FAIR - User contributions [en]

Mormonism and the nature of God/Polytheism

2011-07-03T22:39:53Z

BenjaminPorter: /* Human deification and monotheism */

{{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}}
{{GodPortal}}
{{question}}

=={{Question label}}==

Some of my non-LDS Christian friends have told me Mormons are polytheists because we don't believe the [[Godhead and the Trinity|Nicene Creed]]. Others say Mormons are polytheists because they believe humans can become gods. Is this an accurate characterization of LDS belief?

{{CriticalSources}}

=={{Response label}}==
Almost invariably when someone claims Mormons are polytheists, they are not seeking a clear explanation of Mormon thought on the nature of God, but are simply using a word with negative connotations in our religious culture as a club to intimidate or confuse others. Consider, for example, a conversation that Evangelical Christian author Richard Abanes, in his book ''Becoming Gods'' (pp. 107-8), claims to have had with a LDS bishop:

:Abanes: "Don't you believe in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost?"
:Bishop: "We certainly do, and they are one God."
:Abanes: "Don't you believe the Father is a god?"
:Bishop: "Yes, of course."
:Abanes: "And the Son is a god?"
:Bishop: "Yes"
:Abanes: "And the Holy Ghost is a god."
:Bishop: "Yes"
:Abanes: "That's three gods."
:Bishop: "No, they're one God."

The author goes on to describe that he felt he had entered some sort of ''Twilight Zone'' scenario, and goes on to declare all Mormons "polytheists." Yet, any Latter-day Saint, upon reading the conversation outlined above, would recognize the creation of a simplified version, or "strawman," of LDS belief. One might also seriously consider how an Evangelical Christian would answer these same questions. The reality is certainly more complex than the "strawman" above would lead us to believe.

There really is not a single word that adequately captures LDS thought on the nature of God. Pertinent key technical terminology includes the following:

* Monotheism (belief that there is only one God)
* Tritheism (understanding the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost as distinct Gods)
* Polytheism (worship of, or belief in, more than one God)
* Henotheism (worship of one God without denying the existence of other Gods; also called Monolatry)
* Trinitarianism (belief that God consists of three Persons in one substance)
* Social Trinitarianism (belief that the oneness of the three Persons is not one of substance but is social in nature [e.g., unity of thought, etc.])
* Modalism (belief that there is only one God that does not exist as three separate Persons but rather manifests itself in three different "modes" [i.e., as Father, Son, or Holy Ghost])

Usually the very same people who are pressing the case that Mormons are polytheists are some stripe of Evangelical Christians who claim to be monotheists. But Trinitarians are not Monotheists by definition (just ask a Jew or Muslim).

The facts that the LDS do not believe the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are one in [[Godhead and the Trinity|substance]], and believe in [[Deification of man|deification/theosis]] (that humans may eventually become deified and become partakers in the divine nature), has been used to paint Mormons as polytheists. When we examine the technical terminology above, though, it becomes clear that a key point of demarcation is worship versus acknowledgment of existence. If members of the Church worshiped an extensive pantheon like the Greeks or Romans, then the label would be appropriate. In the context of doctrinal differences over the relationship among the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, however, or the doctrine of deification (which is a profoundly Christian doctrine and not just a Mormon one), use of the word "polytheistic" as a pejorative is both inaccurate and inappropriate.

Instead of using a single-word label, one must actually articulate the belief (using fully-developed sentences or paragraphs). The single-word label that will adequately describe the full breadth of LDS thought on the nature of God has yet to be coined.

===Are Christians monotheists?===

Any discussion with Jews or Muslims will quickly demonstrate no Christian is, strictly speaking, a monotheist.

One of the chief objections by Jews and Muslims is Christians are polytheists. Most brands of Christians insist on the divinity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. In addition, the very word those who crafted the great ecumenical creeds used to describe the deity of Jesus, his Father and
the Holy Spirit is "trinity," meaning three. Additionally, they insisted the three Persons should not be confounded, as such would be deemed modalism (one of the primary heresies that led to the formation of the ecumenical creeds and various confessions). Modalism often insists the one God merely ''appears'' to us in three different ways (i.e., as Father, Son and Holy Spirit), and this is exactly what the creeds deny.


===Human deification and monotheism===
The Bible contains language indicating human beings can put on the divine nature and be called "gods" (see John 10:33, 34; Ps. 82:6, Deut. 10:17, etc.). They are instructed to become one with Jesus just as he is one with his Father. The key point to realize is that any existence of other beings with godly attributes has no effect on who Latter-day Saints worship. According to Jeff Lindsay, a popular LDS online apologist:

:We worship God the Father in the name of Jesus Christ - not glorious angels or Abraham or Moses or John the Baptist, no matter how great they may be in the kingdom of heaven as sons of God who have become "like Christ" (1 John 3:2). The only reasonable definition of polytheism requires that plural gods be worshiped - but the beings that Christ calls "gods" are not who we worship at all. In terms of worship, we are properly called monotheists.{{ref|lindsay}}

Additionally, there is abundant evidence of deification being taught by various commonly accepted Christians. If belief in theosis makes one a polytheist, many Christians would have to be so labeled - including such figures as C. S. Lewis and John Calvin. Clearly, this is not the way in which the term "polytheist" is normally used, but critics of the Church are often willing to be inconsistent if the Church can be made to look alien or "unchristian."

"Monotheism" is sufficiently broad to include the kind of oneness enjoyed by the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, as well as that promised to those who become one with them when fully sanctified.

=={{Conclusion label}}==

Latter-day Saints are not polytheists in any reasonable sense of the term that does not also exclude most other Christians who deny the Modalist heresy. Trying to reduce LDS thought to a simple term or "slogan" in this way distorts LDS doctrine.

The Saints worship one God. There are no competing divinities in whom they put their trust. LDS scripture contains such language ({{s|1|Nephi|13|41}}, {{s|2|Nephi|31|21}}, {{s||Mosiah|15|1-5}}, {{s||Alma|11|26-37}}, {{s||Mormon|7|7}}, {{s||DC|20|28}}, {{s||Moses|1|20}}), but it is qualified in somewhat the same way that Creedal Christians have found a way of saying "three"—as in Trinity—and yet also one.

=={{Endnotes label}}==
# {{note|lindsay}} Jeff Lindsay, "If you believe the Father and the Son are separate beings, doesn't that make you polytheistic?" ''JeffLindsay.com'' (accessed December 2007). {{link|url=http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_Relationships.shtml#poly}}

=={{Further reading label}}==

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

{{FallacyBegin}}
*[[Logical_fallacies#Appeal to belief |Appeal to belief ]]
*[[Logical_fallacies#Appeal to the majority|Appeal to the majority ]]
*[[Logical_fallacies#Appeal to tradition|Appeal to tradition ]]
*[[Logical_fallacies#Begging the question |Begging the question ]]
*[[Logical_fallacies#Faulty generalization |Faulty generalization ]]
*[[Logical_fallacies#Ideology over reality |Ideology over reality ]]
*[[Logical_fallacies#No true Scotsman |No true Scotsman ]]
*[[Logical_fallacies#Package deal fallacy|Package deal fallacy ]]
*[[Logical_fallacies#Special pleading |Special pleading ]]
{{FallacyEnd}}

*[[Lecture 5 teaches the Father is "a personage of spirit"|Lectures on Faith teaches the Father is "a personage of spirit"]]
{{Godwiki}}
{{JesusWiki}}

==={{FAIR web site label}}===
{{GodFAIR}}

==={{External links label}}===
{{GodLinks}}

==={{Printed material label}}===
{{GodPrint}}
[[de:Polytheismus]]
{{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:Nature of God/Polytheism]]

Mormonism and the nature of God/Polytheism

2011-07-03T22:37:50Z

BenjaminPorter: /* Human deification and monotheism */

{{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}}
{{GodPortal}}
{{question}}

=={{Question label}}==

Some of my non-LDS Christian friends have told me Mormons are polytheists because we don't believe the [[Godhead and the Trinity|Nicene Creed]]. Others say Mormons are polytheists because they believe humans can become gods. Is this an accurate characterization of LDS belief?

