulus. The therapist will design a treatment protocol and explain it to the patient. The most important choice the therapist makes is the type of aversive stimulus to employ. Depending upon the behavior to be changed, the preferred aversive stimulus is often electric stimulation delivered to the forearm or leg. [http://www.minddisorders.com/A-Br/Aversion-therapy.html]

Over the years, the methods have been refined and approved. Today, we have decades of research that were not available in the 1970s. It was not known where aversion therapy would be effective and where it would not be effective. The methods of the 1970s may seem crude compared to today's standards, but today's standards will probably seem crude in another 40 years. For whatever reason, aversion therapy is still a therapy used by mainstream psychologists.

We do NOT take a position on any therapy, except for the cases mentioned by Elder Oaks above. We only talk about the state of the art therapy so we have a better frame of reference when discussing aversion therapy.

=== History of aversion therapy and homosexuality ===

In 1966 Martin E.P. Seligman conducted a study at the University of Pennsylvania which showed positive results in applying aversion therapy to help people stop engaging in homosexual behavior. According to Seligman, this lead to "a great burst of enthusiasm about changing homosexuality [that] swept over the therapeutic community." (p. 156, Seligman, Martin E.P., What You Can Change and What You Can't: The Complete Guide to Self Improvement Knopf, 1993; ISBN 0-679-41024-4) Research was conducted by researchers from Harvard to King's College in London.

Historically, there were two types of homosexuality that were treated, ego-dystonic homosexuality and ego-syntonic homosexuality. The therapy administered at BYU was used to treat ego-dystonic homosexuality. This is when a patient experiences distress over their sexual orientation, and the goal of the therapy is to reduce that stress. Ego-dystonic homosexuality was considered a mental illness by the American Psychological Association until 1987, and is still considered a mental illness by the World Health Organization. [http://apps.who.int/classifications/apps/icd/icd10online/?gf60.htm+f661] Unlike other places, BYU never used aversion therapy to treat ego-sytonic homosexuality, which is where the patient is content with their sexual orientation.

Even after the declassification, aversion therapy could still be used to treat distress over sexual orientation, which is still classified as a sexual disorder in the DSM-IV. It was not until 1994, that the American Medical Association issued a report that stated "aversion therapy is no longer recommended for gay men and lesbians" (Health Care Needs of Gay Men and Lesbians in the U.S. American Medical Association Report, 1994) and not until 2006 that using aversion therapy to treat homosexuality has been in violation of the codes of conduct and professional guidelines of the American Psychological Association and American Psychiatric Association.

In 2009, a task force was commissioned by the American Psychological Association to investigate therapies used to treat homosexuality, including aversion therapy. They reported:

:Early research on efforts to change sexual orientation focused heavily on interventions that include aversion techniques. Many of these studies did not set out to investigate harm. Nonetheless, these studies provide some suggestion that harm can occur from aversive efforts to change sexual orientation...

:We conclude that there is a dearth of scientifically sound research on the safety of SOCE. Early and recent research studies provide no clear indication of the prevalence of harmful outcomes among people who have undergone efforts to change their sexual orientation or the frequency of occurrence of harm because no study to date of adequate scientific rigor has been explicitly designed to do so. Thus, we cannot conclude how likely it is that harm will occur from SOCE. However, studies from both periods indicate that attempts to change sexual orientation may cause or exacerbate distress and poor mental health in some individuals, including depression and suicidal thoughts. The lack of rigorous research on the safety of SOCE represents a serious concern, as do studies that report perceptions of harm (cf. Lilienfeld, 2007).[http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/therapeutic-response.pdf]

==== Aversion therapy at BYU ====

In the mid-1970s a graduate student, Max McBride, conducted a study entitled ''Effect of Visual Stimuli in Electric Aversion Therapy''. The results of this study were published as his PhD dissertation in the BYU Department of Psychology. As required by law, the study was conducted under the auspices of Dr. D. Eugene Thorne, who also served as McBride's PhD committee chairman. All study procedures followed common medical practice; McBride even thanks medical professionals at the Salt Lake City Veterans Hospital for their assistance in designing the study and help with statistical analysis.

The study consisted of male 17 participants, only 14 of which concluded the study. From the McBride dissertation we learn more about the participants:

:Seventeen male subjects were used in the study, 14 completed treatment. Selection was on the basis of clinical evidence of homosexuality; absence of psychosis (no prior history); desire for treatment; no history of epilepsy, alcoholism or drug addiction. The nature and extent of homosexual activity ranged from frequent sexual activity with multi-partner involvement to covert activity. Covert activity was restricted to deviant ruminations without significant involvement. Subjects were comparable as to level of formal education and age. All subjects were attending college as undergraduate or graduate students; their ages ranged from 18 to 31 years, with a mean of 23.6 years. All subjects who participated were active or semi-active members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. They were either self-referrals or referrals from various local agencies to Dr. D. Eugene Thorn of the Psychology Department at Brigham Young University. Each prospective subject was offered free treatment if he would participate fully in our research program.

:It was mandatory that all subjects chosen to participate sign and have witnessed a prepared statement explaining (a) the experimental nature of the treatment procedure, (b) the use of aversive electric shock, (c) the showing of 35 mm slides that might be construed by subject as possibly offensive, and (d) that Brigham Young University was not in any direct way endorsing the procedures used. This was to insure that all subjects were in full agreement and understanding as to what the treatment procedure would involve, provide and demand from them.

In the years since the study, some (but not all) of the study participants have talked about their experiences. Some of these reports can be quite painful to read, as can similar reports from participants in studies at other universities and facilities of the time. While there is no doubt that the McBride study was traumatic to some of the individuals involved, it must be remembered that the study was not far-reaching, it was done according to common medical practice, all participants were volunteers, each participant had explained to them beforehand what the study would entail, and any participant could leave the study at any time they wanted. These caveats are not mentioned to minimize the statements of these participants in any manner; they are only made so that proper context for the study can be maintained in the face of agonizing reports.

As far as can be historically ascertained, the McBride study was the only study ever done at BYU in the area of aversion therapy and the treatment of homosexual tendencies. It is interesting to note that BYU's contribution to the field of aversion therapy was not covered by the APA task force report. This was probably because they considered BYU's involvement to be too minor to include. Other universities had more participants and conducted their studies later than BYU. The role of BYU in aversion therapy research was very minimal, and was limited to treating ego-dystonic homosexuality.

Contrary to the assumptions of some, BYU did not pioneer the use of aversion therapy for this type of treatment and it stopped use of the therapy decades before the APA stopped recommending the practice. The university was simply one of many places that did research in the area when little was known about it. In fact, McBride's dissertation there are over 17 pages of documentation discussing other studies in which aversion therapy was applied to male homosexuality.

==== Aversion therapy at other universities ====

A significant number of hospitals and universities historically offered aversion therapy as a way to treat homosexuality. It would be impossible to list all of them, but here are a few of the major places where people were involved in research and development of using aversion therapy to treat homosexuality:

* The University of New South Wales [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V5W-45XTVVT-89&_user=10&_coverDate=12%2F31%2F1981&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1681661053&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=a942e6089eba7694d0116091f6f51b38&searchtype=a]

* Joint project from Harvard and University of Chicago [http://archpsyc.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/25/4/314]

* The Royal College of Psychiatrists [http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/abstract/115/529/1417] [http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/citation/115/520/339]

* University of Vermont [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/4690218] [http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/abn/81/1/60/]

* University of Glasglow [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1812608/?page=1]

* Illinois State University [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V5V-46JGXS6-4&_user=10&_coverDate=09%2F30%2F1972&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1681836896&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=99693da1b0a79bafb66badcd1de34ba6&searchtype=a]

* University of Louisville [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B7XMW-4K664R0-8&_user=10&_coverDate=03%2F31%2F1975&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1683127764&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=f2a618b828f15769fd42d213612da034&searchtype=a]

* Glenside Hospital [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1957923/pdf/brmedj02859-0056.pdf]

* University of Toronto [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B7XMW-4K605GH-9&_user=10&_coverDate=04%2F30%2F1971&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1683142140&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=9ea2a557c8b953234e666f603596e72a&searchtype=a] [http://www.mhamic.org/sources/freund.htm]

* King's College, London [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V5W-4VT1WJ3-C&_user=10&_coverDate=12%2F31%2F1972&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1683171148&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=1dbf2c8194438bf0daa9dc176d847b3f&searchtype=a]

* University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V5V-46KC6WM-1D&_user=10&_coverDate=12%2F31%2F1972&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=32d542dfb72d160bd92504744f3ef810&searchtype=a]

* Crumpsall Hospital [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1842087/?page=1]

* Allan Memorial Institute [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B7XMW-4K605KB-4&_user=10&_coverDate=01%2F31%2F1972&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1683181121&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=384b29ea4d021e09974f7f263e31ee6a&searchtype=a]

* Northeast Guidance Center [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B7XMW-4K664PP-7&_user=10&_coverDate=10%2F31%2F1975&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1681671317&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=93ae98d985c42fe37a42148137749fbf&searchtype=a#fn1]

* Center for Behavior Change [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V5W-4VS5RSF-8&_user=10&_coverDate=05%2F31%2F1973&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1681676165&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=8e09375e2e0e0fd272dc6c3994853f79&searchtype=a]

* University of Pennsylvania

=== Purpose of psychological therapy ===

The goal of therapy is to help the patient reach their desired end. One of the fundamentals is patient self-determination. The therapist does not set the goals, but the patient. Aversion therapy is not administered to smokers as a way to torture them, but to help them achieve their goal of being smoke-free.

The therapy at BYU was administered towards people who felt distress about their sexual orientation. Distress is not a good thing. The purpose of therapy was to relieve stress. If it was known that aversion therapy would be harmful, then they probably wouldn't have administered it. People were asking for help to change their sexual orientation, major medical associations said aversion therapy would help them, so why not try to help them with the best medical knowledge available at the time?

It is unfortunate that these methods that were meant to help may have caused or exacerbated distress and poor mental health, especially depression and suicidal thoughts. (For more information on suicides, see [[Mormonism and gender issues/Same-sex attraction/Suicide|Same-sex attraction/Suicide]].) There is an inherent risk in therapy for mental illnesses. Unfortunately, these risks were not fully understood in the 1970s.

=== Academic freedom at BYU ===
{{Main|Mormonism and education}}

When we hear of negative consequences from these therapies, some people wonder what the church could have done to stop it. Unfortunately, there was little that the church could have done. The church did not endorse BYU's experiments. They don't typically endorse any experiments at BYU. Some people have the wrong impression that the church mandates what experiments are done, and which are not. This is not true. Even at BYU, people have a variety of opinions and approaches for doing things.

The Church rarely interferes with what is done at BYU, and there would have been little reason for the Church to stop the experiments as it was conducted according to then-standard practices. Graduate students at BYU have significant freedom to pursue whatever academic interests they want. Especially in areas such as psychological research and therapy, BYU relies heavily on standards set forth by professional associations. This is partially needed so the school can be accredited. If the school starts imposing their own standards, rather than those used by professional associations, it could loose accreditation.

Besides the problem of making up their own standards, it is contrary to Mormonism to command in all things. Mormons are encouraged to think for themselves, and find their own answers to questions. Doctrine and Covenants 58:26 reads:

:For behold, it is not meet that I should command in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant; wherefore he receiveth no reward.

Encouraging academic freedom and individual agency unfortunately means that sometimes people will make mistakes. Sometimes they will run experiments and not have them turn out the way they want to. However, the answer is not to do away with academic freedom.

=={{Conclusion label}}==

Like many other places in the western world, aversion therapy was conducted by a graduate student at BYU in the 1970s. These experiments were conducted following standards published by professional societies, and was only conducted on adults who gave their permission. Like most experiments at BYU, they were designed and conducted by researchers at the University. For better or for worse, the Church typically does not interfere with standard experiments run by graduate students. Given the knowledge available at the time, the church had little reason to interfere with these experiments.

=={{Endnotes label}}==

=={{Further reading label}}==

==={{FAIR wiki articles label}}===
{{SSA wiki}}

==={{FAIR web site label}}===
{{SSA FAIR}}

==={{External links label}}===
{{SSA links}}

==={{Printed material label}}===
{{SSA print}}

{{Articles Footer 1}} {{Articles Footer 2}} {{Articles Footer 3}} {{Articles Footer 4}} {{Articles Footer 5}} {{Articles Footer 6}} {{Articles Footer 7}} {{Articles Footer 8}} {{Articles Footer 9}} {{Articles Footer 10}}

Homosexuality and the Church of Jesus Christ/Aversion therapy performed at BYU

2011-03-23T16:17:41Z

Awyatt:

{{Articles FAIR copyright}} {{Articles Header 1}} {{Articles Header 2}} {{Articles Header 3}} {{Articles Header 4}} {{Articles Header 5}} {{Articles Header 6}} {{Articles Header 7}} {{Articles Header 8}} {{Articles Header 9}} {{Articles Header 10}}

{{draft}}

=={{Question label}}==

* What was the history of BYU and aversion therapy for treating homosexuality?
* How did that relate to modern science at that time?
* What was the role of the Church in BYU's treatments

=={{Response label}}==

In the mid-1970s, a graduate student at Brigham Young University conducted a clinical study in the use of aversion therapy to treat ego-dystonic homosexuality. (More details of this study are provided, below.) At the time, homosexuality was considered a mental illness and aversion therapy was a standard practice for cure. Experiments were run on a volunteer basis adhering to the professional standards of the time. Even so, there is no indication that anyone from the church leadership was aware of the experiments. Church leadership is typically not involved in minute details of the daily activities of BYU such as approving standard procedures being run by graduate students.

There are reports of bishops counseling people to undergo aversion therapy. These reports have not been verified, but it would not be uncommon for bishops to counsel people to go to standard therapies recommended by professional societies. Each bishop has significant freedom to recommend what they feel is best for the people in their congregation. The church itself has never recommended aversion therapy.

President Kimball did quote from several reputable medical sources about how the practice of homosexuality could be abandoned through treatments, but he did not specify what treatments those were. The important thing for President Kimball and for the church is that sexual actions could be controlled. This is the same stance the Church has today, and is fully supported by modern medical associations.

Elder Oaks stated:

:"The Church rarely takes a position on which treatment techniques are appropriate, for medical doctors or for psychiatrists or psychologists and so on. The second point is that there are abusive practices that have been used in connection with various mental attitudes or feelings. Over-medication in respect to depression is an example that comes to mind. The aversive therapies that have been used in connection with same-sex attraction have contained some serious abuses that have been recognized over time within the professions. While we have no position about what the medical doctors do (except in very, very rare cases — abortion would be such an example), we are conscious that there are abuses and we don’t accept responsibility for those abuses. Even though they are addressed at helping people we would like to see helped, we can’t endorse every kind of technique that’s been used."

=== Aversion therapy is a standard technique ===

Aversion therapy is still used today for a variety of treatments, such as gambling, smoking, alcoholism, and violence. A 2010 article in Psychology Today states "To date, aversion therapy using shock and nausea is the only technique of quitting [smoking] that offers decent gambling odds."[http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-human-beast/201002/smoking-most-effective-quitting-technique-little-known] The Encyclopedia of Mental Disorders has this entry for aversion therapy:

:A patient who consults a behavior therapist for aversion therapy can expect a fairly standard set of procedures. The therapist begins by assessing the problem, most likely measuring its frequency, severity, and the environment in which the undesirable behavior occurs. Although the therapeutic relationship is not the focus of treatment for the behavior therapist, therapists in this tradition believe that good rapport will facilitate a successful outcome. A positive relationship is also necessary to establish the patient's confidence in the rationale for exposing him or her to an uncomfortable stimulus. The therapist will design a treatment protocol and explain it to the patient. The most important choice the therapist makes is the type of aversive stimulus to employ. Depending upon the behavior to be changed, the preferred aversive stimulus is often electric stimulation delivered to the forearm or leg. [http://www.minddisorders.com/A-Br/Aversion-therapy.html]

Over the years, the methods have been refined and approved. Today, we have decades of research that were not available in the 1970s. It was not known where aversion therapy would be effective and where it would not be effective. The methods of the 1970s may seem crude compared to today's standards, but today's standards will probably seem crude in another 40 years. For whatever reason, aversion therapy is still a therapy used by mainstream psychologists.

We do NOT take a position on any therapy, except for the cases mentioned by Elder Oaks above. We only talk about the state of the art therapy so we have a better frame of reference when discussing aversion therapy.

=== History of aversion therapy and homosexuality ===

In 1966 Martin E.P. Seligman conducted a study at the University of Pennsylvania which showed positive results in applying aversion therapy to help people stop engaging in homosexual behavior. According to Seligman, this lead to "a great burst of enthusiasm about changing homosexuality [that] swept over the therapeutic community." (p. 156, Seligman, Martin E.P., What You Can Change and What You Can't: The Complete Guide to Self Improvement Knopf, 1993; ISBN 0-679-41024-4) Research was conducted by researchers from Harvard to King's College in London.