{{CriticalSources}}

=={{Response label}}==
Almost invariably when someone claims Mormons are polytheists, they are not seeking a clear explanation of Mormon thought on the nature of God, but are simply using a word with negative connotations in our religious culture as a club to intimidate or confuse others. Consider, for example, a conversation that Evangelical Christian author Richard Abanes, in his book ''Becoming Gods'' (pp. 107-8), claims to have had with a LDS bishop:

:Abanes: "Don't you believe in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost?"
:Bishop: "We certainly do, and they are one God."
:Abanes: "Don't you believe the Father is a god?"
:Bishop: "Yes, of course."
:Abanes: "And the Son is a god?"
:Bishop: "Yes"
:Abanes: "And the Holy Ghost is a god."
:Bishop: "Yes"
:Abanes: "That's three gods."
:Bishop: "No, they're one God."

The author goes on to describe that he felt he had entered some sort of ''Twilight Zone'' scenario, and goes on to declare all Mormons "polytheists." Yet, any Latter-day Saint, upon reading the conversation outlined above, would recognize the creation of a simplified version, or "strawman," of LDS belief. One might also seriously consider how an Evangelical Christian would answer these same questions. The reality is certainly more complex than the "strawman" above would lead us to believe.

There really is not a single word that adequately captures LDS thought on the nature of God. Pertinent key technical terminology includes the following:

* Monotheism (belief that there is only one God)
* Tritheism (understanding the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost as distinct Gods)
* Polytheism (worship of, or belief in, more than one God)
* Henotheism (worship of one God without denying the existence of other Gods; also called Monolatry)
* Trinitarianism (belief that God consists of three Persons in one substance)
* Social Trinitarianism (belief that the oneness of the three Persons is not one of substance but is social in nature [e.g., unity of thought, etc.])
* Modalism (belief that there is only one God that does not exist as three separate Persons but rather manifests itself in three different "modes" [i.e., as Father, Son, or Holy Ghost])

Usually the very same people who are pressing the case that Mormons are polytheists are some stripe of Evangelical Christians who claim to be monotheists. But Trinitarians are not Monotheists by definition (just ask a Jew or Muslim).

The facts that the LDS do not believe the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are one in [[Godhead and the Trinity|substance]], and believe in [[Deification of man|deification/theosis]] (that humans may eventually become deified and become partakers in the divine nature), has been used to paint Mormons as polytheists. When we examine the technical terminology above, though, it becomes clear that a key point of demarcation is worship versus acknowledgment of existence. If members of the Church worshiped an extensive pantheon like the Greeks or Romans, then the label would be appropriate. In the context of doctrinal differences over the relationship among the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, however, or the doctrine of deification (which is a profoundly Christian doctrine and not just a Mormon one), use of the word "polytheistic" as a pejorative is both inaccurate and inappropriate.

Instead of using a single-word label, one must actually articulate the belief (using fully-developed sentences or paragraphs). The single-word label that will adequately describe the full breadth of LDS thought on the nature of God has yet to be coined.

===Are Christians monotheists?===

Any discussion with Jews or Muslims will quickly demonstrate no Christian is, strictly speaking, a monotheist.

One of the chief objections by Jews and Muslims is Christians are polytheists. Most brands of Christians insist on the divinity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. In addition, the very word those who crafted the great ecumenical creeds used to describe the deity of Jesus, his Father and
the Holy Spirit is "trinity," meaning three. Additionally, they insisted the three Persons should not be confounded, as such would be deemed modalism (one of the primary heresies that led to the formation of the ecumenical creeds and various confessions). Modalism often insists the one God merely ''appears'' to us in three different ways (i.e., as Father, Son and Holy Spirit), and this is exactly what the creeds deny.


===Human deification and monotheism===
The Bible contains language indicating human beings can put on the divine nature and be called "gods" (see John 10:33, 34; Ps. 82:6, Deut. 10:17, etc.). They are instructed to become one with Jesus just as he is one with his Father. They key point is to realize the existence of other beings with godly attributes has no effect on who Latter-day Saints worship. According to Jeff Lindsay, a popular LDS online apologist:

:We worship God the Father in the name of Jesus Christ - not glorious angels or Abraham or Moses or John the Baptist, no matter how great they may be in the kingdom of heaven as sons of God who have become "like Christ" (1 John 3:2). The only reasonable definition of polytheism requires that plural gods be worshiped - but the beings that Christ calls "gods" are not who we worship at all. In terms of worship, we are properly called monotheists.{{ref|lindsay}}

Additionally, there is abundant evidence of deification being taught by various commonly accepted Christians. If belief in theosis makes one a polytheist, many Christians would have to be so labeled - including such figures as C. S. Lewis and John Calvin. Clearly, this is not the way in which the term "polytheist" is normally used, but critics of the Church are often willing to be inconsistent if the Church can be made to look alien or "unchristian."

"Monotheism" is sufficiently broad to include the kind of oneness enjoyed by the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, as well as that promised to those who become one with them when fully sanctified.

=={{Conclusion label}}==

Latter-day Saints are not polytheists in any reasonable sense of the term that does not also exclude most other Christians who deny the Modalist heresy. Trying to reduce LDS thought to a simple term or "slogan" in this way distorts LDS doctrine.

The Saints worship one God. There are no competing divinities in whom they put their trust. LDS scripture contains such language ({{s|1|Nephi|13|41}}, {{s|2|Nephi|31|21}}, {{s||Mosiah|15|1-5}}, {{s||Alma|11|26-37}}, {{s||Mormon|7|7}}, {{s||DC|20|28}}, {{s||Moses|1|20}}), but it is qualified in somewhat the same way that Creedal Christians have found a way of saying "three"—as in Trinity—and yet also one.

=={{Endnotes label}}==
# {{note|lindsay}} Jeff Lindsay, "If you believe the Father and the Son are separate beings, doesn't that make you polytheistic?" ''JeffLindsay.com'' (accessed December 2007). {{link|url=http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_Relationships.shtml#poly}}

=={{Further reading label}}==

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

{{FallacyBegin}}
*[[Logical_fallacies#Appeal to belief |Appeal to belief ]]
*[[Logical_fallacies#Appeal to the majority|Appeal to the majority ]]
*[[Logical_fallacies#Appeal to tradition|Appeal to tradition ]]
*[[Logical_fallacies#Begging the question |Begging the question ]]
*[[Logical_fallacies#Faulty generalization |Faulty generalization ]]
*[[Logical_fallacies#Ideology over reality |Ideology over reality ]]
*[[Logical_fallacies#No true Scotsman |No true Scotsman ]]
*[[Logical_fallacies#Package deal fallacy|Package deal fallacy ]]
*[[Logical_fallacies#Special pleading |Special pleading ]]
{{FallacyEnd}}

*[[Lecture 5 teaches the Father is "a personage of spirit"|Lectures on Faith teaches the Father is "a personage of spirit"]]
{{Godwiki}}
{{JesusWiki}}

==={{FAIR web site label}}===
{{GodFAIR}}

==={{External links label}}===
{{GodLinks}}

==={{Printed material label}}===
{{GodPrint}}
[[de:Polytheismus]]
{{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:Nature of God/Polytheism]]

Mormon ordinances/Sacrament/Method of administration

2009-09-09T11:28:55Z

BenjaminPorter: /* Use of water */

{{question}}

==Question==

Why does the LDS Church use water instead of wine for its sacrament services? The Doctrine and Covenants even allows for wine to be used, despite the Word of Wisdom's prohibitions on alcohol (see {{s||DC|89|5-6}}).