Historically, there were two types of homosexuality that were treated, ego-dystonic homosexuality and ego-syntonic homosexuality. The therapy administered at BYU was used to treat ego-dystonic homosexuality. This is when a patient experiences distress over their sexual orientation, and the goal of the therapy is to reduce that stress. Ego-dystonic homosexuality was considered a mental illness by the American Psychological Association until 1987, and is still considered a mental illness by the World Health Organization. [http://apps.who.int/classifications/apps/icd/icd10online/?gf60.htm+f661] Unlike other places, BYU never used aversion therapy to treat ego-sytonic homosexuality, which is where the patient is content with their sexual orientation.

Even after the declassification, aversion therapy could still be used to treat distress over sexual orientation, which is still classified as a sexual disorder in the DSM-IV. It was not until 1994, that the American Medical Association issued a report that stated "aversion therapy is no longer recommended for gay men and lesbians" (Health Care Needs of Gay Men and Lesbians in the U.S. American Medical Association Report, 1994) and not until 2006 that using aversion therapy to treat homosexuality has been in violation of the codes of conduct and professional guidelines of the American Psychological Association and American Psychiatric Association.

In 2009, a task force was commissioned by the American Psychological Association to investigate therapies used to treat homosexuality, including aversion therapy. They reported:

:Early research on efforts to change sexual orientation focused heavily on interventions that include aversion techniques. Many of these studies did not set out to investigate harm. Nonetheless, these studies provide some suggestion that harm can occur from aversive efforts to change sexual orientation...

:We conclude that there is a dearth of scientifically sound research on the safety of SOCE. Early and recent research studies provide no clear indication of the prevalence of harmful outcomes among people who have undergone efforts to change their sexual orientation or the frequency of occurrence of harm because no study to date of adequate scientific rigor has been explicitly designed to do so. Thus, we cannot conclude how likely it is that harm will occur from SOCE. However, studies from both periods indicate that attempts to change sexual orientation may cause or exacerbate distress and poor mental health in some individuals, including depression and suicidal thoughts. The lack of rigorous research on the safety of SOCE represents a serious concern, as do studies that report perceptions of harm (cf. Lilienfeld, 2007).[http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/therapeutic-response.pdf]

==== Aversion therapy at BYU ====

In the mid-1970s a graduate student, Max McBride, conducted a study entitled ''Effect of Visual Stimuli in Electric Aversion Therapy''. The results of this study were published as his PhD dissertation in the BYU Department of Psychology. As required by law, the study was conducted under the auspices of Dr. D. Eugene Thorne, who also served as McBride's PhD committee chairman. All study procedures followed common medical practice; McBride even thanks medical professionals at the Salt Lake City Veterans Hospital for their assistance in designing the study and help with statistical analysis.

The study consisted of male 17 participants, only 14 of which concluded the study. From the McBride dissertation we learn more about the participants:

:Seventeen male subjects were used in the study, 14 completed treatment. Selection was on the basis of clinical evidence of homosexuality; absence of psychosis (no prior history); desire for treatment; no history of epilepsy, alcoholism or drug addiction. The nature and extent of homosexual activity ranged from frequent sexual activity with multi-partner involvement to covert activity. Covert activity was restricted to deviant ruminations without significant involvement. Subjects were comparable as to level of formal education and age. All subjects were attending college as undergraduate or graduate students; their ages ranged from 18 to 31 years, with a mean of 23.6 years. All subjects who participated were active or semi-active members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. They were either self-referrals or referrals from various local agencies to Dr. D. Eugene Thorn of the Psychology Department at Brigham Young University. Each prospective subject was offered free treatment if he would participate fully in our research program.

:It was mandatory that all subjects chosen to participate sign and have witnessed a prepared statement explaining (a) the experimental nature of the treatment procedure, (b) the use of aversive electric shock, (c) the showing of 35 mm slides that might be construed by subject as possibly offensive, and (d) that Brigham Young University was not in any direct way endorsing the procedures used. This was to insure that all subjects were in full agreement and understanding as to what the treatment procedure would involve, provide and demand from them.

In the years since the study, some (but not all) of the study participants have talked about their experiences. Some of these reports can be quite painful to read, as can similar reports from participants in studies at other universities and facilities of the time. While there is no doubt that the McBride study was traumatic to some of the individuals involved, it must be remembered that the study was not far-reaching, it was done according to common medical practice, all participants were volunteers, each participant had explained to them beforehand what the study would entail, and any participant could leave the study at any time they wanted. These caveats are not mentioned to minimize the statements of these participants in any manner; they are only made so that proper context for the study can be maintained in the face of agonizing reports.

As far as can be historically ascertained, the McBride study was the only study ever done at BYU in the area of aversion therapy and the treatment of homosexual tendencies. It is interesting to note that BYU's contribution to the field of aversion therapy was not covered by the APA task force report. This was probably because they considered BYU's involvement to be too minor to include. Other universities had more participants and conducted their studies later than BYU. The role of BYU in aversion therapy research was very minimal, and was limited to treating ego-dystonic homosexuality.

Contrary to the assumptions of some, BYU did not pioneer the use of aversion therapy for this type of treatment and it stopped use of the therapy decades before the APA stopped recommending the practice. The university was simply one of many places that did research in the area when little was known about it. In fact, McBride's dissertation there are over 17 pages of documentation discussing other studies in which aversion therapy was applied to male homosexuality.

==== Aversion therapy at other universities ====

A significant number of hospitals and universities historically offered aversion therapy as a way to treat homosexuality. It would be impossible to list all of them, but here are a few of the major places where people were involved in research and development of using aversion therapy to treat homosexuality:

- The University of New South Wales [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V5W-45XTVVT-89&_user=10&_coverDate=12%2F31%2F1981&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1681661053&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=a942e6089eba7694d0116091f6f51b38&searchtype=a]

- Joint project from Harvard and University of Chicago [http://archpsyc.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/25/4/314]

- The Royal College of Psychiatrists [http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/abstract/115/529/1417] [http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/citation/115/520/339]

- University of Vermont [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/4690218] [http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/abn/81/1/60/]

- University of Glasglow [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1812608/?page=1]

- Illinois State University [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V5V-46JGXS6-4&_user=10&_coverDate=09%2F30%2F1972&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1681836896&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=99693da1b0a79bafb66badcd1de34ba6&searchtype=a]

- University of Louisville [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B7XMW-4K664R0-8&_user=10&_coverDate=03%2F31%2F1975&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1683127764&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=f2a618b828f15769fd42d213612da034&searchtype=a]

- Glenside Hospital [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1957923/pdf/brmedj02859-0056.pdf]

- University of Toronto [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B7XMW-4K605GH-9&_user=10&_coverDate=04%2F30%2F1971&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1683142140&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=9ea2a557c8b953234e666f603596e72a&searchtype=a] [http://www.mhamic.org/sources/freund.htm]

- King's College, London [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V5W-4VT1WJ3-C&_user=10&_coverDate=12%2F31%2F1972&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1683171148&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=1dbf2c8194438bf0daa9dc176d847b3f&searchtype=a]

- University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V5V-46KC6WM-1D&_user=10&_coverDate=12%2F31%2F1972&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=32d542dfb72d160bd92504744f3ef810&searchtype=a]

- Crumpsall Hospital [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1842087/?page=1]

- Allan Memorial Institute [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B7XMW-4K605KB-4&_user=10&_coverDate=01%2F31%2F1972&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1683181121&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=384b29ea4d021e09974f7f263e31ee6a&searchtype=a]

- Northeast Guidance Center [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B7XMW-4K664PP-7&_user=10&_coverDate=10%2F31%2F1975&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1681671317&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=93ae98d985c42fe37a42148137749fbf&searchtype=a#fn1]

- Center for Behavior Change [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V5W-4VS5RSF-8&_user=10&_coverDate=05%2F31%2F1973&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1681676165&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=8e09375e2e0e0fd272dc6c3994853f79&searchtype=a]

- University of Pennsylvania

=== Purpose of psychological therapy ===

The goal of therapy is to help the patient reach their desired end. One of the fundamentals is patient self-determination. The therapist does not set the goals, but the patient. Aversion therapy is not administered to smokers as a way to torture them, but to help them achieve their goal of being smoke-free.

The therapy at BYU was administered towards people who felt distress about their sexual orientation. Distress is not a good thing. The purpose of therapy was to relieve stress. If it was known that aversion therapy would be harmful, then they probably wouldn't have administered it. People were asking for help to change their sexual orientation, major medical associations said aversion therapy would help them, so why not try to help them with the best medical knowledge available at the time?

It is unfortunate that these methods that were meant to help may have caused or exacerbated distress and poor mental health, especially depression and suicidal thoughts. (For more information on suicides, see [[Mormonism and gender issues/Same-sex attraction/Suicide|Same-sex attraction/Suicide]].) There is an inherent risk in therapy for mental illnesses. Unfortunately, these risks were not fully understood in the 1970s.

=== Academic freedom at BYU ===
{{Main|Mormonism and education}}

When we hear of negative consequences from these therapies, some people wonder what the church could have done to stop it. Unfortunately, there was little that the church could have done. The church did not endorse BYU's experiments. They don't typically endorse any experiments at BYU. Some people have the wrong impression that the church mandates what experiments are done, and which are not. This is not true. Even at BYU, people have a variety of opinions and approaches for doing things.

The Church rarely interferes with what is done at BYU, and there would have been little reason for the Church to stop the experiments as it was conducted according to then-standard practices. Graduate students at BYU have significant freedom to pursue whatever academic interests they want. Especially in areas such as psychological research and therapy, BYU relies heavily on standards set forth by professional associations. This is partially needed so the school can be accredited. If the school starts imposing their own standards, rather than those used by professional associations, it could loose accreditation.

Besides the problem of making up their own standards, it is contrary to Mormonism to command in all things. Mormons are encouraged to think for themselves, and find their own answers to questions. Doctrine and Covenants 58:26 reads:

:For behold, it is not meet that I should command in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant; wherefore he receiveth no reward.

Encouraging academic freedom and individual agency unfortunately means that sometimes people will make mistakes. Sometimes they will run experiments and not have them turn out the way they want to. However, the answer is not to do away with academic freedom.

=={{Conclusion label}}==

Like many other places in the western world, aversion therapy was conducted by a graduate student at BYU in the 1970s. These experiments were conducted following standards published by professional societies, and was only conducted on adults who gave their permission. Like most experiments at BYU, they were designed and conducted by researchers at the University. For better or for worse, the Church typically does not interfere with standard experiments run by graduate students. Given the knowledge available at the time, the church had little reason to interfere with these experiments.

=={{Endnotes label}}==

=={{Further reading label}}==

==={{FAIR wiki articles label}}===
{{SSA wiki}}

==={{FAIR web site label}}===
{{SSA FAIR}}

==={{External links label}}===
{{SSA links}}

==={{Printed material label}}===
{{SSA print}}

{{Articles Footer 1}} {{Articles Footer 2}} {{Articles Footer 3}} {{Articles Footer 4}} {{Articles Footer 5}} {{Articles Footer 6}} {{Articles Footer 7}} {{Articles Footer 8}} {{Articles Footer 9}} {{Articles Footer 10}}

Homosexuality and the Church of Jesus Christ/Aversion therapy performed at BYU

2011-03-23T16:12:34Z

Awyatt: /* {{Response label}} */

{{Articles FAIR copyright}} {{Articles Header 1}} {{Articles Header 2}} {{Articles Header 3}} {{Articles Header 4}} {{Articles Header 5}} {{Articles Header 6}} {{Articles Header 7}} {{Articles Header 8}} {{Articles Header 9}} {{Articles Header 10}}

{{draft}}

=={{Question label}}==

* What was the history of BYU and aversion therapy for treating homosexuality?
* How did that relate to modern science at that time?
* What was the role of the Church in BYU's treatments

=={{Response label}}==

In the mid-1970s, a graduate student at Brigham Young University conducted a clinical study in the use of aversion therapy to treat ego-dystonic homosexuality. (More details of this study are provided, below.) At the time, homosexuality was considered a mental illness and aversion therapy was a standard practice for cure. Experiments were run on a volunteer basis adhering to the professional standards of the time. Even so, there is no indication that anyone from the church leadership was aware of the experiments. Church leadership is typically not involved in minute details of the daily activities of BYU such as approving standard procedures being run by graduate students.

There are reports of bishops counseling people to undergo aversion therapy. These reports have not been verified, but it would not be uncommon for bishops to counsel people to go to standard therapies recommended by professional societies. Each bishop has significant freedom to recommend what they feel is best for the people in their congregation. The church itself has never recommended aversion therapy.

President Kimball did quote from several reputable medical sources about how the practice of homosexuality could be abandoned through treatments, but he did not specify what treatments those were. The important thing for President Kimball and for the church is that sexual actions could be controlled. This is the same stance the Church has today, and is fully supported by modern medical associations.

Elder Oaks stated:

:"The Church rarely takes a position on which treatment techniques are appropriate, for medical doctors or for psychiatrists or psychologists and so on. The second point is that there are abusive practices that have been used in connection with various mental attitudes or feelings. Over-medication in respect to depression is an example that comes to mind. The aversive therapies that have been used in connection with same-sex attraction have contained some serious abuses that have been recognized over time within the professions. While we have no position about what the medical doctors do (except in very, very rare cases — abortion would be such an example), we are conscious that there are abuses and we don’t accept responsibility for those abuses. Even though they are addressed at helping people we would like to see helped, we can’t endorse every kind of technique that’s been used."

=== Aversion therapy is a standard technique ===

Aversion therapy is still used today for a variety of treatments, such as gambling, smoking, alcoholism, and violence. A 2010 article in Psychology Today states "To date, aversion therapy using shock and nausea is the only technique of quitting [smoking] that offers decent gambling odds."[http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-human-beast/201002/smoking-most-effective-quitting-technique-little-known] The Encyclopedia of Mental Disorders has this entry for aversion therapy:

:A patient who consults a behavior therapist for aversion therapy can expect a fairly standard set of procedures. The therapist begins by assessing the problem, most likely measuring its frequency, severity, and the environment in which the undesirable behavior occurs. Although the therapeutic relationship is not the focus of treatment for the behavior therapist, therapists in this tradition believe that good rapport will facilitate a successful outcome. A positive relationship is also necessary to establish the patient's confidence in the rationale for exposing him or her to an uncomfortable stimulus. The therapist will design a treatment protocol and explain it to the patient. The most important choice the therapist makes is the type of aversive stimulus to employ. Depending upon the behavior to be changed, the preferred aversive stimulus is often electric stimulation delivered to the forearm or leg. [http://www.minddisorders.com/A-Br/Aversion-therapy.html]

Over the years, the methods have been refined and approved. Today, we have decades of research that were not available in the 1970s. It was not known where aversion therapy would be effective and where it would not be effective. The methods of the 1970s may seem crude compared to today's standards, but today's standards will probably seem crude in another 40 years. For whatever reason, aversion therapy is still a therapy used by mainstream psychologists.

We do NOT take a position on any therapy, except for the cases mentioned by Elder Oaks above. We only talk about the state of the art therapy so we have a better frame of reference when discussing aversion therapy.

=== History of aversion therapy and homosexuality ===

In 1966 Martin E.P. Seligman conducted a study at the University of Pennsylvania which showed positive results in applying aversion therapy to help people stop engaging in homosexual behavior. According to Seligman, this lead to "a great burst of enthusiasm about changing homosexuality [that] swept over the therapeutic community." (p. 156, Seligman, Martin E.P., What You Can Change and What You Can't: The Complete Guide to Self Improvement Knopf, 1993; ISBN 0-679-41024-4) Research was conducted by researchers from Harvard to King's College in London.

Historically, there were two types of homosexuality that were treated, ego-dystonic homosexuality and ego-syntonic homosexuality. The therapy administered at BYU was used to treat ego-dystonic homosexuality. This is when a patient experiences distress over their sexual orientation, and the goal of the therapy is to reduce that stress. Ego-dystonic homosexuality was considered a mental illness by the American Psychological Association until 1987, and is still considered a mental illness by the World Health Organization. [http://apps.who.int/classifications/apps/icd/icd10online/?gf60.htm+f661] Unlike other places, BYU never used aversion therapy to treat ego-sytonic homosexuality, which is where the patient is content with their sexual orientation.

Even after the declassification, aversion therapy could still be used to treat distress over sexual orientation, which is still classified as a sexual disorder in the DSM-IV. It was not until 1994, that the American Medical Association issued a report that stated "aversion therapy is no longer recommended for gay men and lesbians" (Health Care Needs of Gay Men and Lesbians in the U.S. American Medical Association Report, 1994) and not until 2006 that using aversion therapy to treat homosexuality has been in violation of the codes of conduct and professional guidelines of the American Psychological Association and American Psychiatric Association.

In 2009, a task force was commissioned by the American Psychological Association to investigate therapies used to treat homosexuality, including aversion therapy. They reported:

:Early research on efforts to change sexual orientation focused heavily on interventions that include aversion techniques. Many of these studies did not set out to investigate harm. Nonetheless, these studies provide some suggestion that harm can occur from aversive efforts to change sexual orientation...

:We conclude that there is a dearth of scientifically sound research on the safety of SOCE. Early and recent research studies provide no clear indication of the prevalence of harmful outcomes among people who have undergone efforts to change their sexual orientation or the frequency of occurrence of harm because no study to date of adequate scientific rigor has been explicitly designed to do so. Thus, we cannot conclude how likely it is that harm will occur from SOCE. However, studies from both periods indicate that attempts to change sexual orientation may cause or exacerbate distress and poor mental health in some individuals, including depression and suicidal thoughts. The lack of rigorous research on the safety of SOCE represents a serious concern, as do studies that report perceptions of harm (cf. Lilienfeld, 2007).[http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/therapeutic-response.pdf]

==== Aversion therapy at BYU ====

In the mid-1970s a graduate student, Max McBride, conducted a study entitled ''Effect of Visual Stimuli in Electric Aversion Therapy''. The results of this study were published as his PhD dissertation in the BYU Department of Psychology. As required by law, the study was conducted under the auspices of Dr. D. Eugene Thorne, who also served as McBride's PhD committee chairman. All study procedures followed common medical practice; McBride even thanks medical professionals at the Salt Lake City Veterans Hospital for their assistance in designing the study and help with statistical analysis.

The study consisted of male 17 participants, only 14 of which concluded the study. From the McBride dissertation we learn more about the participants:

:Seventeen male subjects were used in the study, 14 completed treatment. Selection was on the basis of clinical evidence of homosexuality; absence of psychosis (no prior history); desire for treatment; no history of epilepsy, alcoholism or drug addiction. The nature and extent of homosexual activity ranged from frequent sexual activity with multi-partner involvement to covert activity. Covert activity was restricted to deviant ruminations without significant involvement. Subjects were comparable as to level of formal education and age. All subjects were attending college as undergraduate or graduate students; their ages ranged from 18 to 31 years, with a mean of 23.6 years. All subjects who participated were active or semi-active members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. They were either self-referrals or referrals from various local agencies to Dr. D. Eugene Thorn of the Psychology Department at Brigham Young University. Each prospective subject was offered free treatment if he would participate fully in our research program.

:It was mandatory that all subjects chosen to participate sign and have witnessed a prepared statement explaining (a) the experimental nature of the treatment procedure, (b) the use of aversive electric shock, (c) the showing of 35 mm slides that might be construed by subject as possibly offensive, and (d) that Brigham Young University was not in any direct way endorsing the procedures used. This was to insure that all subjects were in full agreement and understanding as to what the treatment procedure would involve, provide and demand from them.

In the years since the study, some (but not all) of the study participants have talked about their experiences. Some of these reports can be quite painful to read, as can similar reports from participants in studies at other universities and facilities of the time. While there is no doubt that the McBride study was traumatic to some of the individuals involved, it must be remembered that the study was not far-reaching, it was done according to common medical practice, all participants were volunteers, each participant had explained to them beforehand what the study would entail, and any participant could leave the study at any time they wanted. These caveats are not mentioned to minimize the statements of these participants in any manner; they are only made so that proper context for the study can be maintained in the face of agonizing reports.

As far as can be historically ascertained, the McBride study was the only study ever done at BYU in the area of aversion therapy and the treatment of homosexual tendencies. It is interesting to note that BYU's contribution to the field of aversion therapy was not covered by the APA task force report. This was probably because they considered BYU's involvement to be too minor to include. Other universities had more participants and conducted their studies later than BYU. The role of BYU in aversion therapy research was very minimal, and was limited to treating ego-dystonic homosexuality.

Contrary to the assumptions of some, BYU did not pioneer the use of aversion therapy for this type of treatment and it stopped use of the therapy decades before the APA stopped recommending the practice. The university was simply one of many places that did research in the area when little was known about it. In fact, McBride's dissertation there are over 17 pages of documentation discussing other studies in which aversion therapy was applied to male homosexuality.

=== Purpose of psychological therapy ===

The goal of therapy is to help the patient reach their desired end. One of the fundamentals is patient self-determination. The therapist does not set the goals, but the patient. Aversion therapy is not administered to smokers as a way to torture them, but to help them achieve their goal of being smoke-free.

The therapy at BYU was administered towards people who felt distress about their sexual orientation. Distress is not a good thing. The purpose of therapy was to relieve stress. If it was known that aversion therapy would be harmful, then they probably wouldn't have administered it. People were asking for help to change their sexual orientation, major medical associations said aversion therapy would help them, so why not try to help them with the best medical knowledge available at the time?

It is unfortunate that these methods that were meant to help may have caused or exacerbated distress and poor mental health, especially depression and suicidal thoughts. (For more information on suicides, see [[Mormonism and gender issues/Same-sex attraction/Suicide|Same-sex attraction/Suicide]].) There is an inherent risk in therapy for mental illnesses. Unfortunately, these risks were not fully understood in the 1970s.

=== Academic freedom at BYU ===
{{Main|Mormonism and education}}

When we hear of negative consequences from these therapies, some people wonder what the church could have done to stop it. Unfortunately, there was little that the church could have done. The church did not endorse BYU's experiments. They don't typically endorse any experiments at BYU. Some people have the wrong impression that the church mandates what experiments are done, and which are not. This is not true. Even at BYU, people have a variety of opinions and approaches for doing things.

The Church rarely interferes with what is done at BYU, and there would have been little reason for the Church to stop the experiments as it was conducted according to then-standard practices. Graduate students at BYU have significant freedom to pursue whatever academic interests they want. Especially in areas such as psychological research and therapy, BYU relies heavily on standards set forth by professional associations. This is partially needed so the school can be accredited. If the school starts imposing their own standards, rather than those used by professional associations, it could loose accreditation.

Besides the problem of making up their own standards, it is contrary to Mormonism to command in all things. Mormons are encouraged to think for themselves, and find their own answers to questions. Doctrine and Covenants 58:26 reads:

:For behold, it is not meet that I should command in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant; wherefore he receiveth no reward.

Encouraging academic freedom and individual agency unfortunately means that sometimes people will make mistakes. Sometimes they will run experiments and not have them turn out the way they want to. However, the answer is not to do away with academic freedom.

=={{Conclusion label}}==

Like many other places in the western world, aversion therapy was conducted by a graduate student at BYU in the 1970s. These experiments were conducted following standards published by professional societies, and was only conducted on adults who gave their permission. Like most experiments at BYU, they were designed and conducted by researchers at the University. For better or for worse, the Church typically does not interfere with standard experiments run by graduate students. Given the knowledge available at the time, the church had little reason to interfere with these experiments.

=={{Endnotes label}}==

A significant number of hospitals and universities offered aversion therapy as a way to treat homosexuality. It would be impossible to list all of them, but here are a few of the major places where people were involved in research and development of using aversion therapy to treat homosexuality:

- The University of New South Wales [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V5W-45XTVVT-89&_user=10&_coverDate=12%2F31%2F1981&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1681661053&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=a942e6089eba7694d0116091f6f51b38&searchtype=a]

- Joint project from Harvard and University of Chicago [http://archpsyc.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/25/4/314]

- The Royal College of Psychiatrists [http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/abstract/115/529/1417] [http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/citation/115/520/339]

- University of Vermont [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/4690218] [http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/abn/81/1/60/]

- University of Glasglow [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1812608/?page=1]

- Illinois State University [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V5V-46JGXS6-4&_user=10&_coverDate=09%2F30%2F1972&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1681836896&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=99693da1b0a79bafb66badcd1de34ba6&searchtype=a]

- University of Louisville [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B7XMW-4K664R0-8&_user=10&_coverDate=03%2F31%2F1975&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1683127764&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=f2a618b828f15769fd42d213612da034&searchtype=a]

- Glenside Hospital [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1957923/pdf/brmedj02859-0056.pdf]

- University of Toronto [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B7XMW-4K605GH-9&_user=10&_coverDate=04%2F30%2F1971&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1683142140&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=9ea2a557c8b953234e666f603596e72a&searchtype=a] [http://www.mhamic.org/sources/freund.htm]

- King's College, London [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V5W-4VT1WJ3-C&_user=10&_coverDate=12%2F31%2F1972&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1683171148&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=1dbf2c8194438bf0daa9dc176d847b3f&searchtype=a]

- University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V5V-46KC6WM-1D&_user=10&_coverDate=12%2F31%2F1972&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=32d542dfb72d160bd92504744f3ef810&searchtype=a]

- Crumpsall Hospital [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1842087/?page=1]

- Allan Memorial Institute [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B7XMW-4K605KB-4&_user=10&_coverDate=01%2F31%2F1972&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1683181121&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=384b29ea4d021e09974f7f263e31ee6a&searchtype=a]

- Northeast Guidance Center [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B7XMW-4K664PP-7&_user=10&_coverDate=10%2F31%2F1975&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1681671317&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=93ae98d985c42fe37a42148137749fbf&searchtype=a#fn1]

- Center for Behavior Change [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V5W-4VS5RSF-8&_user=10&_coverDate=05%2F31%2F1973&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1681676165&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=8e09375e2e0e0fd272dc6c3994853f79&searchtype=a]

- University of Pennsylvania

=={{Further reading label}}==

==={{FAIR wiki articles label}}===
{{SSA wiki}}

==={{FAIR web site label}}===
{{SSA FAIR}}

==={{External links label}}===
{{SSA links}}

==={{Printed material label}}===
{{SSA print}}

{{Articles Footer 1}} {{Articles Footer 2}} {{Articles Footer 3}} {{Articles Footer 4}} {{Articles Footer 5}} {{Articles Footer 6}} {{Articles Footer 7}} {{Articles Footer 8}} {{Articles Footer 9}} {{Articles Footer 10}}

Homosexuality and the Church of Jesus Christ/Aversion therapy performed at BYU

2011-03-23T15:50:34Z

Awyatt: /* Aversion therapy at BYU */

{{Articles FAIR copyright}} {{Articles Header 1}} {{Articles Header 2}} {{Articles Header 3}} {{Articles Header 4}} {{Articles Header 5}} {{Articles Header 6}} {{Articles Header 7}} {{Articles Header 8}} {{Articles Header 9}} {{Articles Header 10}}

{{draft}}

=={{Question label}}==

* What was the history of BYU and aversion therapy for treating homosexuality?
* How did that relate to modern science at that time?
* What was the role of the Church in BYU's treatments

=={{Response label}}==

In the mid-1970s, a graduate student at Brigham Young University conducted a study in the use of aversion therapy to treat ego-dystonic homosexuality. (More details of this study are provided, below.) At the time, homosexuality was considered a mental illness and aversion therapy was a standard practice for cure. Experiments were run on a volunteer basis adhering to the professional standards of the time. Even so, there is no indication that anyone from the church leadership was aware of the experiments. Church leadership is typically not involved in minute details of the daily activities of BYU such as approving standard procedures being run by graduate students.

There are reports of bishops counseling people to undergo aversion therapy. These reports have not been verified, but it would not be uncommon for bishops to counsel people to go to standard therapies recommended by professional societies. Each bishop has significant freedom to recommend what they feel is best for the people in their congregation. The church itself has never recommended aversion therapy.

President Kimball did quote from several reputable medical sources about how the practice of homosexuality could be abandoned through treatments, but he did not specify what treatments those were. The important thing for President Kimball and for the church is that sexual actions could be controlled. This is the same stance the Church has today, and is fully supported by modern medical associations.

Elder Oaks stated:

:"The Church rarely takes a position on which treatment techniques are appropriate, for medical doctors or for psychiatrists or psychologists and so on. The second point is that there are abusive practices that have been used in connection with various mental attitudes or feelings. Over-medication in respect to depression is an example that comes to mind. The aversive therapies that have been used in connection with same-sex attraction have contained some serious abuses that have been recognized over time within the professions. While we have no position about what the medical doctors do (except in very, very rare cases — abortion would be such an example), we are conscious that there are abuses and we don’t accept responsibility for those abuses. Even though they are addressed at helping people we would like to see helped, we can’t endorse every kind of technique that’s been used."

=== Aversion therapy is a standard technique ===

Aversion therapy is still used today for a variety of treatments, such as gambling, smoking, alcoholism, and violence. A 2010 article in Psychology Today states "To date, aversion therapy using shock and nausea is the only technique of quitting [smoking] that offers decent gambling odds."[http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-human-beast/201002/smoking-most-effective-quitting-technique-little-known] The Encyclopedia of Mental Disorders has this entry for aversion therapy:

:A patient who consults a behavior therapist for aversion therapy can expect a fairly standard set of procedures. The therapist begins by assessing the problem, most likely measuring its frequency, severity, and the environment in which the undesirable behavior occurs. Although the therapeutic relationship is not the focus of treatment for the behavior therapist, therapists in this tradition believe that good rapport will facilitate a successful outcome. A positive relationship is also necessary to establish the patient's confidence in the rationale for exposing him or her to an uncomfortable stimulus. The therapist will design a treatment protocol and explain it to the patient. The most important choice the therapist makes is the type of aversive stimulus to employ. Depending upon the behavior to be changed, the preferred aversive stimulus is often electric stimulation delivered to the forearm or leg. [http://www.minddisorders.com/A-Br/Aversion-therapy.html]

Over the years, the methods have been refined and approved. Today, we have decades of research that were not available in the 1970s. It was not known where aversion therapy would be effective and where it would not be effective. The methods of the 1970s may seem crude compared to today's standards, but today's standards will probably seem crude in another 40 years. For whatever reason, aversion therapy is still a therapy used by mainstream psychologists.

We do NOT take a position on any therapy, except for the cases mentioned by Elder Oaks above. We only talk about the state of the art therapy so we have a better frame of reference when discussing aversion therapy.

=== History of aversion therapy and homosexuality ===

In 1966 Martin E.P. Seligman conducted a study at the University of Pennsylvania which showed positive results in applying aversion therapy to help people stop engaging in homosexual behavior. According to Seligman, this lead to "a great burst of enthusiasm about changing homosexuality [that] swept over the therapeutic community." (p. 156, Seligman, Martin E.P., What You Can Change and What You Can't: The Complete Guide to Self Improvement Knopf, 1993; ISBN 0-679-41024-4) Research was conducted by researchers from Harvard to King's College in London.

Historically, there were two types of homosexuality that were treated, ego-dystonic homosexuality and ego-syntonic homosexuality. The therapy administered at BYU was used to treat ego-dystonic homosexuality. This is when a patient experiences distress over their sexual orientation, and the goal of the therapy is to reduce that stress. Ego-dystonic homosexuality was considered a mental illness by the American Psychological Association until 1987, and is still considered a mental illness by the World Health Organization. [http://apps.who.int/classifications/apps/icd/icd10online/?gf60.htm+f661] Unlike other places, BYU never used aversion therapy to treat ego-sytonic homosexuality, which is where the patient is content with their sexual orientation.

Even after the declassification, aversion therapy could still be used to treat distress over sexual orientation, which is still classified as a sexual disorder in the DSM-IV. It was not until 1994, that the American Medical Association issued a report that stated "aversion therapy is no longer recommended for gay men and lesbians" (Health Care Needs of Gay Men and Lesbians in the U.S. American Medical Association Report, 1994) and not until 2006 that using aversion therapy to treat homosexuality has been in violation of the codes of conduct and professional guidelines of the American Psychological Association and American Psychiatric Association.

In 2009, a task force was commissioned by the American Psychological Association to investigate therapies used to treat homosexuality, including aversion therapy. They reported:

:Early research on efforts to change sexual orientation focused heavily on interventions that include aversion techniques. Many of these studies did not set out to investigate harm. Nonetheless, these studies provide some suggestion that harm can occur from aversive efforts to change sexual orientation...

:We conclude that there is a dearth of scientifically sound research on the safety of SOCE. Early and recent research studies provide no clear indication of the prevalence of harmful outcomes among people who have undergone efforts to change their sexual orientation or the frequency of occurrence of harm because no study to date of adequate scientific rigor has been explicitly designed to do so. Thus, we cannot conclude how likely it is that harm will occur from SOCE. However, studies from both periods indicate that attempts to change sexual orientation may cause or exacerbate distress and poor mental health in some individuals, including depression and suicidal thoughts. The lack of rigorous research on the safety of SOCE represents a serious concern, as do studies that report perceptions of harm (cf. Lilienfeld, 2007).[http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/therapeutic-response.pdf]

==== Aversion therapy at BYU ====

In the mid-1970s a graduate student, Max McBride, conducted a study entitled ''Effect of Visual Stimuli in Electric Aversion Therapy''. The results of this study were published as his PhD dissertation in the BYU Department of Psychology. As required by law, the study was conducted under the auspices of Dr. D. Eugene Thorne, who also served as McBride's PhD committee chairman. All study procedures followed common medical practice; McBride even thanks medical professionals at the Salt Lake City Veterans Hospital for their assistance in designing the study and help with statistical analysis.