===Source(s) of criticism===
*{{CriticalWork:McKeeverJohnson:Mormonism 101|pages=Chapter 13}}

==Answer==

Latter-day Saints emphatically affirm our reliance on the atoning blood of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins as attested to in the Bible ({{s||Colossians|1|14}}; {{s|1|Peter|1|18-19}}; {{s|1|John|1|7}};{{s||Revelation|7|14}}) and modern scripture ({{s|1|Nephi|12|10}}; {{s||Mosiah3|7,11}}; {{s||Mosiah|4|2}}; {{s||Alma|5|21,27}}; {{s||Alma|21|9}};{{s||Alma|24|13}}; {{s||Alma|34|36}}; {{s||Helaman|27|19}}; {{s||Ether|13|10}}; {{s||Moroni|4|1}};{{s||Moroni|5|2}}; {{s||Moroni|10|33}}; {{s||DC|20|40}}; {{s||DC|27|2}}; {{s||DC|76|69}}; {{s||Moses|6|62}}).{{ref|source1}}

Even the sacrament prayer given at the beginning of the administration of the water affirms the symbolism of the atoning blood. It states in part: "... bless and sanctify this water to the souls of all those who drink of it, that they do it in remembrance of the blood of thy Son, which was shed for them..." ({{s||DC|20|79}}).

===Use of water===

As to our use of water in place of grape juice ("new wine"—see {{s||Isaiah|65|8}}), it is important to note that initially grape juice was used in the sacrament both in the early church ({{s||Matthew|26|28-29}}) and in the latter-day church ({{s||DC|20|79}}).{{ref|fn1}} As a precaution against enemies of the Church poisoning or adulterating the grape juice sold to the Saints, a change was authorized by the Lord.{{ref|fn2}} The Lord revealed, "that it mattereth not what ye shall eat or what ye shall drink when ye partake of the sacrament, if it so be that ye do it with an eye single to my glory—remembering unto the Father my body which was laid down for you, and my blood which was shed for the remission of your sins" ({{s||DC|27|1-2}}).

===Bread and the cup===
It is interesting to note that the command throughout the scriptures was not to partake of the bread and wine but rather of the bread and the cup ({{s||Matthew|26|27}}; {{s||Mark|14|23}}; {{s||Luke|22|20}}; {{s|1|Corinthians|11|25-26}}). It therefore appears that it was not the wine that was being emphasized but the "bitter cup" ({{s||DC|19|18}}) of which Christ would partake ({{s||Matthew|20|22-23}}; {{s||Matthew|26|27,39,42}}; {{s||Mark|10|38}}; {{s||Mark|14|23,36}}; {{s||Luke|22|17,20,42}}; {{s||John|18|11}}; {{s|1|Corinthians|10|21}}; {{s|1|Corinthians|11|25}}). This is also in conformity with the Old Testament usage of the term "cup" to symbolize suffering ({{s||Psalm|11|6}}; {{s||Psalm|75|8}}; {{s||Isaiah|51|17,22}}; {{s||Jeremiah|25|15,17}}; {{s||Jeremiah|49|12}}).{{ref|fn3}}

===Early Christian practice===
It is noteworthy that some early Christians used both water and wine in the sacrament. Justin Martyr (ca. 140 A.D.) recorded:

:On Sunday we hold a meeting in one place for all who live in the cities or the country nearby. The teachings of the Apostles or the writings of the prophets are read as long as time is available. When the reader has finished, the president gives a talk urging and inviting us to imitate all these good examples. We then all stand together and send up our prayers. As noted before, bread, wine and water is brought forth after our prayer. The president also sends up prayers and thanksgivings. The people unitedly give their consent by saying, "Amen." The administration takes place, and each one receives what has been blessed with gratefulness. The deacons also administer to those not present... We all choose Sunday for our communal gathering because it is the first day, on which God created the universe by transforming the darkness and the basic elements, and because Jesus Christ—our Redeeming Savior—rose from the dead on the same day.{{ref|fn4}}

This practice was also mentioned by Pope Julius I (A.D. 337) in a decree which stated: "But if necessary let the cluster be pressed into the cup and water mingled with it."{{ref|fn5}} This practice of mixing wine and water may be related to the fact that both blood and water were shed on the cross. John recorded that, "one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water" ({{s||John|19|34}}). John latter recorded that, "there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one" (1 Jn. 5:8). In like manner baptism by water was also related by Paul to Christ's death ({{s||Romans|6|3-5}}).

Samuele Bacchiocchi, a non-Mormon scholar, has observed that

:An investigation... of such Jewish Christian sects as the Ebionites, the Nazarenes, the Elkesaites, and the Encratites, might provide considerable support for abstinence from fermented wine in the Apostolic Church. The fact that some of these sects went to the extreme of rejecting altogether both fermented and unfermented wine using only water, even in the celebration of the Lord's Supper, suggests the existence of a prevailing concern for abstinence in the Apostolic Church.{{ref|fn6}}

It also suggests that early Christians understood that "it mattereth not what ye shall eat or drink when [partaking] of the sacrament" ({{s||DC|27|1-2}}).

===Later developments in Christianity===

Catholics at a much later period also substituted the Eucharist for the bread and wine of the Lord's Supper, believing that it would literally be turned into the flesh and blood of the Lord.{{ref|fn7}}

Although the latter practice was introduced during a period of what the LDS understand to be the apostasy from the fulness of gospel doctrine and authority, it nonetheless shows that some Christians felt it was permissible to modify the observance of the sacrament even without direction from the Lord.

==Conclusion==
The LDS sacrament service is observed often and within the guidelines given by the Lord as prescribed in LDS scriptures (See {{s||John|6|53-54}}; {{s||Acts|2|46}}; {{s||Acts|20|7}}; {{s|1|Corinthians|11|23-30}}; {{s||Moroni|4-5||}}; {{s||DC|20|75-79}}; {{s||DC|27|1-4}}). Early Christian practices are useful illustrations of the fact that LDS practice is not foreign to Christianity generally, but the LDS rely on scripture and the teachings of modern prophets for their forms of worship.

==Endnotes==

#{{note|source1}} This wiki article was originally based upon {{AnsweringChallengingQuestions| start=131|end=133}} It has been subsequently edited by FAIR wiki editors.
#{{note|fn1}} {{HoC1|vol=1|start=78}}
#{{note|fn2}} {{HC|vol=1|start=106|end=108}} See also ''Church History and Modern Revelation'', 1:132; ''Doctrine and Covenants Student Manual'', 55.
#{{note|fn3}} See also {{JtC1|start=620, note 8}}
#{{note|fn4}} {{Anf| author=Justin Martyr|article=First Apology|citation=?|vol=?|start=65|end=67 }}; cited by {{FirmFoundation1 ||start=231}}
#{{note|fn5}} Gratian, ''De Consecratione'', Pars III, Dist. 2, c. 7, as cited by Leon C. Field, ''Oinos: A Discussion of the Bible Wine Question'' (New York, 1883), 91, and Samuele Bacchiocchi, ''Wine in the Bible : A Biblical Study on the Use of Alcoholic Beverages '' (Biblical Perspectives, 1989), 109–110. ISBN 1930987072.
#{{note|fn6}} Samuele Bacchiocchi, ''Wine in the Bible : A Biblical Study on the Use of Alcoholic Beverages '' (Biblical Perspectives, 1989), 181. ISBN 1930987072.
#{{note|fn7}} See {{MD1|start=241}} or James Cardinal Gibbons, ''The Faith of our Fathers'' (T A N Books & Publishers, 1980), 235–250. ISBN 0895551586.