The study consisted of male 17 participants, only 14 of which concluded the study. From the McBride dissertation we learn more about the participants:

:Seventeen male subjects were used in the study, 14 completed treatment. Selection was on the basis of clinical evidence of homosexuality; absence of psychosis (no prior history); desire for treatment; no history of epilepsy, alcoholism or drug addiction. The nature and extent of homosexual activity ranged from frequent sexual activity with multi-partner involvement to covert activity. Covert activity was restricted to deviant ruminations without significant involvement. Subjects were comparable as to level of formal education and age. All subjects were attending college as undergraduate or graduate students; their ages ranged from 18 to 31 years, with a mean of 23.6 years. All subjects who participated were active or semi-active members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. They were either self-referrals or referrals from various local agencies to Dr. D. Eugene Thorn of the Psychology Department at Brigham Young University. Each prospective subject was offered free treatment if he would participate fully in our research program.

:It was mandatory that all subjects chosen to participate sign and have witnessed a prepared statement explaining (a) the experimental nature of the treatment procedure, (b) the use of aversive electric shock, (c) the showing of 35 mm slides that might be construed by subject as possibly offensive, and (d) that Brigham Young University was not in any direct way endorsing the procedures used. This was to insure that all subjects were in full agreement and understanding as to what the treatment procedure would involve, provide and demand from them.

In the years since the study, some (but not all) of the study participants have talked about their experiences. Some of these reports can be quite painful to read, as can similar reports from participants in studies at other universities and facilities of the time. While there is no doubt that the McBride study was traumatic to some of the individuals involved, it must be remembered that the study was not far-reaching, it was done according to common medical practice, all participants were volunteers, each participant had explained to them beforehand what the study would entail, and any participant could leave the study at any time they wanted. These caveats are not mentioned to minimize the statements of these participants in any manner; they are only made so that proper context for the study can be maintained in the face of agonizing reports.

As far as can be historically ascertained, the McBride study was the only study ever done at BYU in the area of aversion therapy and the treatment of homosexual tendencies. It is interesting to note that BYU's contribution to the field of aversion therapy was not covered by the APA task force report. This was probably because they considered BYU's involvement to be too minor to include. Other universities had more participants and conducted their studies later than BYU. The role of BYU in aversion therapy research was very minimal, and was limited to treating ego-dystonic homosexuality.

Contrary to the assumptions of some, BYU did not pioneer the use of aversion therapy for this type of treatment and it stopped use of the therapy decades before the APA stopped recommending the practice. The university was simply one of many places that did research in the area when little was known about it. In fact, McBride's dissertation there are over 17 pages of documentation discussing other studies in which aversion therapy was applied to male homosexuality.

=== Purpose of psychological therapy ===

The goal of therapy is to help the patient reach their desired end. One of the fundamentals is patient self-determination. The therapist does not set the goals, but the patient. Aversion therapy is not administered to smokers as a way to torture them, but to help them achieve their goal of being smoke-free.

The therapy at BYU was administered towards people who felt distress about their sexual orientation. Distress is not a good thing. The purpose of therapy was to relieve stress. If it was known that aversion therapy would be harmful, then they probably wouldn't have administered it. People were asking for help to change their sexual orientation, major medical associations said aversion therapy would help them, so why not try to help them with the best medical knowledge available at the time?

It is unfortunate that these methods that were meant to help may have caused or exacerbated distress and poor mental health, especially depression and suicidal thoughts. (For more information on suicides, see [[Mormonism and gender issues/Same-sex attraction/Suicide|Same-sex attraction/Suicide]].) There is an inherent risk in therapy for mental illnesses. Unfortunately, these risks were not fully understood in the 1970s.

=== Academic freedom at BYU ===
{{Main|Mormonism and education}}

When we hear of negative consequences from these therapies, some people wonder what the church could have done to stop it. Unfortunately, there was little that the church could have done. The church did not endorse BYU's experiments. They don't typically endorse any experiments at BYU. Some people have the wrong impression that the church mandates what experiments are done, and which are not. This is not true. Even at BYU, people have a variety of opinions and approaches for doing things.

The Church rarely interferes with what is done at BYU, and there would have been little reason for the Church to stop the experiments as it was conducted according to then-standard practices. Graduate students at BYU have significant freedom to pursue whatever academic interests they want. Especially in areas such as psychological research and therapy, BYU relies heavily on standards set forth by professional associations. This is partially needed so the school can be accredited. If the school starts imposing their own standards, rather than those used by professional associations, it could loose accreditation.

Besides the problem of making up their own standards, it is contrary to Mormonism to command in all things. Mormons are encouraged to think for themselves, and find their own answers to questions. Doctrine and Covenants 58:26 reads:

:For behold, it is not meet that I should command in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant; wherefore he receiveth no reward.

Encouraging academic freedom and individual agency unfortunately means that sometimes people will make mistakes. Sometimes they will run experiments and not have them turn out the way they want to. However, the answer is not to do away with academic freedom.

=={{Conclusion label}}==

Like many other places in the western world, aversion therapy was conducted by a graduate student at BYU in the 1970s. These experiments were conducted following standards published by professional societies, and was only conducted on adults who gave their permission. Like most experiments at BYU, they were designed and conducted by researchers at the University. For better or for worse, the Church typically does not interfere with standard experiments run by graduate students. Given the knowledge available at the time, the church had little reason to interfere with these experiments.

=={{Endnotes label}}==

A significant number of hospitals and universities offered aversion therapy as a way to treat homosexuality. It would be impossible to list all of them, but here are a few of the major places where people were involved in research and development of using aversion therapy to treat homosexuality:

- The University of New South Wales [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V5W-45XTVVT-89&_user=10&_coverDate=12%2F31%2F1981&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1681661053&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=a942e6089eba7694d0116091f6f51b38&searchtype=a]

- Joint project from Harvard and University of Chicago [http://archpsyc.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/25/4/314]

- The Royal College of Psychiatrists [http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/abstract/115/529/1417] [http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/citation/115/520/339]

- University of Vermont [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/4690218] [http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/abn/81/1/60/]

- University of Glasglow [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1812608/?page=1]

- Illinois State University [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V5V-46JGXS6-4&_user=10&_coverDate=09%2F30%2F1972&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1681836896&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=99693da1b0a79bafb66badcd1de34ba6&searchtype=a]

- University of Louisville [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B7XMW-4K664R0-8&_user=10&_coverDate=03%2F31%2F1975&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1683127764&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=f2a618b828f15769fd42d213612da034&searchtype=a]

- Glenside Hospital [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1957923/pdf/brmedj02859-0056.pdf]

- University of Toronto [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B7XMW-4K605GH-9&_user=10&_coverDate=04%2F30%2F1971&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1683142140&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=9ea2a557c8b953234e666f603596e72a&searchtype=a] [http://www.mhamic.org/sources/freund.htm]

- King's College, London [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V5W-4VT1WJ3-C&_user=10&_coverDate=12%2F31%2F1972&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1683171148&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=1dbf2c8194438bf0daa9dc176d847b3f&searchtype=a]

- University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V5V-46KC6WM-1D&_user=10&_coverDate=12%2F31%2F1972&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=32d542dfb72d160bd92504744f3ef810&searchtype=a]

- Crumpsall Hospital [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1842087/?page=1]

- Allan Memorial Institute [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B7XMW-4K605KB-4&_user=10&_coverDate=01%2F31%2F1972&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1683181121&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=384b29ea4d021e09974f7f263e31ee6a&searchtype=a]

- Northeast Guidance Center [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B7XMW-4K664PP-7&_user=10&_coverDate=10%2F31%2F1975&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1681671317&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=93ae98d985c42fe37a42148137749fbf&searchtype=a#fn1]

- Center for Behavior Change [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V5W-4VS5RSF-8&_user=10&_coverDate=05%2F31%2F1973&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1681676165&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=8e09375e2e0e0fd272dc6c3994853f79&searchtype=a]

- University of Pennsylvania

=={{Further reading label}}==

==={{FAIR wiki articles label}}===
{{SSA wiki}}

==={{FAIR web site label}}===
{{SSA FAIR}}

==={{External links label}}===
{{SSA links}}

==={{Printed material label}}===
{{SSA print}}

{{Articles Footer 1}} {{Articles Footer 2}} {{Articles Footer 3}} {{Articles Footer 4}} {{Articles Footer 5}} {{Articles Footer 6}} {{Articles Footer 7}} {{Articles Footer 8}} {{Articles Footer 9}} {{Articles Footer 10}}

Homosexuality and the Church of Jesus Christ/Aversion therapy performed at BYU

2011-03-23T15:44:20Z

Awyatt: /* Aversion therapy at BYU */

{{Articles FAIR copyright}} {{Articles Header 1}} {{Articles Header 2}} {{Articles Header 3}} {{Articles Header 4}} {{Articles Header 5}} {{Articles Header 6}} {{Articles Header 7}} {{Articles Header 8}} {{Articles Header 9}} {{Articles Header 10}}

{{draft}}

=={{Question label}}==

* What was the history of BYU and aversion therapy for treating homosexuality?
* How did that relate to modern science at that time?
* What was the role of the Church in BYU's treatments

=={{Response label}}==

In the mid-1970s, a graduate student at Brigham Young University conducted a study in the use of aversion therapy to treat ego-dystonic homosexuality. (More details of this study are provided, below.) At the time, homosexuality was considered a mental illness and aversion therapy was a standard practice for cure. Experiments were run on a volunteer basis adhering to the professional standards of the time. Even so, there is no indication that anyone from the church leadership was aware of the experiments. Church leadership is typically not involved in minute details of the daily activities of BYU such as approving standard procedures being run by graduate students.

There are reports of bishops counseling people to undergo aversion therapy. These reports have not been verified, but it would not be uncommon for bishops to counsel people to go to standard therapies recommended by professional societies. Each bishop has significant freedom to recommend what they feel is best for the people in their congregation. The church itself has never recommended aversion therapy.

President Kimball did quote from several reputable medical sources about how the practice of homosexuality could be abandoned through treatments, but he did not specify what treatments those were. The important thing for President Kimball and for the church is that sexual actions could be controlled. This is the same stance the Church has today, and is fully supported by modern medical associations.

Elder Oaks stated:

:"The Church rarely takes a position on which treatment techniques are appropriate, for medical doctors or for psychiatrists or psychologists and so on. The second point is that there are abusive practices that have been used in connection with various mental attitudes or feelings. Over-medication in respect to depression is an example that comes to mind. The aversive therapies that have been used in connection with same-sex attraction have contained some serious abuses that have been recognized over time within the professions. While we have no position about what the medical doctors do (except in very, very rare cases — abortion would be such an example), we are conscious that there are abuses and we don’t accept responsibility for those abuses. Even though they are addressed at helping people we would like to see helped, we can’t endorse every kind of technique that’s been used."

=== Aversion therapy is a standard technique ===

Aversion therapy is still used today for a variety of treatments, such as gambling, smoking, alcoholism, and violence. A 2010 article in Psychology Today states "To date, aversion therapy using shock and nausea is the only technique of quitting [smoking] that offers decent gambling odds."[http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-human-beast/201002/smoking-most-effective-quitting-technique-little-known] The Encyclopedia of Mental Disorders has this entry for aversion therapy:

:A patient who consults a behavior therapist for aversion therapy can expect a fairly standard set of procedures. The therapist begins by assessing the problem, most likely measuring its frequency, severity, and the environment in which the undesirable behavior occurs. Although the therapeutic relationship is not the focus of treatment for the behavior therapist, therapists in this tradition believe that good rapport will facilitate a successful outcome. A positive relationship is also necessary to establish the patient's confidence in the rationale for exposing him or her to an uncomfortable stimulus. The therapist will design a treatment protocol and explain it to the patient. The most important choice the therapist makes is the type of aversive stimulus to employ. Depending upon the behavior to be changed, the preferred aversive stimulus is often electric stimulation delivered to the forearm or leg. [http://www.minddisorders.com/A-Br/Aversion-therapy.html]

Over the years, the methods have been refined and approved. Today, we have decades of research that were not available in the 1970s. It was not known where aversion therapy would be effective and where it would not be effective. The methods of the 1970s may seem crude compared to today's standards, but today's standards will probably seem crude in another 40 years. For whatever reason, aversion therapy is still a therapy used by mainstream psychologists.

We do NOT take a position on any therapy, except for the cases mentioned by Elder Oaks above. We only talk about the state of the art therapy so we have a better frame of reference when discussing aversion therapy.

=== History of aversion therapy and homosexuality ===

In 1966 Martin E.P. Seligman conducted a study at the University of Pennsylvania which showed positive results in applying aversion therapy to help people stop engaging in homosexual behavior. According to Seligman, this lead to "a great burst of enthusiasm about changing homosexuality [that] swept over the therapeutic community." (p. 156, Seligman, Martin E.P., What You Can Change and What You Can't: The Complete Guide to Self Improvement Knopf, 1993; ISBN 0-679-41024-4) Research was conducted by researchers from Harvard to King's College in London.

Historically, there were two types of homosexuality that were treated, ego-dystonic homosexuality and ego-syntonic homosexuality. The therapy administered at BYU was used to treat ego-dystonic homosexuality. This is when a patient experiences distress over their sexual orientation, and the goal of the therapy is to reduce that stress. Ego-dystonic homosexuality was considered a mental illness by the American Psychological Association until 1987, and is still considered a mental illness by the World Health Organization. [http://apps.who.int/classifications/apps/icd/icd10online/?gf60.htm+f661] Unlike other places, BYU never used aversion therapy to treat ego-sytonic homosexuality, which is where the patient is content with their sexual orientation.

Even after the declassification, aversion therapy could still be used to treat distress over sexual orientation, which is still classified as a sexual disorder in the DSM-IV. It was not until 1994, that the American Medical Association issued a report that stated "aversion therapy is no longer recommended for gay men and lesbians" (Health Care Needs of Gay Men and Lesbians in the U.S. American Medical Association Report, 1994) and not until 2006 that using aversion therapy to treat homosexuality has been in violation of the codes of conduct and professional guidelines of the American Psychological Association and American Psychiatric Association.

In 2009, a task force was commissioned by the American Psychological Association to investigate therapies used to treat homosexuality, including aversion therapy. They reported:

:Early research on efforts to change sexual orientation focused heavily on interventions that include aversion techniques. Many of these studies did not set out to investigate harm. Nonetheless, these studies provide some suggestion that harm can occur from aversive efforts to change sexual orientation...

:We conclude that there is a dearth of scientifically sound research on the safety of SOCE. Early and recent research studies provide no clear indication of the prevalence of harmful outcomes among people who have undergone efforts to change their sexual orientation or the frequency of occurrence of harm because no study to date of adequate scientific rigor has been explicitly designed to do so. Thus, we cannot conclude how likely it is that harm will occur from SOCE. However, studies from both periods indicate that attempts to change sexual orientation may cause or exacerbate distress and poor mental health in some individuals, including depression and suicidal thoughts. The lack of rigorous research on the safety of SOCE represents a serious concern, as do studies that report perceptions of harm (cf. Lilienfeld, 2007).[http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/therapeutic-response.pdf]

==== Aversion therapy at BYU ====

In the mid-1970s a graduate student, Max McBride, conducted a study entitled ''Effect of Visual Stimuli in Electric Aversion Therapy''. The results of this study were published as his PhD dissertation in the BYU Department of Psychology. As required by law, the study was conducted under the auspices of Dr. D. Eugene Thorne, who also served as McBride's PhD committee chairman. All study procedures followed common medical practice; McBride even thanks medical professionals at the Salt Lake City Veterans Hospital for their assistance in designing the study and help with statistical analysis.

The study consisted of male 17 participants, only 14 of which concluded the study. From the McBride dissertation we learn more about the participants:

:Seventeen male subjects were used in the study, 14 completed treatment. Selection was on the basis of clinical evidence of homosexuality; absence of psychosis (no prior history); desire for treatment; no history of epilepsy, alcoholism or drug addiction. The nature and extent of homosexual activity ranged from frequent sexual activity with multi-partner involvement to covert activity. Covert activity was restricted to deviant ruminations without significant involvement. Subjects were comparable as to level of formal education and age. All subjects were attending college as undergraduate or graduate students; their ages ranged from 18 to 31 years, with a mean of 23.6 years. All subjects who participated were active or semi-active members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. They were either self-referrals or referrals from various local agencies to Dr. D. Eugene Thorn of the Psychology Department at Brigham Young University. Each prospective subject was offered free treatment if he would participate fully in our research program.

:It was mandatory that all subjects chosen to participate sign and have witnessed a prepared statement explaining (a) the experimental nature of the treatment procedure, (b) the use of aversive electric shock, (c) the showing of 35 mm slides that might be construed by subject as possibly offensive, and (d) that Brigham Young University was not in any direct way endorsing the procedures used. This was to insure that all subjects were in full agreement and understanding as to what the treatment procedure would involve, provide and demand from them.

Some (but not all) of the study participants have, in the years since the study, talked about their experiences. Some of these reports can be quite painful to read. While there is no doubt that the study was traumatic to these individuals, it must be remembered that the study was not far-reaching, it was done according to common medical practice, all participants were volunteers, and any participant could leave the study at any time they wanted. These caveats are not mentioned to minimize the statements of these participants in any manner; they are only made so that proper context for the study can be maintained in the face of agonizing reports.

As far as can be historically ascertained, the McBride study was the only study ever done at BYU in the area of aversion therapy and the treatment of homosexual tendencies. It is interesting to note that BYU's contribution to the field of aversion therapy was not covered by the APA task force report. This was probably because they considered BYU's involvement to be too minor to include. Other universities had more participants and conducted their studies later than BYU. The role of BYU in aversion therapy research was very minimal, and was limited to treating ego-dystonic homosexuality.

Contrary to the assumptions of some, BYU did not pioneer the use of aversion therapy for this type of treatment and it stopped use of the therapy decades before the APA stopped recommending the practice. The university was simply one of many places that did research in the area when little was known about it. In fact, McBride's dissertation there are over 17 pages of documentation discussing other studies in which aversion therapy was applied to male homosexuality.

The therapy was only administered on adults who agreed to the testing. They all signed consent forms before starting therapy. Unlike other places, no children underwent therapy and no one was forced to go against their will. The experiments followed all the guidelines set forth by medical professionals. Unfortunately, some of the negative consequences reported by other patients in studies at other institutions were also reported by patients in the study at BYU.

=== Purpose of psychological therapy ===

The goal of therapy is to help the patient reach their desired end. One of the fundamentals is patient self-determination. The therapist does not set the goals, but the patient. Aversion therapy is not administered to smokers as a way to torture them, but to help them achieve their goal of being smoke-free.

The therapy at BYU was administered towards people who felt distress about their sexual orientation. Distress is not a good thing. The purpose of therapy was to relieve stress. If it was known that aversion therapy would be harmful, then they probably wouldn't have administered it. People were asking for help to change their sexual orientation, major medical associations said aversion therapy would help them, so why not try to help them with the best medical knowledge available at the time?

It is unfortunate that these methods that were meant to help may have caused or exacerbated distress and poor mental health, especially depression and suicidal thoughts. (For more information on suicides, see [[Mormonism and gender issues/Same-sex attraction/Suicide|Same-sex attraction/Suicide]].) There is an inherent risk in therapy for mental illnesses. Unfortunately, these risks were not fully understood in the 1970s.

=== Academic freedom at BYU ===
{{Main|Mormonism and education}}

When we hear of negative consequences from these therapies, some people wonder what the church could have done to stop it. Unfortunately, there was little that the church could have done. The church did not endorse BYU's experiments. They don't typically endorse any experiments at BYU. Some people have the wrong impression that the church mandates what experiments are done, and which are not. This is not true. Even at BYU, people have a variety of opinions and approaches for doing things.

The Church rarely interferes with what is done at BYU, and there would have been little reason for the Church to stop the experiments as it was conducted according to then-standard practices. Graduate students at BYU have significant freedom to pursue whatever academic interests they want. Especially in areas such as psychological research and therapy, BYU relies heavily on standards set forth by professional associations. This is partially needed so the school can be accredited. If the school starts imposing their own standards, rather than those used by professional associations, it could loose accreditation.

Besides the problem of making up their own standards, it is contrary to Mormonism to command in all things. Mormons are encouraged to think for themselves, and find their own answers to questions. Doctrine and Covenants 58:26 reads:

:For behold, it is not meet that I should command in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant; wherefore he receiveth no reward.

Encouraging academic freedom and individual agency unfortunately means that sometimes people will make mistakes. Sometimes they will run experiments and not have them turn out the way they want to. However, the answer is not to do away with academic freedom.

=={{Conclusion label}}==

Like many other places in the western world, aversion therapy was conducted by a graduate student at BYU in the 1970s. These experiments were conducted following standards published by professional societies, and was only conducted on adults who gave their permission. Like most experiments at BYU, they were designed and conducted by researchers at the University. For better or for worse, the Church typically does not interfere with standard experiments run by graduate students. Given the knowledge available at the time, the church had little reason to interfere with these experiments.

=={{Endnotes label}}==

A significant number of hospitals and universities offered aversion therapy as a way to treat homosexuality. It would be impossible to list all of them, but here are a few of the major places where people were involved in research and development of using aversion therapy to treat homosexuality:

- The University of New South Wales [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V5W-45XTVVT-89&_user=10&_coverDate=12%2F31%2F1981&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1681661053&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=a942e6089eba7694d0116091f6f51b38&searchtype=a]

- Joint project from Harvard and University of Chicago [http://archpsyc.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/25/4/314]

- The Royal College of Psychiatrists [http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/abstract/115/529/1417] [http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/citation/115/520/339]

- University of Vermont [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/4690218] [http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/abn/81/1/60/]

- University of Glasglow [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1812608/?page=1]

- Illinois State University [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V5V-46JGXS6-4&_user=10&_coverDate=09%2F30%2F1972&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1681836896&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=99693da1b0a79bafb66badcd1de34ba6&searchtype=a]

- University of Louisville [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B7XMW-4K664R0-8&_user=10&_coverDate=03%2F31%2F1975&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1683127764&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=f2a618b828f15769fd42d213612da034&searchtype=a]

- Glenside Hospital [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1957923/pdf/brmedj02859-0056.pdf]

- University of Toronto [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B7XMW-4K605GH-9&_user=10&_coverDate=04%2F30%2F1971&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1683142140&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=9ea2a557c8b953234e666f603596e72a&searchtype=a] [http://www.mhamic.org/sources/freund.htm]

- King's College, London [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V5W-4VT1WJ3-C&_user=10&_coverDate=12%2F31%2F1972&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1683171148&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=1dbf2c8194438bf0daa9dc176d847b3f&searchtype=a]

- University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V5V-46KC6WM-1D&_user=10&_coverDate=12%2F31%2F1972&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=32d542dfb72d160bd92504744f3ef810&searchtype=a]

- Crumpsall Hospital [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1842087/?page=1]

- Allan Memorial Institute [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B7XMW-4K605KB-4&_user=10&_coverDate=01%2F31%2F1972&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1683181121&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=384b29ea4d021e09974f7f263e31ee6a&searchtype=a]

- Northeast Guidance Center [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B7XMW-4K664PP-7&_user=10&_coverDate=10%2F31%2F1975&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1681671317&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=93ae98d985c42fe37a42148137749fbf&searchtype=a#fn1]

- Center for Behavior Change [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V5W-4VS5RSF-8&_user=10&_coverDate=05%2F31%2F1973&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1681676165&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=8e09375e2e0e0fd272dc6c3994853f79&searchtype=a]

- University of Pennsylvania

=={{Further reading label}}==

==={{FAIR wiki articles label}}===
{{SSA wiki}}

==={{FAIR web site label}}===
{{SSA FAIR}}

==={{External links label}}===
{{SSA links}}

==={{Printed material label}}===
{{SSA print}}

{{Articles Footer 1}} {{Articles Footer 2}} {{Articles Footer 3}} {{Articles Footer 4}} {{Articles Footer 5}} {{Articles Footer 6}} {{Articles Footer 7}} {{Articles Footer 8}} {{Articles Footer 9}} {{Articles Footer 10}}

Homosexuality and the Church of Jesus Christ/Aversion therapy performed at BYU

2011-03-23T15:43:41Z

Awyatt: /* Aversion therapy at BYU */

{{Articles FAIR copyright}} {{Articles Header 1}} {{Articles Header 2}} {{Articles Header 3}} {{Articles Header 4}} {{Articles Header 5}} {{Articles Header 6}} {{Articles Header 7}} {{Articles Header 8}} {{Articles Header 9}} {{Articles Header 10}}

{{draft}}

=={{Question label}}==

* What was the history of BYU and aversion therapy for treating homosexuality?
* How did that relate to modern science at that time?
* What was the role of the Church in BYU's treatments

=={{Response label}}==

In the mid-1970s, a graduate student at Brigham Young University conducted a study in the use of aversion therapy to treat ego-dystonic homosexuality. (More details of this study are provided, below.) At the time, homosexuality was considered a mental illness and aversion therapy was a standard practice for cure. Experiments were run on a volunteer basis adhering to the professional standards of the time. Even so, there is no indication that anyone from the church leadership was aware of the experiments. Church leadership is typically not involved in minute details of the daily activities of BYU such as approving standard procedures being run by graduate students.

There are reports of bishops counseling people to undergo aversion therapy. These reports have not been verified, but it would not be uncommon for bishops to counsel people to go to standard therapies recommended by professional societies. Each bishop has significant freedom to recommend what they feel is best for the people in their congregation. The church itself has never recommended aversion therapy.

President Kimball did quote from several reputable medical sources about how the practice of homosexuality could be abandoned through treatments, but he did not specify what treatments those were. The important thing for President Kimball and for the church is that sexual actions could be controlled. This is the same stance the Church has today, and is fully supported by modern medical associations.

Elder Oaks stated:

:"The Church rarely takes a position on which treatment techniques are appropriate, for medical doctors or for psychiatrists or psychologists and so on. The second point is that there are abusive practices that have been used in connection with various mental attitudes or feelings. Over-medication in respect to depression is an example that comes to mind. The aversive therapies that have been used in connection with same-sex attraction have contained some serious abuses that have been recognized over time within the professions. While we have no position about what the medical doctors do (except in very, very rare cases — abortion would be such an example), we are conscious that there are abuses and we don’t accept responsibility for those abuses. Even though they are addressed at helping people we would like to see helped, we can’t endorse every kind of technique that’s been used."

=== Aversion therapy is a standard technique ===

Aversion therapy is still used today for a variety of treatments, such as gambling, smoking, alcoholism, and violence. A 2010 article in Psychology Today states "To date, aversion therapy using shock and nausea is the only technique of quitting [smoking] that offers decent gambling odds."[http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-human-beast/201002/smoking-most-effective-quitting-technique-little-known] The Encyclopedia of Mental Disorders has this entry for aversion therapy:

:A patient who consults a behavior therapist for aversion therapy can expect a fairly standard set of procedures. The therapist begins by assessing the problem, most likely measuring its frequency, severity, and the environment in which the undesirable behavior occurs. Although the therapeutic relationship is not the focus of treatment for the behavior therapist, therapists in this tradition believe that good rapport will facilitate a successful outcome. A positive relationship is also necessary to establish the patient's confidence in the rationale for exposing him or her to an uncomfortable stimulus. The therapist will design a treatment protocol and explain it to the patient. The most important choice the therapist makes is the type of aversive stimulus to employ. Depending upon the behavior to be changed, the preferred aversive stimulus is often electric stimulation delivered to the forearm or leg. [http://www.minddisorders.com/A-Br/Aversion-therapy.html]

Over the years, the methods have been refined and approved. Today, we have decades of research that were not available in the 1970s. It was not known where aversion therapy would be effective and where it would not be effective. The methods of the 1970s may seem crude compared to today's standards, but today's standards will probably seem crude in another 40 years. For whatever reason, aversion therapy is still a therapy used by mainstream psychologists.

We do NOT take a position on any therapy, except for the cases mentioned by Elder Oaks above. We only talk about the state of the art therapy so we have a better frame of reference when discussing aversion therapy.

=== History of aversion therapy and homosexuality ===

In 1966 Martin E.P. Seligman conducted a study at the University of Pennsylvania which showed positive results in applying aversion therapy to help people stop engaging in homosexual behavior. According to Seligman, this lead to "a great burst of enthusiasm about changing homosexuality [that] swept over the therapeutic community." (p. 156, Seligman, Martin E.P., What You Can Change and What You Can't: The Complete Guide to Self Improvement Knopf, 1993; ISBN 0-679-41024-4) Research was conducted by researchers from Harvard to King's College in London.

Historically, there were two types of homosexuality that were treated, ego-dystonic homosexuality and ego-syntonic homosexuality. The therapy administered at BYU was used to treat ego-dystonic homosexuality. This is when a patient experiences distress over their sexual orientation, and the goal of the therapy is to reduce that stress. Ego-dystonic homosexuality was considered a mental illness by the American Psychological Association until 1987, and is still considered a mental illness by the World Health Organization. [http://apps.who.int/classifications/apps/icd/icd10online/?gf60.htm+f661] Unlike other places, BYU never used aversion therapy to treat ego-sytonic homosexuality, which is where the patient is content with their sexual orientation.

Even after the declassification, aversion therapy could still be used to treat distress over sexual orientation, which is still classified as a sexual disorder in the DSM-IV. It was not until 1994, that the American Medical Association issued a report that stated "aversion therapy is no longer recommended for gay men and lesbians" (Health Care Needs of Gay Men and Lesbians in the U.S. American Medical Association Report, 1994) and not until 2006 that using aversion therapy to treat homosexuality has been in violation of the codes of conduct and professional guidelines of the American Psychological Association and American Psychiatric Association.

In 2009, a task force was commissioned by the American Psychological Association to investigate therapies used to treat homosexuality, including aversion therapy. They reported:

:Early research on efforts to change sexual orientation focused heavily on interventions that include aversion techniques. Many of these studies did not set out to investigate harm. Nonetheless, these studies provide some suggestion that harm can occur from aversive efforts to change sexual orientation...

:We conclude that there is a dearth of scientifically sound research on the safety of SOCE. Early and recent research studies provide no clear indication of the prevalence of harmful outcomes among people who have undergone efforts to change their sexual orientation or the frequency of occurrence of harm because no study to date of adequate scientific rigor has been explicitly designed to do so. Thus, we cannot conclude how likely it is that harm will occur from SOCE. However, studies from both periods indicate that attempts to change sexual orientation may cause or exacerbate distress and poor mental health in some individuals, including depression and suicidal thoughts. The lack of rigorous research on the safety of SOCE represents a serious concern, as do studies that report perceptions of harm (cf. Lilienfeld, 2007).[http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/therapeutic-response.pdf]

==== Aversion therapy at BYU ====

In the mid-1970s a graduate student, Max McBride, conducted a study entitled ''Effect of Visual Stimuli in Electric Aversion Therapy''. The results of this study were published as his PhD dissertation in the BYU Department of Psychology. As required by law, the study was conducted under the auspices of Dr. D. Eugene Thorne, who also served as McBride's PhD committee chairman. All study procedures followed common medical practice; McBride even thanks medical professionals at the Salt Lake City Veterans Hospital for their assistance in designing the study and help with statistical analysis.

The study consisted of male 17 participants, only 14 of which concluded the study. From the McBride dissertation we learn more about the participants:

Seventeen male subjects were used in the study, 14 completed treatment. Selection was on the basis of clinical evidence of homosexuality; absence of psychosis (no prior history); desire for treatment; no history of epilepsy, alcoholism or drug addiction. The nature and extent of homosexual activity ranged from frequent sexual activity with multi-partner involvement to covert activity. Covert activity was restricted to deviant ruminations without significant involvement. Subjects were comparable as to level of formal education and age. All subjects were attending college as undergraduate or graduate students; their ages ranged from 18 to 31 years, with a mean of 23.6 years. All subjects who participated were active or semi-active members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. They were either self-referrals or referrals from various local agencies to Dr. D. Eugene Thorn of the Psychology Department at Brigham Young University. Each prospective subject was offered free treatment if he would participate fully in our research program.

It was mandatory that all subjects chosen to participate sign and have witnessed a prepared statement explaining (a) the experimental nature of the treatment procedure, (b) the use of aversive electric shock, (c) the showing of 35 mm slides that might be construed by subject as possibly offensive, and (d) that Brigham Young University was not in any direct way endorsing the procedures used. This was to insure that all subjects were in full agreement and understanding as to what the treatment procedure would involve, provide and demand from them.

Some (but not all) of the study participants have, in the years since the study, talked about their experiences. Some of these reports can be quite painful to read. While there is no doubt that the study was traumatic to these individuals, it must be remembered that the study was not far-reaching, it was done according to common medical practice, all participants were volunteers, and any participant could leave the study at any time they wanted. These caveats are not mentioned to minimize the statements of these participants in any manner; they are only made so that proper context for the study can be maintained in the face of agonizing reports.

As far as can be historically ascertained, the McBride study was the only study ever done at BYU in the area of aversion therapy and the treatment of homosexual tendencies. It is interesting to note that BYU's contribution to the field of aversion therapy was not covered by the APA task force report. This was probably because they considered BYU's involvement to be too minor to include. Other universities had more participants and conducted their studies later than BYU. The role of BYU in aversion therapy research was very minimal, and was limited to treating ego-dystonic homosexuality.

Contrary to the assumptions of some, BYU did not pioneer the use of aversion therapy for this type of treatment and it stopped use of the therapy decades before the APA stopped recommending the practice. The university was simply one of many places that did research in the area when little was known about it. In fact, McBride's dissertation there are over 17 pages of documentation discussing other studies in which aversion therapy was applied to male homosexuality.

The therapy was only administered on adults who agreed to the testing. They all signed consent forms before starting therapy. Unlike other places, no children underwent therapy and no one was forced to go against their will. The experiments followed all the guidelines set forth by medical professionals. Unfortunately, some of the negative consequences reported by other patients in studies at other institutions were also reported by patients in the study at BYU.