==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===
{{WoWWiki}}

===FAIR web site===
{{WoWFAIR}}

===External links===
{{WoWLinks}}

===Printed material===
{{WoWPrint}}

Paid and unpaid Church leaders

2009-08-31T10:56:42Z

BenjaminPorter: /* No professional ministers */

==Criticism==
Critics claim that Mormonism prides itself in having unpaid clergy as one proof of the Church's truthfulness. They then point to the fact that some General Authorities, mission presidents, and others do, in fact, receive a living stipend while serving the Church, and point to this as evidence of the “hypocrisy” of the Church.

===Source(s) of the criticism===
* Bill McKeever, "Mormonism's Paid Ministry,"  (accessed April 28, 2008). 
* Sandra Tanner, "Do Mormon Leaders Receive Financial Support?"  (accessed April 28, 2008).
==Response==
===A modest living stipend===
Some members of the Church are unaware that at least some General Authorities do receive a modest living stipend. While it is true that some Church leaders receive a living allowance while they serve in a given position, it cannot be said that the Church has a professional ministry in the traditional sense.

A call to serve as a General Authority usually comes later in life, and none of these men has depended upon their Church service for their "career" or "income." Given the high caliber accomplishments of those called to full-time service, it is reasonable to expect that they could make a lot more money (with less trouble) in some other field of endeavor.

The fact that this stipend exists has not been hidden. As President Hinckley noted in General Conference:

:Merchandising interests are an outgrowth of the cooperative movement which existed among our people in pioneer times. The Church has maintained certain real estate holdings, particularly those contiguous to Temple Square, to help preserve the beauty and the integrity of the core of the city. All of these commercial properties are tax-paying entities.

:I repeat, the combined income from all of these business interests is relatively small and would not keep the work going for longer than a very brief period.

:''I should like to add, parenthetically for your information, that the living allowances given the General Authorities, which are very modest in comparison with executive compensation in industry and the professions, come from this business income and not from the tithing of the people.''{{ref|hinckley1}}

===A Scriptural Basis===
Latter-day Saints care for their members through a resource known as the Bishop's Storehouse. This storehouse is filled through the contributions of members and includes temporal resources to assist individuals who have unmet temporal needs. It is administered through the office of the Presiding Bishopric of the Church and through the local administration of ward Bishop's. {{s||DC|42|71-73|}} accounts for the support of individuals called to full time service in the Church. While the Church does not currently use the Bishop's Storehouse to provide for the temporal needs of General Authorities, as mentioned above, it does indicate a scriptural basis for them to receive support when warranted and according to their needs.

===Priestcraft===

Church members have a particular sensitivity to issues surrounding paid ministries particularly due to admonitions in the Book of Mormon relative to a practices known as priestcraft, which is "that men preach and set themselves up for a light unto the world, that they may get gain and praise of the world; but they seek not the welfare of Zion" (see {{s|2|Nephi|26|29}}). It is warned against and decried repeatedly (see {{s||Alma|1|12,16}}, {{s|3|Ne|16|10}}, {{s|3|Ne|21|19}}, {{s|3|Ne|30|2}}, {{s||DC|33|4}}). For this reason, the idea of compensation for service seems contradictory to strongly held values of the Latter-day Saint community. However, it should be noted that priestcraft as it has been defined is a condemnation of intent (to get gain and praise, and not for the welfare of Zion), and not about an individual receiving support. Living stipends are not compensations for service, but recognition of a practical reality that individuals who dedicate their full time to Church service are sometimes unable to simultaneously provide for their own modest living needs.

The example of King Benjamin adds to the LDS value of self sufficiency of leaders in particular. Benjamin, while king, still labored for his own support (see {{s||Mosiah|2|14}}). This is a very admirable demonstration of humility on the part of the king. However, this example was being used in the context of his political position as king, and would be comparable to a President refusing to accept his salary for his service. It should not be used to condemn the practice of helping provide for the modest living needs of full time leaders who are unable to dedicate time to earning a living.

===No professional ministers===

There can be no doubt that the Church ''does'' have an unpaid ministry. More precisely, it does not have a ''professional'' clergy. Consider:
* the Church does not graduate individuals with degrees in theology for the purpose of being used in an employed position as an ecclesiastical leader.
* the vast majority of leadership positions in the Church are filled by those who receive absolutely no financial assistance and who have no formal training in theology or Church administration. This includes bishops, stake presidents, Area Authority Seventies, Relief Society presidents, priests, teachers, deacons, and elders, etc.
* Missionaries or their families typically pay for the costs of their missions.
* the Church has no professional ministry — one does not "go into" the priesthood in Mormonism as a form of employment. The Church believes that "a man must be called of God, by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority, to preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof."{{ref|5thart}} No one can enter Church ecclesiastical government or administration as a career.
* those few Church leaders who receive a living allowance, have already served for many years in unpaid volunteer positions of Church leadership, from which they derived no financial gain, and from which they could have had little expectation of making their livelihood by being elevated to high positions in Church administration.
* the Book of Mormon makes provision for Church leaders to be supported by donations ''if'' they are in a position of financial need: "all their priests and teachers should labor with their own hands for their support, in all cases save it were in sickness, or in much want; and doing these things, they did abound in the grace of God."{{ref|bom1}}
* the Doctrine and Covenants makes provisions for Church leaders to be supported by donations (see {{s||DC|42|71-73}}).
* General Authorities previously sat on the boards of Church-owned businesses. This practice was discontinued in 1996.{{ref|board1}}

===Local Leadership (Ward and Stake)===

Much of the day-to-day “ministering” that goes on in the Church takes place at the local, i.e., ward and/or stake level. Leaders at the local level -- that is, bishops, stake presidents, relief society presidents, elders quorum presidents, and other leaders or auxiliary workers -- do not receive any kind of pay for the temporary, volunteer service they render. They likewise do not receive any kind of scholastic training to prepare them for their service. A bishop usually serves for a period of 5 years, for example, but he remains in his normal occupation (accountant, welder, business owner, etc.) while he serves as a bishop. Early morning or release-time seminary teachers are an exception, but they are considered employees of CES (Church Education System). 

===Mission Leadership===

Mission presidents usually serve for a period of 3 years, and may sometimes receive a living allowance during their period of service, if it is required. Many mission presidents are financially able to take time out of work to support themselves during their service (and return to their vocations when their service is complete), and do not require a living allowance.

===General Leadership===

Some positions in the Church, namely a call to serve in the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles or the First Quorum of the Seventy, are “for life” positions, meaning that the man chosen to fill the position serves until the end of his life. In such cases, if required, they are also given a modest living allowance. While many members of the Church are unaware of these allowances, that they exist and that they are comparatively modest was acknowledged in general conference by President Gordon B. Hinckley: “... the living allowances given the General Authorities, which are very modest in comparison with executive compensation in industry and the professions, come from this business income and not from the tithing of the people.{{ref|hinckley1}} Calls to other Quorums of the Seventy do not require the same full-time commitment, therefore those who serve these positions do not receive a living allowance.

==Conclusion==
While a small number of Church members seek full-time teaching positions within the Church Education System as instructors, they are not compensated for ecclesiastical leadership or service. Church leaders are "called" by leaders in greater authority to occupy positions such as Bishop, Stake President, or Area Authority 70. One does not campaign for nor apply for such positions, and such an effort would undoubtedly be considered grounds for disqualifications to serve in such a significant role. Article of Faith 5 states: "We believe that a man must be called of God, by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority, to preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof." ({{s||A+of+F|1|5}}) What is more, those who fill these positions are not compensated. Critics who complain about the use of Church funds do not contribute to the Church, and the funds they complain about are used to help leaders whom they do not sustain.