=== Purpose of psychological therapy ===

The goal of therapy is to help the patient reach their desired end. One of the fundamentals is patient self-determination. The therapist does not set the goals, but the patient. Aversion therapy is not administered to smokers as a way to torture them, but to help them achieve their goal of being smoke-free.

The therapy at BYU was administered towards people who felt distress about their sexual orientation. Distress is not a good thing. The purpose of therapy was to relieve stress. If it was known that aversion therapy would be harmful, then they probably wouldn't have administered it. People were asking for help to change their sexual orientation, major medical associations said aversion therapy would help them, so why not try to help them with the best medical knowledge available at the time?

It is unfortunate that these methods that were meant to help may have caused or exacerbated distress and poor mental health, especially depression and suicidal thoughts. (For more information on suicides, see [[Mormonism and gender issues/Same-sex attraction/Suicide|Same-sex attraction/Suicide]].) There is an inherent risk in therapy for mental illnesses. Unfortunately, these risks were not fully understood in the 1970s.

=== Academic freedom at BYU ===
{{Main|Mormonism and education}}

When we hear of negative consequences from these therapies, some people wonder what the church could have done to stop it. Unfortunately, there was little that the church could have done. The church did not endorse BYU's experiments. They don't typically endorse any experiments at BYU. Some people have the wrong impression that the church mandates what experiments are done, and which are not. This is not true. Even at BYU, people have a variety of opinions and approaches for doing things.

The Church rarely interferes with what is done at BYU, and there would have been little reason for the Church to stop the experiments as it was conducted according to then-standard practices. Graduate students at BYU have significant freedom to pursue whatever academic interests they want. Especially in areas such as psychological research and therapy, BYU relies heavily on standards set forth by professional associations. This is partially needed so the school can be accredited. If the school starts imposing their own standards, rather than those used by professional associations, it could loose accreditation.

Besides the problem of making up their own standards, it is contrary to Mormonism to command in all things. Mormons are encouraged to think for themselves, and find their own answers to questions. Doctrine and Covenants 58:26 reads:

:For behold, it is not meet that I should command in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant; wherefore he receiveth no reward.

Encouraging academic freedom and individual agency unfortunately means that sometimes people will make mistakes. Sometimes they will run experiments and not have them turn out the way they want to. However, the answer is not to do away with academic freedom.

=={{Conclusion label}}==

Like many other places in the western world, aversion therapy was conducted by a graduate student at BYU in the 1970s. These experiments were conducted following standards published by professional societies, and was only conducted on adults who gave their permission. Like most experiments at BYU, they were designed and conducted by researchers at the University. For better or for worse, the Church typically does not interfere with standard experiments run by graduate students. Given the knowledge available at the time, the church had little reason to interfere with these experiments.

=={{Endnotes label}}==

A significant number of hospitals and universities offered aversion therapy as a way to treat homosexuality. It would be impossible to list all of them, but here are a few of the major places where people were involved in research and development of using aversion therapy to treat homosexuality:

- The University of New South Wales [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V5W-45XTVVT-89&_user=10&_coverDate=12%2F31%2F1981&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1681661053&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=a942e6089eba7694d0116091f6f51b38&searchtype=a]

- Joint project from Harvard and University of Chicago [http://archpsyc.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/25/4/314]

- The Royal College of Psychiatrists [http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/abstract/115/529/1417] [http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/citation/115/520/339]

- University of Vermont [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/4690218] [http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/abn/81/1/60/]

- University of Glasglow [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1812608/?page=1]

- Illinois State University [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V5V-46JGXS6-4&_user=10&_coverDate=09%2F30%2F1972&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1681836896&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=99693da1b0a79bafb66badcd1de34ba6&searchtype=a]

- University of Louisville [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B7XMW-4K664R0-8&_user=10&_coverDate=03%2F31%2F1975&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1683127764&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=f2a618b828f15769fd42d213612da034&searchtype=a]

- Glenside Hospital [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1957923/pdf/brmedj02859-0056.pdf]

- University of Toronto [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B7XMW-4K605GH-9&_user=10&_coverDate=04%2F30%2F1971&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1683142140&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=9ea2a557c8b953234e666f603596e72a&searchtype=a] [http://www.mhamic.org/sources/freund.htm]

- King's College, London [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V5W-4VT1WJ3-C&_user=10&_coverDate=12%2F31%2F1972&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1683171148&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=1dbf2c8194438bf0daa9dc176d847b3f&searchtype=a]

- University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V5V-46KC6WM-1D&_user=10&_coverDate=12%2F31%2F1972&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=32d542dfb72d160bd92504744f3ef810&searchtype=a]

- Crumpsall Hospital [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1842087/?page=1]

- Allan Memorial Institute [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B7XMW-4K605KB-4&_user=10&_coverDate=01%2F31%2F1972&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1683181121&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=384b29ea4d021e09974f7f263e31ee6a&searchtype=a]

- Northeast Guidance Center [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B7XMW-4K664PP-7&_user=10&_coverDate=10%2F31%2F1975&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1681671317&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=93ae98d985c42fe37a42148137749fbf&searchtype=a#fn1]

- Center for Behavior Change [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V5W-4VS5RSF-8&_user=10&_coverDate=05%2F31%2F1973&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1681676165&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=8e09375e2e0e0fd272dc6c3994853f79&searchtype=a]

- University of Pennsylvania

=={{Further reading label}}==

==={{FAIR wiki articles label}}===
{{SSA wiki}}

==={{FAIR web site label}}===
{{SSA FAIR}}

==={{External links label}}===
{{SSA links}}

==={{Printed material label}}===
{{SSA print}}

{{Articles Footer 1}} {{Articles Footer 2}} {{Articles Footer 3}} {{Articles Footer 4}} {{Articles Footer 5}} {{Articles Footer 6}} {{Articles Footer 7}} {{Articles Footer 8}} {{Articles Footer 9}} {{Articles Footer 10}}

Homosexuality and the Church of Jesus Christ/Aversion therapy performed at BYU

2011-03-23T08:27:13Z

Awyatt: /* {{Response label}} */

{{Articles FAIR copyright}} {{Articles Header 1}} {{Articles Header 2}} {{Articles Header 3}} {{Articles Header 4}} {{Articles Header 5}} {{Articles Header 6}} {{Articles Header 7}} {{Articles Header 8}} {{Articles Header 9}} {{Articles Header 10}}

{{draft}}

=={{Question label}}==

* What was the history of BYU and aversion therapy for treating homosexuality?
* How did that relate to modern science at that time?
* What was the role of the Church in BYU's treatments

=={{Response label}}==

In the mid-1970s, a graduate student at Brigham Young University conducted a study in the use of aversion therapy to treat ego-dystonic homosexuality. (More details of this study are provided, below.) At the time, homosexuality was considered a mental illness and aversion therapy was a standard practice for cure. Experiments were run on a volunteer basis adhering to the professional standards of the time. Even so, there is no indication that anyone from the church leadership was aware of the experiments. Church leadership is typically not involved in minute details of the daily activities of BYU such as approving standard procedures being run by graduate students.

There are reports of bishops counseling people to undergo aversion therapy. These reports have not been verified, but it would not be uncommon for bishops to counsel people to go to standard therapies recommended by professional societies. Each bishop has significant freedom to recommend what they feel is best for the people in their congregation. The church itself has never recommended aversion therapy.

President Kimball did quote from several reputable medical sources about how the practice of homosexuality could be abandoned through treatments, but he did not specify what treatments those were. The important thing for President Kimball and for the church is that sexual actions could be controlled. This is the same stance the Church has today, and is fully supported by modern medical associations.

Elder Oaks stated:

:"The Church rarely takes a position on which treatment techniques are appropriate, for medical doctors or for psychiatrists or psychologists and so on. The second point is that there are abusive practices that have been used in connection with various mental attitudes or feelings. Over-medication in respect to depression is an example that comes to mind. The aversive therapies that have been used in connection with same-sex attraction have contained some serious abuses that have been recognized over time within the professions. While we have no position about what the medical doctors do (except in very, very rare cases — abortion would be such an example), we are conscious that there are abuses and we don’t accept responsibility for those abuses. Even though they are addressed at helping people we would like to see helped, we can’t endorse every kind of technique that’s been used."

=== Aversion therapy is a standard technique ===

Aversion therapy is still used today for a variety of treatments, such as gambling, smoking, alcoholism, and violence. A 2010 article in Psychology Today states "To date, aversion therapy using shock and nausea is the only technique of quitting [smoking] that offers decent gambling odds."[http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-human-beast/201002/smoking-most-effective-quitting-technique-little-known] The Encyclopedia of Mental Disorders has this entry for aversion therapy:

:A patient who consults a behavior therapist for aversion therapy can expect a fairly standard set of procedures. The therapist begins by assessing the problem, most likely measuring its frequency, severity, and the environment in which the undesirable behavior occurs. Although the therapeutic relationship is not the focus of treatment for the behavior therapist, therapists in this tradition believe that good rapport will facilitate a successful outcome. A positive relationship is also necessary to establish the patient's confidence in the rationale for exposing him or her to an uncomfortable stimulus. The therapist will design a treatment protocol and explain it to the patient. The most important choice the therapist makes is the type of aversive stimulus to employ. Depending upon the behavior to be changed, the preferred aversive stimulus is often electric stimulation delivered to the forearm or leg. [http://www.minddisorders.com/A-Br/Aversion-therapy.html]

Over the years, the methods have been refined and approved. Today, we have decades of research that were not available in the 1970s. It was not known where aversion therapy would be effective and where it would not be effective. The methods of the 1970s may seem crude compared to today's standards, but today's standards will probably seem crude in another 40 years. For whatever reason, aversion therapy is still a therapy used by mainstream psychologists.

We do NOT take a position on any therapy, except for the cases mentioned by Elder Oaks above. We only talk about the state of the art therapy so we have a better frame of reference when discussing aversion therapy.

=== History of aversion therapy and homosexuality ===

In 1966 Martin E.P. Seligman conducted a study at the University of Pennsylvania which showed positive results in applying aversion therapy to help people stop engaging in homosexual behavior. According to Seligman, this lead to "a great burst of enthusiasm about changing homosexuality [that] swept over the therapeutic community." (p. 156, Seligman, Martin E.P., What You Can Change and What You Can't: The Complete Guide to Self Improvement Knopf, 1993; ISBN 0-679-41024-4) Research was conducted by researchers from Harvard to King's College in London.

Historically, there were two types of homosexuality that were treated, ego-dystonic homosexuality and ego-syntonic homosexuality. The therapy administered at BYU was used to treat ego-dystonic homosexuality. This is when a patient experiences distress over their sexual orientation, and the goal of the therapy is to reduce that stress. Ego-dystonic homosexuality was considered a mental illness by the American Psychological Association until 1987, and is still considered a mental illness by the World Health Organization. [http://apps.who.int/classifications/apps/icd/icd10online/?gf60.htm+f661] Unlike other places, BYU never used aversion therapy to treat ego-sytonic homosexuality, which is where the patient is content with their sexual orientation.

Even after the declassification, aversion therapy could still be used to treat distress over sexual orientation, which is still classified as a sexual disorder in the DSM-IV. It was not until 1994, that the American Medical Association issued a report that stated "aversion therapy is no longer recommended for gay men and lesbians" (Health Care Needs of Gay Men and Lesbians in the U.S. American Medical Association Report, 1994) and not until 2006 that using aversion therapy to treat homosexuality has been in violation of the codes of conduct and professional guidelines of the American Psychological Association and American Psychiatric Association.

In 2009, a task force was commissioned by the American Psychological Association to investigate therapies used to treat homosexuality, including aversion therapy. They reported:

:Early research on efforts to change sexual orientation focused heavily on interventions that include aversion techniques. Many of these studies did not set out to investigate harm. Nonetheless, these studies provide some suggestion that harm can occur from aversive efforts to change sexual orientation...

:We conclude that there is a dearth of scientifically sound research on the safety of SOCE. Early and recent research studies provide no clear indication of the prevalence of harmful outcomes among people who have undergone efforts to change their sexual orientation or the frequency of occurrence of harm because no study to date of adequate scientific rigor has been explicitly designed to do so. Thus, we cannot conclude how likely it is that harm will occur from SOCE. However, studies from both periods indicate that attempts to change sexual orientation may cause or exacerbate distress and poor mental health in some individuals, including depression and suicidal thoughts. The lack of rigorous research on the safety of SOCE represents a serious concern, as do studies that report perceptions of harm (cf. Lilienfeld, 2007).[http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/therapeutic-response.pdf]

==== Aversion therapy at BYU ====

BYU's contribution to the field of aversion therapy was not covered by the APA task force report. This was probably because they considered BYU's involvement to be too minor to include. Other universities had more participants, and were run later than BYU. The role of BYU in aversion therapy research was very minimal, and was limited to treating ego-dystonic homosexuality. BYU did not pioneer the therapy and it stopped therapy decades before the APA stopped recommending the practice. It was simply one of many places that did research in the area when little was known about it. The therapy was only administered on adults who agreed to the testing. They all signed consent forms before starting therapy. Unlike other places, no children underwent therapy and no one was forced to go against their will. The experiments followed all the guidelines set forth by medical professionals. Unfortunately, some of the negative consequences reported by other patients in studies at other institutions were also reported by patients in the study at BYU.

=== Purpose of psychological therapy ===

The goal of therapy is to help the patient reach their desired end. One of the fundamentals is patient self-determination. The therapist does not set the goals, but the patient. Aversion therapy is not administered to smokers as a way to torture them, but to help them achieve their goal of being smoke-free.

The therapy at BYU was administered towards people who felt distress about their sexual orientation. Distress is not a good thing. The purpose of therapy was to relieve stress. If it was known that aversion therapy would be harmful, then they probably wouldn't have administered it. People were asking for help to change their sexual orientation, major medical associations said aversion therapy would help them, so why not try to help them with the best medical knowledge available at the time?

It is unfortunate that these methods that were meant to help may have caused or exacerbated distress and poor mental health, especially depression and suicidal thoughts. (For more information on suicides, see [[Mormonism and gender issues/Same-sex attraction/Suicide|Same-sex attraction/Suicide]].) There is an inherent risk in therapy for mental illnesses. Unfortunately, these risks were not fully understood in the 1970s.

=== Academic freedom at BYU ===
{{Main|Mormonism and education}}

When we hear of negative consequences from these therapies, some people wonder what the church could have done to stop it. Unfortunately, there was little that the church could have done. The church did not endorse BYU's experiments. They don't typically endorse any experiments at BYU. Some people have the wrong impression that the church mandates what experiments are done, and which are not. This is not true. Even at BYU, people have a variety of opinions and approaches for doing things.

The Church rarely interferes with what is done at BYU, and there would have been little reason for the Church to stop the experiments as it was conducted according to then-standard practices. Graduate students at BYU have significant freedom to pursue whatever academic interests they want. Especially in areas such as psychological research and therapy, BYU relies heavily on standards set forth by professional associations. This is partially needed so the school can be accredited. If the school starts imposing their own standards, rather than those used by professional associations, it could loose accreditation.

Besides the problem of making up their own standards, it is contrary to Mormonism to command in all things. Mormons are encouraged to think for themselves, and find their own answers to questions. Doctrine and Covenants 58:26 reads:

:For behold, it is not meet that I should command in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant; wherefore he receiveth no reward.

Encouraging academic freedom and individual agency unfortunately means that sometimes people will make mistakes. Sometimes they will run experiments and not have them turn out the way they want to. However, the answer is not to do away with academic freedom.

=={{Conclusion label}}==

Like many other places in the western world, aversion therapy was conducted by a graduate student at BYU in the 1970s. These experiments were conducted following standards published by professional societies, and was only conducted on adults who gave their permission. Like most experiments at BYU, they were designed and conducted by researchers at the University. For better or for worse, the Church typically does not interfere with standard experiments run by graduate students. Given the knowledge available at the time, the church had little reason to interfere with these experiments.