Many Church General Authorities come from respected professions from which they make a substantial living. Dedicating themselves full time at the sacrifice of substantial careers, these leaders live modestly, work tirelessly, keep grueling travel schedules, and continue doing so well past an age when others retire. They are also demonstrably men of education and accomplishment; one can hardly claim that they were unsuited for work in the world given their accomplishments prior to being called to full-time Church service. No tithing funds provide for stipends; such funds are drawn from business income earned by Church investments.

The Latter-day Saint practice of not paying our ecclesiastical leaders is not evidence of the truthfulness of the Church. Many people of other faiths admirably desire to serve as clergy in their respective churches, and go through extensive training to do so. Most clergy live on subsistence level wages. Principles of priestcrafts apply equally to these people as to our own leadership. The scriptures denounce preaching the gospel solely from a desire to make money and get rich, or to defraud people (see {{s|1|Peter|5|2}}). The Book of Mormon likewise defines "priestcraft" as teaching ''for the sake of getting gain'' while not seeking "the welfare of Zion" (see {{s|2|Nephi|26|29}}. Likewise, many members of other faiths devote time to their churches without any monetary compensation. Certainly they follow the teachings of Jesus by so doing, and accomplish much good thereby.

As with other issues, the real question regarding the "truthfulness" of the Church hinges on the endowment of priesthood keys and authority on those who lead the Church. Temporal matters and how they are handled are governed by spiritual principles. Leaders who serve faithfully should be sustained regardless of their personal finances or needs for modest financial assistance.

==Endnotes==

#{{note|hinckley1}} {{Ensign1|author=Gordon B. Hinckley|article=Questions and Answers|date=November 1985|start=49}}{{link|url=http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=57648949f2f6b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1}}
#{{note|5thart}} {{scripture||A+of+F|1|5}}
#{{note|bom1}} {{s||Mosiah|27|5}}
#{{note|board1}} Lynn Arave, "LDS programs evolve over the years," ''Deseret Morning News'' (30 September 2006). {{link|url=http://www.deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,650194860,00.html}}

==Further reading==
===FAIR wiki articles===

===FAIR web site===
===External links===

===Printed material===
*{{Ensign1 | author=Gordon B. Hinckley | article=Questions and Answers|date=Nov. 1985|start=49}}
*{{Ensign1 | author=R. Lloyd Smith | article=Sharing the Gospel with Sensitivity|date=Jun. 2002|start=53}}
*{{Dialogue1|author=Lowell Bennion|article=A Mormon View of Life|vol=24|num=3|date=Fall 1991|start=68}}
*{{EoM |author=Maribeth Christensen|article=Volunteerism|vol=|start=1539|end=1540 }}
*{{EoM |author=Paul H. Thompson|article=Lay Participation and Leadership|vol=|start=814|end=816 }}

Paid and unpaid Church leaders

2009-08-31T10:51:15Z

BenjaminPorter: /* A modest living stipend */

==Criticism==
Critics claim that Mormonism prides itself in having unpaid clergy as one proof of the Church's truthfulness. They then point to the fact that some General Authorities, mission presidents, and others do, in fact, receive a living stipend while serving the Church, and point to this as evidence of the “hypocrisy” of the Church.

===Source(s) of the criticism===
* Bill McKeever, "Mormonism's Paid Ministry,"  (accessed April 28, 2008). 
* Sandra Tanner, "Do Mormon Leaders Receive Financial Support?"  (accessed April 28, 2008).
==Response==
===A modest living stipend===
Some members of the Church are unaware that at least some General Authorities do receive a modest living stipend. While it is true that some Church leaders receive a living allowance while they serve in a given position, it cannot be said that the Church has a professional ministry in the traditional sense.

A call to serve as a General Authority usually comes later in life, and none of these men has depended upon their Church service for their "career" or "income." Given the high caliber accomplishments of those called to full-time service, it is reasonable to expect that they could make a lot more money (with less trouble) in some other field of endeavor.

The fact that this stipend exists has not been hidden. As President Hinckley noted in General Conference:

:Merchandising interests are an outgrowth of the cooperative movement which existed among our people in pioneer times. The Church has maintained certain real estate holdings, particularly those contiguous to Temple Square, to help preserve the beauty and the integrity of the core of the city. All of these commercial properties are tax-paying entities.

:I repeat, the combined income from all of these business interests is relatively small and would not keep the work going for longer than a very brief period.

:''I should like to add, parenthetically for your information, that the living allowances given the General Authorities, which are very modest in comparison with executive compensation in industry and the professions, come from this business income and not from the tithing of the people.''{{ref|hinckley1}}

===A Scriptural Basis===
Latter-day Saints care for their members through a resource known as the Bishop's Storehouse. This storehouse is filled through the contributions of members and includes temporal resources to assist individuals who have unmet temporal needs. It is administered through the office of the Presiding Bishopric of the Church and through the local administration of ward Bishop's. {{s||DC|42|71-73|}} accounts for the support of individuals called to full time service in the Church. While the Church does not currently use the Bishop's Storehouse to provide for the temporal needs of General Authorities, as mentioned above, it does indicate a scriptural basis for them to receive support when warranted and according to their needs.

===Priestcraft===

Church members have a particular sensitivity to issues surrounding paid ministries particularly due to admonitions in the Book of Mormon relative to a practices known as priestcraft, which is "that men preach and set themselves up for a light unto the world, that they may get gain and praise of the world; but they seek not the welfare of Zion" (see {{s|2|Nephi|26|29}}). It is warned against and decried repeatedly (see {{s||Alma|1|12,16}}, {{s|3|Ne|16|10}}, {{s|3|Ne|21|19}}, {{s|3|Ne|30|2}}, {{s||DC|33|4}}). For this reason, the idea of compensation for service seems contradictory to strongly held values of the Latter-day Saint community. However, it should be noted that priestcraft as it has been defined is a condemnation of intent (to get gain and praise, and not for the welfare of Zion), and not about an individual receiving support. Living stipends are not compensations for service, but recognition of a practical reality that individuals who dedicate their full time to Church service are sometimes unable to simultaneously provide for their own modest living needs.

The example of King Benjamin adds to the LDS value of self sufficiency of leaders in particular. Benjamin, while king, still labored for his own support (see {{s||Mosiah|2|14}}). This is a very admirable demonstration of humility on the part of the king. However, this example was being used in the context of his political position as king, and would be comparable to a President refusing to accept his salary for his service. It should not be used to condemn the practice of helping provide for the modest living needs of full time leaders who are unable to dedicate time to earning a living.

===No professional ministers===

There can be no doubt that the Church ''does'' have an unpaid ministry. More precisely, it does not have a ''professional'' clergy. Consider:
* the Church does not graduating individuals with degrees in theology for the purpose of being used in an employed position as an ecclesiastical leader.
* the vast majority of leadership positions in the Church are filled by those who receive absolutely no financial assistance and who have no formal training in theology or Church administration. This includes bishops, stake presidents, Area Authority Seventies, Relief Society presidents, priests, teachers, deacons, and elders, etc.
* Missionaries or their families typically pay for the costs of their missions.
* the Church has no professional ministry — one does not "go into" the priesthood in Mormonism as a form of employment. The Church believes that "a man must be called of God, by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority, to preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof."{{ref|5thart}} No one can enter Church ecclesiastical government or administration as a career.
* those few Church leaders who receive a living allowance have already served for many years in unpaid, volunteer positions of Church leadership, from which they derived no financial gain, and from which they could have had little expectation of making their livelihood by being elevated to high positions in Church administration.
* the Book of Mormon makes provision for Church leaders to be supported by donations ''if'' they are in a position of financial need: "all their priests and teachers should labor with their own hands for their support, in all cases save it were in sickness, or in much want; and doing these things, they did abound in the grace of God."{{ref|bom1}}
* the Doctrine and Covenants makes provisions for Church leaders to be supported by donations (see {{s||DC|42|71-73}}).
* General Authorities previously sat on the boards of Church-owned businesses. This practice was discontinued in 1996.{{ref|board1}}

===Local Leadership (Ward and Stake)===

Much of the day-to-day “ministering” that goes on in the Church takes place at the local, i.e., ward and/or stake level. Leaders at the local level -- that is, bishops, stake presidents, relief society presidents, elders quorum presidents, and other leaders or auxiliary workers -- do not receive any kind of pay for the temporary, volunteer service they render. They likewise do not receive any kind of scholastic training to prepare them for their service. A bishop usually serves for a period of 5 years, for example, but he remains in his normal occupation (accountant, welder, business owner, etc.) while he serves as a bishop. Early morning or release-time seminary teachers are an exception, but they are considered employees of CES (Church Education System). 