=={{Endnotes label}}==

A significant number of hospitals and universities offered aversion therapy as a way to treat homosexuality. It would be impossible to list all of them, but here are a few of the major places where people were involved in research and development of using aversion therapy to treat homosexuality:

- The University of New South Wales [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V5W-45XTVVT-89&_user=10&_coverDate=12%2F31%2F1981&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1681661053&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=a942e6089eba7694d0116091f6f51b38&searchtype=a]

- Joint project from Harvard and University of Chicago [http://archpsyc.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/25/4/314]

- The Royal College of Psychiatrists [http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/abstract/115/529/1417] [http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/citation/115/520/339]

- University of Vermont [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/4690218] [http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/abn/81/1/60/]

- University of Glasglow [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1812608/?page=1]

- Illinois State University [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V5V-46JGXS6-4&_user=10&_coverDate=09%2F30%2F1972&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1681836896&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=99693da1b0a79bafb66badcd1de34ba6&searchtype=a]

- University of Louisville [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B7XMW-4K664R0-8&_user=10&_coverDate=03%2F31%2F1975&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1683127764&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=f2a618b828f15769fd42d213612da034&searchtype=a]

- Glenside Hospital [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1957923/pdf/brmedj02859-0056.pdf]

- University of Toronto [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B7XMW-4K605GH-9&_user=10&_coverDate=04%2F30%2F1971&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1683142140&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=9ea2a557c8b953234e666f603596e72a&searchtype=a] [http://www.mhamic.org/sources/freund.htm]

- King's College, London [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V5W-4VT1WJ3-C&_user=10&_coverDate=12%2F31%2F1972&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1683171148&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=1dbf2c8194438bf0daa9dc176d847b3f&searchtype=a]

- University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V5V-46KC6WM-1D&_user=10&_coverDate=12%2F31%2F1972&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=32d542dfb72d160bd92504744f3ef810&searchtype=a]

- Crumpsall Hospital [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1842087/?page=1]

- Allan Memorial Institute [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B7XMW-4K605KB-4&_user=10&_coverDate=01%2F31%2F1972&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1683181121&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=384b29ea4d021e09974f7f263e31ee6a&searchtype=a]

- Northeast Guidance Center [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B7XMW-4K664PP-7&_user=10&_coverDate=10%2F31%2F1975&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1681671317&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=93ae98d985c42fe37a42148137749fbf&searchtype=a#fn1]

- Center for Behavior Change [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V5W-4VS5RSF-8&_user=10&_coverDate=05%2F31%2F1973&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1681676165&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=8e09375e2e0e0fd272dc6c3994853f79&searchtype=a]

- University of Pennsylvania

=={{Further reading label}}==

==={{FAIR wiki articles label}}===
{{SSA wiki}}

==={{FAIR web site label}}===
{{SSA FAIR}}

==={{External links label}}===
{{SSA links}}

==={{Printed material label}}===
{{SSA print}}

{{Articles Footer 1}} {{Articles Footer 2}} {{Articles Footer 3}} {{Articles Footer 4}} {{Articles Footer 5}} {{Articles Footer 6}} {{Articles Footer 7}} {{Articles Footer 8}} {{Articles Footer 9}} {{Articles Footer 10}}

Homosexuality and the Church of Jesus Christ/Aversion therapy performed at BYU

2011-03-23T08:26:50Z

Awyatt:

{{Articles FAIR copyright}} {{Articles Header 1}} {{Articles Header 2}} {{Articles Header 3}} {{Articles Header 4}} {{Articles Header 5}} {{Articles Header 6}} {{Articles Header 7}} {{Articles Header 8}} {{Articles Header 9}} {{Articles Header 10}}

{{draft}}

=={{Question label}}==

* What was the history of BYU and aversion therapy for treating homosexuality?
* How did that relate to modern science at that time?
* What was the role of the Church in BYU's treatments

=={{Response label}}==

In the mid-1970s, a graduate student at Brigham Young University conducted a number of experiments in the use of aversion therapy to treat ego-dystonic homosexuality. (More details of this study are provided, below.) At the time, homosexuality was considered a mental illness and aversion therapy was a standard practice for cure. Experiments were run on a volunteer basis adhering to the professional standards of the time. Even so, there is no indication that anyone from the church leadership was aware of the experiments. Church leadership is typically not involved in minute details of the daily activities of BYU such as approving standard procedures being run by graduate students.

There are reports of bishops counseling people to undergo aversion therapy. These reports have not been verified, but it would not be uncommon for bishops to counsel people to go to standard therapies recommended by professional societies. Each bishop has significant freedom to recommend what they feel is best for the people in their congregation. The church itself has never recommended aversion therapy.

President Kimball did quote from several reputable medical sources about how the practice of homosexuality could be abandoned through treatments, but he did not specify what treatments those were. The important thing for President Kimball and for the church is that sexual actions could be controlled. This is the same stance the Church has today, and is fully supported by modern medical associations.

Elder Oaks stated:

:"The Church rarely takes a position on which treatment techniques are appropriate, for medical doctors or for psychiatrists or psychologists and so on. The second point is that there are abusive practices that have been used in connection with various mental attitudes or feelings. Over-medication in respect to depression is an example that comes to mind. The aversive therapies that have been used in connection with same-sex attraction have contained some serious abuses that have been recognized over time within the professions. While we have no position about what the medical doctors do (except in very, very rare cases — abortion would be such an example), we are conscious that there are abuses and we don’t accept responsibility for those abuses. Even though they are addressed at helping people we would like to see helped, we can’t endorse every kind of technique that’s been used."

=== Aversion therapy is a standard technique ===

Aversion therapy is still used today for a variety of treatments, such as gambling, smoking, alcoholism, and violence. A 2010 article in Psychology Today states "To date, aversion therapy using shock and nausea is the only technique of quitting [smoking] that offers decent gambling odds."[http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-human-beast/201002/smoking-most-effective-quitting-technique-little-known] The Encyclopedia of Mental Disorders has this entry for aversion therapy:

:A patient who consults a behavior therapist for aversion therapy can expect a fairly standard set of procedures. The therapist begins by assessing the problem, most likely measuring its frequency, severity, and the environment in which the undesirable behavior occurs. Although the therapeutic relationship is not the focus of treatment for the behavior therapist, therapists in this tradition believe that good rapport will facilitate a successful outcome. A positive relationship is also necessary to establish the patient's confidence in the rationale for exposing him or her to an uncomfortable stimulus. The therapist will design a treatment protocol and explain it to the patient. The most important choice the therapist makes is the type of aversive stimulus to employ. Depending upon the behavior to be changed, the preferred aversive stimulus is often electric stimulation delivered to the forearm or leg. [http://www.minddisorders.com/A-Br/Aversion-therapy.html]

Over the years, the methods have been refined and approved. Today, we have decades of research that were not available in the 1970s. It was not known where aversion therapy would be effective and where it would not be effective. The methods of the 1970s may seem crude compared to today's standards, but today's standards will probably seem crude in another 40 years. For whatever reason, aversion therapy is still a therapy used by mainstream psychologists.

We do NOT take a position on any therapy, except for the cases mentioned by Elder Oaks above. We only talk about the state of the art therapy so we have a better frame of reference when discussing aversion therapy.

=== History of aversion therapy and homosexuality ===

In 1966 Martin E.P. Seligman conducted a study at the University of Pennsylvania which showed positive results in applying aversion therapy to help people stop engaging in homosexual behavior. According to Seligman, this lead to "a great burst of enthusiasm about changing homosexuality [that] swept over the therapeutic community." (p. 156, Seligman, Martin E.P., What You Can Change and What You Can't: The Complete Guide to Self Improvement Knopf, 1993; ISBN 0-679-41024-4) Research was conducted by researchers from Harvard to King's College in London.

Historically, there were two types of homosexuality that were treated, ego-dystonic homosexuality and ego-syntonic homosexuality. The therapy administered at BYU was used to treat ego-dystonic homosexuality. This is when a patient experiences distress over their sexual orientation, and the goal of the therapy is to reduce that stress. Ego-dystonic homosexuality was considered a mental illness by the American Psychological Association until 1987, and is still considered a mental illness by the World Health Organization. [http://apps.who.int/classifications/apps/icd/icd10online/?gf60.htm+f661] Unlike other places, BYU never used aversion therapy to treat ego-sytonic homosexuality, which is where the patient is content with their sexual orientation.

Even after the declassification, aversion therapy could still be used to treat distress over sexual orientation, which is still classified as a sexual disorder in the DSM-IV. It was not until 1994, that the American Medical Association issued a report that stated "aversion therapy is no longer recommended for gay men and lesbians" (Health Care Needs of Gay Men and Lesbians in the U.S. American Medical Association Report, 1994) and not until 2006 that using aversion therapy to treat homosexuality has been in violation of the codes of conduct and professional guidelines of the American Psychological Association and American Psychiatric Association.

In 2009, a task force was commissioned by the American Psychological Association to investigate therapies used to treat homosexuality, including aversion therapy. They reported:

:Early research on efforts to change sexual orientation focused heavily on interventions that include aversion techniques. Many of these studies did not set out to investigate harm. Nonetheless, these studies provide some suggestion that harm can occur from aversive efforts to change sexual orientation...

:We conclude that there is a dearth of scientifically sound research on the safety of SOCE. Early and recent research studies provide no clear indication of the prevalence of harmful outcomes among people who have undergone efforts to change their sexual orientation or the frequency of occurrence of harm because no study to date of adequate scientific rigor has been explicitly designed to do so. Thus, we cannot conclude how likely it is that harm will occur from SOCE. However, studies from both periods indicate that attempts to change sexual orientation may cause or exacerbate distress and poor mental health in some individuals, including depression and suicidal thoughts. The lack of rigorous research on the safety of SOCE represents a serious concern, as do studies that report perceptions of harm (cf. Lilienfeld, 2007).[http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/therapeutic-response.pdf]

==== Aversion therapy at BYU ====

BYU's contribution to the field of aversion therapy was not covered by the APA task force report. This was probably because they considered BYU's involvement to be too minor to include. Other universities had more participants, and were run later than BYU. The role of BYU in aversion therapy research was very minimal, and was limited to treating ego-dystonic homosexuality. BYU did not pioneer the therapy and it stopped therapy decades before the APA stopped recommending the practice. It was simply one of many places that did research in the area when little was known about it. The therapy was only administered on adults who agreed to the testing. They all signed consent forms before starting therapy. Unlike other places, no children underwent therapy and no one was forced to go against their will. The experiments followed all the guidelines set forth by medical professionals. Unfortunately, some of the negative consequences reported by other patients in studies at other institutions were also reported by patients in the study at BYU.

=== Purpose of psychological therapy ===

The goal of therapy is to help the patient reach their desired end. One of the fundamentals is patient self-determination. The therapist does not set the goals, but the patient. Aversion therapy is not administered to smokers as a way to torture them, but to help them achieve their goal of being smoke-free.

The therapy at BYU was administered towards people who felt distress about their sexual orientation. Distress is not a good thing. The purpose of therapy was to relieve stress. If it was known that aversion therapy would be harmful, then they probably wouldn't have administered it. People were asking for help to change their sexual orientation, major medical associations said aversion therapy would help them, so why not try to help them with the best medical knowledge available at the time?

It is unfortunate that these methods that were meant to help may have caused or exacerbated distress and poor mental health, especially depression and suicidal thoughts. (For more information on suicides, see [[Mormonism and gender issues/Same-sex attraction/Suicide|Same-sex attraction/Suicide]].) There is an inherent risk in therapy for mental illnesses. Unfortunately, these risks were not fully understood in the 1970s.

=== Academic freedom at BYU ===
{{Main|Mormonism and education}}

When we hear of negative consequences from these therapies, some people wonder what the church could have done to stop it. Unfortunately, there was little that the church could have done. The church did not endorse BYU's experiments. They don't typically endorse any experiments at BYU. Some people have the wrong impression that the church mandates what experiments are done, and which are not. This is not true. Even at BYU, people have a variety of opinions and approaches for doing things.

The Church rarely interferes with what is done at BYU, and there would have been little reason for the Church to stop the experiments as it was conducted according to then-standard practices. Graduate students at BYU have significant freedom to pursue whatever academic interests they want. Especially in areas such as psychological research and therapy, BYU relies heavily on standards set forth by professional associations. This is partially needed so the school can be accredited. If the school starts imposing their own standards, rather than those used by professional associations, it could loose accreditation.

Besides the problem of making up their own standards, it is contrary to Mormonism to command in all things. Mormons are encouraged to think for themselves, and find their own answers to questions. Doctrine and Covenants 58:26 reads:

:For behold, it is not meet that I should command in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant; wherefore he receiveth no reward.

Encouraging academic freedom and individual agency unfortunately means that sometimes people will make mistakes. Sometimes they will run experiments and not have them turn out the way they want to. However, the answer is not to do away with academic freedom.

=={{Conclusion label}}==

Like many other places in the western world, aversion therapy was conducted by a graduate student at BYU in the 1970s. These experiments were conducted following standards published by professional societies, and was only conducted on adults who gave their permission. Like most experiments at BYU, they were designed and conducted by researchers at the University. For better or for worse, the Church typically does not interfere with standard experiments run by graduate students. Given the knowledge available at the time, the church had little reason to interfere with these experiments.

=={{Endnotes label}}==

A significant number of hospitals and universities offered aversion therapy as a way to treat homosexuality. It would be impossible to list all of them, but here are a few of the major places where people were involved in research and development of using aversion therapy to treat homosexuality:

- The University of New South Wales [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V5W-45XTVVT-89&_user=10&_coverDate=12%2F31%2F1981&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1681661053&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=a942e6089eba7694d0116091f6f51b38&searchtype=a]

- Joint project from Harvard and University of Chicago [http://archpsyc.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/25/4/314]

- The Royal College of Psychiatrists [http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/abstract/115/529/1417] [http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/citation/115/520/339]

- University of Vermont [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/4690218] [http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/abn/81/1/60/]

- University of Glasglow [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1812608/?page=1]

- Illinois State University [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V5V-46JGXS6-4&_user=10&_coverDate=09%2F30%2F1972&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1681836896&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=99693da1b0a79bafb66badcd1de34ba6&searchtype=a]

- University of Louisville [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B7XMW-4K664R0-8&_user=10&_coverDate=03%2F31%2F1975&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1683127764&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=f2a618b828f15769fd42d213612da034&searchtype=a]

- Glenside Hospital [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1957923/pdf/brmedj02859-0056.pdf]

- University of Toronto [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B7XMW-4K605GH-9&_user=10&_coverDate=04%2F30%2F1971&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1683142140&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=9ea2a557c8b953234e666f603596e72a&searchtype=a] [http://www.mhamic.org/sources/freund.htm]

- King's College, London [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V5W-4VT1WJ3-C&_user=10&_coverDate=12%2F31%2F1972&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1683171148&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=1dbf2c8194438bf0daa9dc176d847b3f&searchtype=a]

- University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V5V-46KC6WM-1D&_user=10&_coverDate=12%2F31%2F1972&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=32d542dfb72d160bd92504744f3ef810&searchtype=a]

- Crumpsall Hospital [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1842087/?page=1]

- Allan Memorial Institute [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B7XMW-4K605KB-4&_user=10&_coverDate=01%2F31%2F1972&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1683181121&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=384b29ea4d021e09974f7f263e31ee6a&searchtype=a]

- Northeast Guidance Center [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B7XMW-4K664PP-7&_user=10&_coverDate=10%2F31%2F1975&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1681671317&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=93ae98d985c42fe37a42148137749fbf&searchtype=a#fn1]

- Center for Behavior Change [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V5W-4VS5RSF-8&_user=10&_coverDate=05%2F31%2F1973&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1681676165&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=8e09375e2e0e0fd272dc6c3994853f79&searchtype=a]

- University of Pennsylvania

=={{Further reading label}}==

==={{FAIR wiki articles label}}===
{{SSA wiki}}

==={{FAIR web site label}}===
{{SSA FAIR}}

==={{External links label}}===
{{SSA links}}

==={{Printed material label}}===
{{SSA print}}

{{Articles Footer 1}} {{Articles Footer 2}} {{Articles Footer 3}} {{Articles Footer 4}} {{Articles Footer 5}} {{Articles Footer 6}} {{Articles Footer 7}} {{Articles Footer 8}} {{Articles Footer 9}} {{Articles Footer 10}}

Homosexuality and the Church of Jesus Christ/Aversion therapy performed at BYU

2011-03-14T14:58:13Z

Awyatt: /* History of aversion therapy and homosexuality */

{{Articles FAIR copyright}} {{Articles Header 1}} {{Articles Header 2}} {{Articles Header 3}} {{Articles Header 4}} {{Articles Header 5}} {{Articles Header 6}} {{Articles Header 7}} {{Articles Header 8}} {{Articles Header 9}} {{Articles Header 10}}

{{draft}}

=={{Question label}}==

* What was the history of BYU and aversion therapy for treating homosexuality?
* How did that relate to modern science at that time?
* What was the role of the Church in BYU's treatments

=={{Response label}}==

In the mid-1970s, a graduate student at Brigham Young University conducted a number of experiments in the use of aversion therapy to treat ego-dystonic homosexuality. At the time, homosexuality was considered a mental illness and aversion therapy was a standard practice for cure. Experiments were run on a volunteer basis adhering to the professional standards of the time. Even so, there is no indication that anyone from the church leadership was aware of the experiments. Church leadership is typically not involved in minute details of the daily activities of BYU such as approving standard procedures being run by graduate students.

There are reports of bishops counseling people to undergo aversion therapy. These reports have not been verified, but it is not uncommon for bishops to counsel people to go to standard therapies recommended by professional societies. The church itself has never recommended aversion therapy. President Kimball did quote from several reputable medical sources about how the practice of homosexuality could be abandoned through treatments, but he did not specify what treatments those were.

Elder Oaks stated:

:"The Church rarely takes a position on which treatment techniques are appropriate, for medical doctors or for psychiatrists or psychologists and so on. The second point is that there are abusive practices that have been used in connection with various mental attitudes or feelings. Over-medication in respect to depression is an example that comes to mind. The aversive therapies that have been used in connection with same-sex attraction have contained some serious abuses that have been recognized over time within the professions. While we have no position about what the medical doctors do (except in very, very rare cases — abortion would be such an example), we are conscious that there are abuses and we don’t accept responsibility for those abuses. Even though they are addressed at helping people we would like to see helped, we can’t endorse every kind of technique that’s been used."

=== Aversion therapy is a standard technique ===

Aversion therapy is still used today for a variety of treatments, such as gambling, smoking, alcoholism, and violence. A 2010 article in Psychology Today states "To date, aversion therapy using shock and nausea is the only technique of quitting [smoking] that offers decent gambling odds."[http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-human-beast/201002/smoking-most-effective-quitting-technique-little-known] The Encyclopedia of Mental Disorders has this entry for aversion therapy:

:A patient who consults a behavior therapist for aversion therapy can expect a fairly standard set of procedures. The therapist begins by assessing the problem, most likely measuring its frequency, severity, and the environment in which the undesirable behavior occurs. Although the therapeutic relationship is not the focus of treatment for the behavior therapist, therapists in this tradition believe that good rapport will facilitate a successful outcome. A positive relationship is also necessary to establish the patient's confidence in the rationale for exposing him or her to an uncomfortable stimulus. The therapist will design a treatment protocol and explain it to the patient. The most important choice the therapist makes is the type of aversive stimulus to employ. Depending upon the behavior to be changed, the preferred aversive stimulus is often electric stimulation delivered to the forearm or leg. [http://www.minddisorders.com/A-Br/Aversion-therapy.html]

Over the years, the methods have been refined and approved. Today, we have decades of research that were not available in the 1970s. It was not known where aversion therapy would be effective and where it would not be effective. The methods of the 1970s may seem crude compared to today's standards, but today's standards will probably seem crude in another 40 years. For whatever reason, aversion therapy is still a therapy used by mainstream psychologists.

Citing of state of the art therapy should NOT be taken as an endorsement of such therapy. It just helps to understand how aversion therapy is used in general.

=== History of aversion therapy and homosexuality ===

In 1966 Martin E.P. Seligman conducted a study at the University of Pennsylvania which showed positive results in applying aversion therapy to help people stop engaging in homosexual behavior. According to Seligman, this lead to "a great burst of enthusiasm about changing homosexuality [that] swept over the therapeutic community." (p. 156, Seligman, Martin E.P., What You Can Change and What You Can't: The Complete Guide to Self Improvement Knopf, 1993; ISBN 0-679-41024-4)

Historically, there were two types of homosexuality that were treated, ego-dystonic homosexuality and ego-syntonic homosexuality. The therapy administered at BYU was used to treat ego-dystonic homosexuality. This is when a patient experiences distress over their sexual orientation, and the goal of the therapy is to reduce that stress. Ego-dystonic homosexuality was considered a mental illness by the American Psychological Association until 1987, and is still considered a mental illness by the World Health Organization. [http://apps.who.int/classifications/apps/icd/icd10online/?gf60.htm+f661] Unlike other places, BYU never used aversion therapy to treat ego-sytonic homosexuality, which is where the patient is content with their sexual orientation. The World Health Organization stopped considering ego-synotic homosexuality to be a mental illness in 1992.

Even after the declassification, aversion therapy could still be used to treat distress over sexual orientation, which is still classified as a sexual disorder in the DSM-IV. It was not until 1994, that the American Medical Association issued a report that stated "aversion therapy is no longer recommended for gay men and lesbians" (Health Care Needs of Gay Men and Lesbians in the U.S. American Medical Association Report, 1994) and not until 2006 that using aversion therapy to treat homosexuality has been in violation of the codes of conduct and professional guidelines of the American Psychological Association and American Psychiatric Association.

In 2009, a task force was commissioned by the American Psychological Association to investigate therapies used to treat homosexuality, including aversion therapy. They reported:

:Early research on efforts to change sexual orientation focused heavily on interventions that include aversion techniques. Many of these studies did not set out to investigate harm. Nonetheless, these studies provide some suggestion that harm can occur from aversive efforts to change sexual orientation...

:We conclude that there is a dearth of scientifically sound research on the safety of SOCE. Early and recent research studies provide no clear indication of the prevalence of harmful outcomes among people who have undergone efforts to change their sexual orientation or the frequency of occurrence of harm because no study to date of adequate scientific rigor has been explicitly designed to do so. Thus, we cannot conclude how likely it is that harm will occur from SOCE. However, studies from both periods indicate that attempts to change sexual orientation may cause or exacerbate distress and poor mental health in some individuals, including depression and suicidal thoughts. The lack of rigorous research on the safety of SOCE represents a serious concern, as do studies that report perceptions of harm (cf. Lilienfeld, 2007).[http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/therapeutic-response.pdf]

It is unfortunate that these methods that were meant to help may have caused or exacerbate distress and poor mental health, especially depression and suicidal thoughts. There is a risk in therapy for mental illnesses. Unfortunately, these risks were not known in the 1970s.

BYU's contribution to the field of aversion therapy was not covered by the APA task force report. This was probably because they considered BYU's involvement too minor to include. The role of BYU in aversion therapy research was very minimal, and was limited to treating ego-dystonic homosexuality. The major research was done by a single graduate student, Max McFord, who did not remain at BYU after graduation. BYU did not pioneer the therapy and it stopped therapy decades before the APA stopped recommending the practice. It was simply one of many places that did research in the area when little was known about it. People volunteered for the therapy and it followed all the guidelines set forth by medical professionals. Unfortunately, some of the negative consequences reported by other patients in studies at other institutions were also reported by patients in the study at BYU.

=== Academic freedom at BYU ===
{{Main|Mormonism and education}}

When we hear of negative consequences from these therapies, some people wonder what the church could have done to stop it. Unfortunately, there was little that church could have done. The church did not endorse what McBride did, but it had little reason to stop it as it was conducted according to then-standard practices. Graduate students at BYU have significant freedom to pursue whatever academic interests they want. Not all graduate students at BYU are members of the church, and it would be difficult for the church to impose restrictions about what can be researched without a good reason for doing so. Especially in areas such as psychological research and therapy, BYU relies heavily on standards set forth by professional associations. This is partially needed so the school can be accredited. If the school starts imposing their own standards, rather than those used by professional associations, it could loose accreditation.

Besides the problem of making up their own standards, it is contrary to Mormonism to command in all things. Mormons are encouraged to think for themselves, and find their own answers to questions. Doctrine and Covenants 58:26 reads:

:For behold, it is not meet that I should command in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant; wherefore he receiveth no reward.

Encouraging academic freedom and individual agency unfortunately means that sometimes people will make mistakes. Sometimes they will run experiments and not have them turn out the way they want to. However, the answer is not to do away with academic freedom.

=={{Conclusion label}}==

Like many other places in the western world, aversion therapy was conducted by a graduate student at BYU in the 1970s. These experiments were conducted following standards put out by professional societies. Given the knowledge available at the time, the church had little power or reason to interfere with these experiments. Research conducted by graduate students at BYU are usually conducted without any input from the church.

=={{Endnotes label}}==

=={{Further reading label}}==

==={{FAIR wiki articles label}}===
{{SSA wiki}}

==={{FAIR web site label}}===
{{SSA FAIR}}

==={{External links label}}===
{{SSA links}}

==={{Printed material label}}===
{{SSA print}}

{{Articles Footer 1}} {{Articles Footer 2}} {{Articles Footer 3}} {{Articles Footer 4}} {{Articles Footer 5}} {{Articles Footer 6}} {{Articles Footer 7}} {{Articles Footer 8}} {{Articles Footer 9}} {{Articles Footer 10}}

Homosexuality and the Church of Jesus Christ/Aversion therapy performed at BYU

2011-03-14T14:55:11Z

Awyatt: /* Academic freedom at BYU */

{{Articles FAIR copyright}} {{Articles Header 1}} {{Articles Header 2}} {{Articles Header 3}} {{Articles Header 4}} {{Articles Header 5}} {{Articles Header 6}} {{Articles Header 7}} {{Articles Header 8}} {{Articles Header 9}} {{Articles Header 10}}

{{draft}}

=={{Question label}}==

* What was the history of BYU and aversion therapy for treating homosexuality?
* How did that relate to modern science at that time?
* What was the role of the Church in BYU's treatments

=={{Response label}}==

In the mid-1970s, a graduate student at Brigham Young University conducted a number of experiments in the use of aversion therapy to treat ego-dystonic homosexuality. At the time, homosexuality was considered a mental illness and aversion therapy was a standard practice for cure. Experiments were run on a volunteer basis adhering to the professional standards of the time. Even so, there is no indication that anyone from the church leadership was aware of the experiments. Church leadership is typically not involved in minute details of the daily activities of BYU such as approving standard procedures being run by graduate students.

There are reports of bishops counseling people to undergo aversion therapy. These reports have not been verified, but it is not uncommon for bishops to counsel people to go to standard therapies recommended by professional societies. The church itself has never recommended aversion therapy. President Kimball did quote from several reputable medical sources about how the practice of homosexuality could be abandoned through treatments, but he did not specify what treatments those were.

Elder Oaks stated:

:"The Church rarely takes a position on which treatment techniques are appropriate, for medical doctors or for psychiatrists or psychologists and so on. The second point is that there are abusive practices that have been used in connection with various mental attitudes or feelings. Over-medication in respect to depression is an example that comes to mind. The aversive therapies that have been used in connection with same-sex attraction have contained some serious abuses that have been recognized over time within the professions. While we have no position about what the medical doctors do (except in very, very rare cases — abortion would be such an example), we are conscious that there are abuses and we don’t accept responsibility for those abuses. Even though they are addressed at helping people we would like to see helped, we can’t endorse every kind of technique that’s been used."

=== Aversion therapy is a standard technique ===

Aversion therapy is still used today for a variety of treatments, such as gambling, smoking, alcoholism, and violence. A 2010 article in Psychology Today states "To date, aversion therapy using shock and nausea is the only technique of quitting [smoking] that offers decent gambling odds."[http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-human-beast/201002/smoking-most-effective-quitting-technique-little-known] The Encyclopedia of Mental Disorders has this entry for aversion therapy:

:A patient who consults a behavior therapist for aversion therapy can expect a fairly standard set of procedures. The therapist begins by assessing the problem, most likely measuring its frequency, severity, and the environment in which the undesirable behavior occurs. Although the therapeutic relationship is not the focus of treatment for the behavior therapist, therapists in this tradition believe that good rapport will facilitate a successful outcome. A positive relationship is also necessary to establish the patient's confidence in the rationale for exposing him or her to an uncomfortable stimulus. The therapist will design a treatment protocol and explain it to the patient. The most important choice the therapist makes is the type of aversive stimulus to employ. Depending upon the behavior to be changed, the preferred aversive stimulus is often electric stimulation delivered to the forearm or leg. [http://www.minddisorders.com/A-Br/Aversion-therapy.html]

Over the years, the methods have been refined and approved. Today, we have decades of research that were not available in the 1970s. It was not known where aversion therapy would be effective and where it would not be effective. The methods of the 1970s may seem crude compared to today's standards, but today's standards will probably seem crude in another 40 years. For whatever reason, aversion therapy is still a therapy used by mainstream psychologists.

Citing of state of the art therapy should NOT be taken as an endorsement of such therapy. It just helps to understand how aversion therapy is used in general.

=== History of aversion therapy and homosexuality ===

In 1966 Martin E.P. Seligman conducted a study at the University of Pennsylvania which showed positive results in applying aversion therapy to help people stop engaging in homosexual behavior. According to Seligman, this lead to "a great burst of enthusiasm about changing homosexuality [that] swept over the therapeutic community." (p. 156, Seligman, Martin E.P., What You Can Change and What You Can't: The Complete Guide to Self Improvement Knopf, 1993; ISBN 0-679-41024-4)

Historically, there were two types of homosexuality that were treated, ego-dystonic homosexuality and ego-syntonic homosexuality. The therapy administered at BYU was used to treat ego-dystonic homosexuality. This is when a patient experiences distress over their sexual orientation, and the goal of the therapy is to reduce that stress. Ego-dystonic homosexuality was considered a mental illness by the American Psychological Association until 1987, and is still considered a mental illness by the World Health Organization. [http://apps.who.int/classifications/apps/icd/icd10online/?gf60.htm+f661] Unlike other places, BYU never used aversion therapy to treat ego-sytonic homosexuality, which is where the patient is content with their sexual orientation. The World Health Organization stopped considering ego-synotic homosexuality to be a mental illness in 1992.

Even after the declassification, aversion therapy could still be used to treat distress over sexual orientation, which is still classified as a sexual disorder in the DSM-IV. It was not until 1994, that the American Medical Association issued a report that stated "aversion therapy is no longer recommended for gay men and lesbians" (Health Care Needs of Gay Men and Lesbians in the U.S. American Medical Association Report, 1994) and not until 2006 that using aversion therapy to treat homosexuality has been in violation of the codes of conduct and professional guidelines of the American Psychological Association and American Psychiatric Association.

In 2009, a task force was commissioned by the American Psychological Association to investigate therapies used to treat homosexuality, including aversion therapy. They reported:

:Early research on efforts to change sexual orientation focused heavily on interventions that include aversion techniques. Many of these studies did not set out to investigate harm. Nonetheless, these studies provide some suggestion that harm can occur from aversive efforts to change sexual orientation...

:We conclude that there is a dearth of scientifically sound research on the safety of SOCE. Early and recent research studies provide no clear indication of the prevalence of harmful outcomes among people who have undergone efforts to change their sexual orientation or the frequency of occurrence of harm because no study to date of adequate scientific rigor has been explicitly designed to do so. Thus, we cannot conclude how likely it is that harm will occur from SOCE. However, studies from both periods indicate that attempts to change sexual orientation may cause or exacerbate distress and poor mental health in some individuals, including depression and suicidal thoughts. The lack of rigorous research on the safety of SOCE represents a serious concern, as do studies that report perceptions of harm (cf. Lilienfeld, 2007).[http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/therapeutic-response.pdf]

It is unfortunate that these methods that were meant to help may have caused or exacerbate distress and poor mental health, especially depression and suicidal thoughts. There is a risk in therapy for mental illnesses. Unfortunately, these risks were not known in the 1970s.

BYU's contribution to the field of aversion therapy was not covered by the APA task force report. This was probably because they considered BYU's involvement too minor to include. The role of BYU in aversion therapy research was very minimal, and was limited to treating ego-dystonic homosexuality. The major research was done by a single graduate student, Max McFord, who did not remain at BYU after graduation. BYU did not pioneer the therapy and it stopped therapy decades before the APA stopped recommending the practice. It was simply one of many places that did research in the area when little was known about it. People volunteered for the therapy and it followed all the guidelines set forth by medical professionals. Unfortunately, some of the negative consequences reported by other patients were also reported by patients at BYU.

=== Academic freedom at BYU ===
{{Main|Mormonism and education}}

When we hear of negative consequences from these therapies, some people wonder what the church could have done to stop it. Unfortunately, there was little that church could have done. The church did not endorse what McBride did, but it had little reason to stop it as it was conducted according to then-standard practices. Graduate students at BYU have significant freedom to pursue whatever academic interests they want. Not all graduate students at BYU are members of the church, and it would be difficult for the church to impose restrictions about what can be researched without a good reason for doing so. Especially in areas such as psychological research and therapy, BYU relies heavily on standards set forth by professional associations. This is partially needed so the school can be accredited. If the school starts imposing their own standards, rather than those used by professional associations, it could loose accreditation.

Besides the problem of making up their own standards, it is contrary to Mormonism to command in all things. Mormons are encouraged to think for themselves, and find their own answers to questions. Doctrine and Covenants 58:26 reads:

:For behold, it is not meet that I should command in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant; wherefore he receiveth no reward.

Encouraging academic freedom and individual agency unfortunately means that sometimes people will make mistakes. Sometimes they will run experiments and not have them turn out the way they want to. However, the answer is not to do away with academic freedom.

=={{Conclusion label}}==

Like many other places in the western world, aversion therapy was conducted by a graduate student at BYU in the 1970s. These experiments were conducted following standards put out by professional societies. Given the knowledge available at the time, the church had little power or reason to interfere with these experiments. Research conducted by graduate students at BYU are usually conducted without any input from the church.

=={{Endnotes label}}==

=={{Further reading label}}==

==={{FAIR wiki articles label}}===
{{SSA wiki}}

==={{FAIR web site label}}===
{{SSA FAIR}}

==={{External links label}}===
{{SSA links}}

==={{Printed material label}}===
{{SSA print}}

{{Articles Footer 1}} {{Articles Footer 2}} {{Articles Footer 3}} {{Articles Footer 4}} {{Articles Footer 5}} {{Articles Footer 6}} {{Articles Footer 7}} {{Articles Footer 8}} {{Articles Footer 9}} {{Articles Footer 10}}