===Mission Leadership===

Mission presidents usually serve for a period of 3 years, and may sometimes receive a living allowance during their period of service, if it is required. Many mission presidents are financially able to take time out of work to support themselves during their service (and return to their vocations when their service is complete), and do not require a living allowance.

===General Leadership===

Some positions in the Church, namely a call to serve in the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles or the First Quorum of the Seventy, are “for life” positions, meaning that the man chosen to fill the position serves until the end of his life. In such cases, if required, they are also given a modest living allowance. While many members of the Church are unaware of these allowances, that they exist and that they are comparatively modest was acknowledged in general conference by President Gordon B. Hinckley: “... the living allowances given the General Authorities, which are very modest in comparison with executive compensation in industry and the professions, come from this business income and not from the tithing of the people.{{ref|hinckley1}} Calls to other Quorums of the Seventy do not require the same full-time commitment, therefore those who serve these positions do not receive a living allowance.

==Conclusion==
While a small number of Church members seek full-time teaching positions within the Church Education System as instructors, they are not compensated for ecclesiastical leadership or service. Church leaders are "called" by leaders in greater authority to occupy positions such as Bishop, Stake President, or Area Authority 70. One does not campaign for nor apply for such positions, and such an effort would undoubtedly be considered grounds for disqualifications to serve in such a significant role. Article of Faith 5 states: "We believe that a man must be called of God, by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority, to preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof." ({{s||A+of+F|1|5}}) What is more, those who fill these positions are not compensated. Critics who complain about the use of Church funds do not contribute to the Church, and the funds they complain about are used to help leaders whom they do not sustain.

Many Church General Authorities come from respected professions from which they make a substantial living. Dedicating themselves full time at the sacrifice of substantial careers, these leaders live modestly, work tirelessly, keep grueling travel schedules, and continue doing so well past an age when others retire. They are also demonstrably men of education and accomplishment; one can hardly claim that they were unsuited for work in the world given their accomplishments prior to being called to full-time Church service. No tithing funds provide for stipends; such funds are drawn from business income earned by Church investments.

The Latter-day Saint practice of not paying our ecclesiastical leaders is not evidence of the truthfulness of the Church. Many people of other faiths admirably desire to serve as clergy in their respective churches, and go through extensive training to do so. Most clergy live on subsistence level wages. Principles of priestcrafts apply equally to these people as to our own leadership. The scriptures denounce preaching the gospel solely from a desire to make money and get rich, or to defraud people (see {{s|1|Peter|5|2}}). The Book of Mormon likewise defines "priestcraft" as teaching ''for the sake of getting gain'' while not seeking "the welfare of Zion" (see {{s|2|Nephi|26|29}}. Likewise, many members of other faiths devote time to their churches without any monetary compensation. Certainly they follow the teachings of Jesus by so doing, and accomplish much good thereby.

As with other issues, the real question regarding the "truthfulness" of the Church hinges on the endowment of priesthood keys and authority on those who lead the Church. Temporal matters and how they are handled are governed by spiritual principles. Leaders who serve faithfully should be sustained regardless of their personal finances or needs for modest financial assistance.

==Endnotes==

#{{note|hinckley1}} {{Ensign1|author=Gordon B. Hinckley|article=Questions and Answers|date=November 1985|start=49}}{{link|url=http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=57648949f2f6b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1}}
#{{note|5thart}} {{scripture||A+of+F|1|5}}
#{{note|bom1}} {{s||Mosiah|27|5}}
#{{note|board1}} Lynn Arave, "LDS programs evolve over the years," ''Deseret Morning News'' (30 September 2006). {{link|url=http://www.deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,650194860,00.html}}

==Further reading==
===FAIR wiki articles===

===FAIR web site===
===External links===

===Printed material===
*{{Ensign1 | author=Gordon B. Hinckley | article=Questions and Answers|date=Nov. 1985|start=49}}
*{{Ensign1 | author=R. Lloyd Smith | article=Sharing the Gospel with Sensitivity|date=Jun. 2002|start=53}}
*{{Dialogue1|author=Lowell Bennion|article=A Mormon View of Life|vol=24|num=3|date=Fall 1991|start=68}}
*{{EoM |author=Maribeth Christensen|article=Volunteerism|vol=|start=1539|end=1540 }}
*{{EoM |author=Paul H. Thompson|article=Lay Participation and Leadership|vol=|start=814|end=816 }}

Paid and unpaid Church leaders

2009-08-31T10:50:02Z

BenjaminPorter: /* A modest living stipend */

==Criticism==
Critics claim that Mormonism prides itself in having unpaid clergy as one proof of the Church's truthfulness. They then point to the fact that some General Authorities, mission presidents, and others do, in fact, receive a living stipend while serving the Church, and point to this as evidence of the “hypocrisy” of the Church.

===Source(s) of the criticism===
* Bill McKeever, "Mormonism's Paid Ministry,"  (accessed April 28, 2008). 
* Sandra Tanner, "Do Mormon Leaders Receive Financial Support?"  (accessed April 28, 2008).
==Response==
===A modest living stipend===
Some members of the Church are unaware that at least some General Authorities do receive a modest living stipend. While it is true that some Church leaders receive a living allowance while they serve in a given position, it cannot be said that the Church has a professional ministry in the traditional sense.

A call to serve as a General Authority usually comes later in life, and none of these men has depended upon their Church service for their "career" or "income." Given the high caliber accomplishments of those called to full-time service, it is unreasonable to expect that they couldn't make a lot more money (with less trouble) in some other field of endeavor.

The fact that this stipend exists has not been hidden. As President Hinckley noted in General Conference:

:Merchandising interests are an outgrowth of the cooperative movement which existed among our people in pioneer times. The Church has maintained certain real estate holdings, particularly those contiguous to Temple Square, to help preserve the beauty and the integrity of the core of the city. All of these commercial properties are tax-paying entities.

:I repeat, the combined income from all of these business interests is relatively small and would not keep the work going for longer than a very brief period.

:''I should like to add, parenthetically for your information, that the living allowances given the General Authorities, which are very modest in comparison with executive compensation in industry and the professions, come from this business income and not from the tithing of the people.''{{ref|hinckley1}}

===A Scriptural Basis===
Latter-day Saints care for their members through a resource known as the Bishop's Storehouse. This storehouse is filled through the contributions of members and includes temporal resources to assist individuals who have unmet temporal needs. It is administered through the office of the Presiding Bishopric of the Church and through the local administration of ward Bishop's. {{s||DC|42|71-73|}} accounts for the support of individuals called to full time service in the Church. While the Church does not currently use the Bishop's Storehouse to provide for the temporal needs of General Authorities, as mentioned above, it does indicate a scriptural basis for them to receive support when warranted and according to their needs.

===Priestcraft===

Church members have a particular sensitivity to issues surrounding paid ministries particularly due to admonitions in the Book of Mormon relative to a practices known as priestcraft, which is "that men preach and set themselves up for a light unto the world, that they may get gain and praise of the world; but they seek not the welfare of Zion" (see {{s|2|Nephi|26|29}}). It is warned against and decried repeatedly (see {{s||Alma|1|12,16}}, {{s|3|Ne|16|10}}, {{s|3|Ne|21|19}}, {{s|3|Ne|30|2}}, {{s||DC|33|4}}). For this reason, the idea of compensation for service seems contradictory to strongly held values of the Latter-day Saint community. However, it should be noted that priestcraft as it has been defined is a condemnation of intent (to get gain and praise, and not for the welfare of Zion), and not about an individual receiving support. Living stipends are not compensations for service, but recognition of a practical reality that individuals who dedicate their full time to Church service are sometimes unable to simultaneously provide for their own modest living needs.

The example of King Benjamin adds to the LDS value of self sufficiency of leaders in particular. Benjamin, while king, still labored for his own support (see {{s||Mosiah|2|14}}). This is a very admirable demonstration of humility on the part of the king. However, this example was being used in the context of his political position as king, and would be comparable to a President refusing to accept his salary for his service. It should not be used to condemn the practice of helping provide for the modest living needs of full time leaders who are unable to dedicate time to earning a living.

===No professional ministers===

There can be no doubt that the Church ''does'' have an unpaid ministry. More precisely, it does not have a ''professional'' clergy. Consider:
* the Church does not graduating individuals with degrees in theology for the purpose of being used in an employed position as an ecclesiastical leader.
* the vast majority of leadership positions in the Church are filled by those who receive absolutely no financial assistance and who have no formal training in theology or Church administration. This includes bishops, stake presidents, Area Authority Seventies, Relief Society presidents, priests, teachers, deacons, and elders, etc.
* Missionaries or their families typically pay for the costs of their missions.
* the Church has no professional ministry — one does not "go into" the priesthood in Mormonism as a form of employment. The Church believes that "a man must be called of God, by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority, to preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof."{{ref|5thart}} No one can enter Church ecclesiastical government or administration as a career.
* those few Church leaders who receive a living allowance have already served for many years in unpaid, volunteer positions of Church leadership, from which they derived no financial gain, and from which they could have had little expectation of making their livelihood by being elevated to high positions in Church administration.
* the Book of Mormon makes provision for Church leaders to be supported by donations ''if'' they are in a position of financial need: "all their priests and teachers should labor with their own hands for their support, in all cases save it were in sickness, or in much want; and doing these things, they did abound in the grace of God."{{ref|bom1}}
* the Doctrine and Covenants makes provisions for Church leaders to be supported by donations (see {{s||DC|42|71-73}}).
* General Authorities previously sat on the boards of Church-owned businesses. This practice was discontinued in 1996.{{ref|board1}}

===Local Leadership (Ward and Stake)===

Much of the day-to-day “ministering” that goes on in the Church takes place at the local, i.e., ward and/or stake level. Leaders at the local level -- that is, bishops, stake presidents, relief society presidents, elders quorum presidents, and other leaders or auxiliary workers -- do not receive any kind of pay for the temporary, volunteer service they render. They likewise do not receive any kind of scholastic training to prepare them for their service. A bishop usually serves for a period of 5 years, for example, but he remains in his normal occupation (accountant, welder, business owner, etc.) while he serves as a bishop. Early morning or release-time seminary teachers are an exception, but they are considered employees of CES (Church Education System). 

===Mission Leadership===

Mission presidents usually serve for a period of 3 years, and may sometimes receive a living allowance during their period of service, if it is required. Many mission presidents are financially able to take time out of work to support themselves during their service (and return to their vocations when their service is complete), and do not require a living allowance.

===General Leadership===

Some positions in the Church, namely a call to serve in the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles or the First Quorum of the Seventy, are “for life” positions, meaning that the man chosen to fill the position serves until the end of his life. In such cases, if required, they are also given a modest living allowance. While many members of the Church are unaware of these allowances, that they exist and that they are comparatively modest was acknowledged in general conference by President Gordon B. Hinckley: “... the living allowances given the General Authorities, which are very modest in comparison with executive compensation in industry and the professions, come from this business income and not from the tithing of the people.{{ref|hinckley1}} Calls to other Quorums of the Seventy do not require the same full-time commitment, therefore those who serve these positions do not receive a living allowance.

==Conclusion==
While a small number of Church members seek full-time teaching positions within the Church Education System as instructors, they are not compensated for ecclesiastical leadership or service. Church leaders are "called" by leaders in greater authority to occupy positions such as Bishop, Stake President, or Area Authority 70. One does not campaign for nor apply for such positions, and such an effort would undoubtedly be considered grounds for disqualifications to serve in such a significant role. Article of Faith 5 states: "We believe that a man must be called of God, by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority, to preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof." ({{s||A+of+F|1|5}}) What is more, those who fill these positions are not compensated. Critics who complain about the use of Church funds do not contribute to the Church, and the funds they complain about are used to help leaders whom they do not sustain.

Many Church General Authorities come from respected professions from which they make a substantial living. Dedicating themselves full time at the sacrifice of substantial careers, these leaders live modestly, work tirelessly, keep grueling travel schedules, and continue doing so well past an age when others retire. They are also demonstrably men of education and accomplishment; one can hardly claim that they were unsuited for work in the world given their accomplishments prior to being called to full-time Church service. No tithing funds provide for stipends; such funds are drawn from business income earned by Church investments.

The Latter-day Saint practice of not paying our ecclesiastical leaders is not evidence of the truthfulness of the Church. Many people of other faiths admirably desire to serve as clergy in their respective churches, and go through extensive training to do so. Most clergy live on subsistence level wages. Principles of priestcrafts apply equally to these people as to our own leadership. The scriptures denounce preaching the gospel solely from a desire to make money and get rich, or to defraud people (see {{s|1|Peter|5|2}}). The Book of Mormon likewise defines "priestcraft" as teaching ''for the sake of getting gain'' while not seeking "the welfare of Zion" (see {{s|2|Nephi|26|29}}. Likewise, many members of other faiths devote time to their churches without any monetary compensation. Certainly they follow the teachings of Jesus by so doing, and accomplish much good thereby.

As with other issues, the real question regarding the "truthfulness" of the Church hinges on the endowment of priesthood keys and authority on those who lead the Church. Temporal matters and how they are handled are governed by spiritual principles. Leaders who serve faithfully should be sustained regardless of their personal finances or needs for modest financial assistance.

==Endnotes==

#{{note|hinckley1}} {{Ensign1|author=Gordon B. Hinckley|article=Questions and Answers|date=November 1985|start=49}}{{link|url=http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=57648949f2f6b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1}}
#{{note|5thart}} {{scripture||A+of+F|1|5}}
#{{note|bom1}} {{s||Mosiah|27|5}}
#{{note|board1}} Lynn Arave, "LDS programs evolve over the years," ''Deseret Morning News'' (30 September 2006). {{link|url=http://www.deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,650194860,00.html}}

==Further reading==
===FAIR wiki articles===

===FAIR web site===
===External links===

===Printed material===
*{{Ensign1 | author=Gordon B. Hinckley | article=Questions and Answers|date=Nov. 1985|start=49}}
*{{Ensign1 | author=R. Lloyd Smith | article=Sharing the Gospel with Sensitivity|date=Jun. 2002|start=53}}
*{{Dialogue1|author=Lowell Bennion|article=A Mormon View of Life|vol=24|num=3|date=Fall 1991|start=68}}
*{{EoM |author=Maribeth Christensen|article=Volunteerism|vol=|start=1539|end=1540 }}
*{{EoM |author=Paul H. Thompson|article=Lay Participation and Leadership|vol=|start=814|end=816 }}

Questions: Are Mormons Christians

2009-08-25T11:53:42Z

BenjaminPorter:

{{DoYouHaveQuestions}}
__NOTOC__
{{DVDHeadingBox|Questions at a Recent Public Meeting}}
{{QandA-Title|Questions about Church members}}
Recently, one unit of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints held a public information session entitled "Are Mormons Christians?" Many members and non-members attended, including clergy from other denominations. Written questions were taken from the audience, and answered extemporaneously.

These questions are reproduced below by the kind permission of those who held the fireside. FAIR volunteers have here suggested some answers to these questions—many of which are commonly asked—and then provided links to further material for interested members and non-members who wish to learn more about these issues.
{{DVDHeadingBox|Latter-day Saints as Christians}}
{{QandA|Question: If Mormons believe their church is the only true church on earth, wouldn’t it be more important to define the ''differences'' in Mormonism and not be so concerned with whether others consider you Christian or not?}}

Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believe that their first and most important duty is to testify of Christ. They have each made a covenant to "stand as witnesses of God at all times, and in all things, and in all places that [they] may be in, even unto death, that [they] may be redeemed of God and be numbered with those of the first resurrection" ({{s||Mosiah|18|9}}). Therefore, Latter-day Saints consider themselves honor-bound to rebut the common claim that they are not Christians.

Furthermore, Latter-day Saints do not wish for those who hear them to abandon the knowledge and faith in Christ which they already possess. Rather, they hope only to add to what non-members already believed about Jesus. It would be counterproductive, then, to focus on differences without first making clear the great truth that Latter-day Saints believe with the rest of the Christian world—that Jesus was the Son of God, that he was born of a virgin, lived a sinless life, suffered and was crucified for the sins of the world, and was resurrected the third day to reign in glory forever and ever.
{{QandA|The focus of tonight’s presentation seemed to stress that Mormonism is like other “Christian denominations.” That seems odd, given that Joseph Smith’s reason for founding Mormonism was that all the existing Christian denominations were wrong. Please explain this apparent contradiction.}}

Joseph's reason for restoring the Church was that God told him that all existing Christian denominations were in error ''in some way(s)''. They had also lost the priesthood authority of God.

It was the Bible that lead Joseph to his decision to pray to God. He believed that the Bible was true and a guide to life, but was confused by the fact that each denomination understood it differently—correctly concluding that God was not the author of such confusion, he sought to learn the correct path to walk.

Latter-day Saints do not wish to be confused with "other Christian denominations." But, they strongly object to being told that they are not Christian at all.

{{QandA|Question: Luther never denied the deity of Christ, thus allowing him to be a Christian.}}

Joseph Smith and Latter-day Saints do not deny the deity of Christ either—they insist upon it. We agree that neither Luther or Latter-day Saints should be considered non-Christians.

{{QandA|Question: The classification of Christian that secularists have given you is representative of the advertising you have put out.}}

ANSWER

{{QandA|Question: A comment: I may not agree with your doctrine, but I think those who worship Christ should support one another. United we stand, divided we fall.}}

ANSWER
{{QandA|Question: You are presenting many different ideas or groups who claim Christianity, but all do not hold to the same truth. So, who is right? There can be only one truth. All others are false. }}

ANSWER

{{QandA|Question: I find the term "Christian" to be vague by your definition. What should be shown is whether or not the LDS Church adheres to the Bible and if LDS doctrine is in sync with biblical teachings. Which book is superior?}}

ANSWER

{{DVDHeadingBox|Salvation}}

ANSWER
{{QandA|Question: What must a Mormon do to attain eternal life forever with God?}}

Eternal life is a gift from God. He promises us this gift if we enter into and keep a covenant with Christ. This covenant is made through faith in Christ, repentance, baptism, receipt of the Holy Ghost, and enduring to the end. As part of the covenant, members promise to serve God and Christ and to walk in newness of life through the grace of God.

{{QandA|Explain the works part of your ministry? Is this mandatory, and why?}}

Answer

{{QandA|Question: If salvation is not by faith alone, how can man be forgiven?}}

ANSWER

{{QandA|Question: Are Mormons born again?}}

Answer

{{QandA|Question: The Bible clearly states that the New Testament brings GRACE by the bloodshed of Jesus Christ. The two new commandments are 1) love your Lord your God with all your heart, and 2) love your neighbor as you would love yourself. So, because you believe in works, why did Christ have to die on the cross for our sins if you can work for your own salvation? Hebrews 10:12.}}

ANSWER

{{QandA|Question: In Ephesians 2:8-9 it says that we have been saved through grace by faith, not of works, so no man can boast. But compared to 2 Nephi 25:23 it says that "we are saved after all we can do." Why is this verse saying that we must work to attain eternal life when Ephesians says otherwise?}}

ANSWER

{{DVDHeadingBox|Jesus}}
{{QandA|Question: In Mormonism, is it believed that Jesus is God’s only Son? Because it has been stated that all people are literal spirit children of God, yet in {{s||John|3|16}} it states that “God sent His only son...."}}

Jesus is the Only Begotten Son of the Father. This means that only he has God as the father of his physical, mortal body.

To be a ''spirit'' child of God is an entirely separate matter.

{{QandA|John 1:1, 14 teach that Jesus is God, God the Son. {{b||Philippians|2|5-11}} clearly indicate that Jesus is “equal with God,” but gave up his place with the Father to become the Savior of mankind. Why does the Church of Jesus Christ of LDS not teach this truth?}}

The Church ''does'' teach this truth. Jesus was God. He voluntarily gave up his exalted state, and condescended to come to earth to become the savior, in accordance with the will of the Father. He was resurrected and returned to dwell in glory with the Father, exactly as this scripture teaches.
{{QandA|Question: The Bible teaches in Colossians 1:16 and John 1:1-3 and other places that Jesus created all things, including Satan. How does this work with the Mormon view that Jesus is a created being and Satan’s brother?}}
{{QandA|Question: If Christ is a created being, please explain how Christ created everything but himself. According to John 1:3, all things were made by him, and without him was not anything made that was made.” Christ could not have been created and yet create everything that was made.}}
{{QandA|Question: Jesus is not Satan’s brother.}}

ANSWER
{{DVDHeadingBox|"Only one God" and the Trinity}}
{{QandA|Is there more than one God in the Godhead? ["Godhead" is an LDS term often used as other Christians use the term "Holy Trinity.]}}

This question turns on the question of how language is used. In one sense, there is only one God. In another sense, there are three beings to whom the title "God" is rightly applied: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost. Thus, in one sense the answer is, "No," because these personages together make up "one God." In another sense, the answer is "Yes." One must first be clear about which sense one means before answering the question. And, in answering the question, one must realize that the other sense is not suddenly false.

All Christian groups must grapple with this issue. Much of Christianity settled on the Nicene creed as a solution. The Latter-day Saints reject that solution as extra-biblical.

'''''To learn more''''':
* [[Godhead_and_the_Trinity|Godhead and the trinity]]
{{QandA|Question: Isaiah 44:6, 8 says: “I am the first and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.” “Is there a god beside me? Yes, there is no god; I know not any.” The LDS Church does not believe God is the first or the last and believes there are a host of other gods. How do you answer scripture on this point?}}
{{QandA|Question: Teachings of Joseph Smith, p. 370 --- Joseph Smith teaches multiple gods. Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, pp. 576-577 --- “As each of these persons is a God, it is evident from this standpoint alone that a plurality of Gods exists.” How does this compare with Isaiah 44:6-8, Psalms 90:2, Isaiah 43:10?}}
{{QandA|Question: In the King Follett discourse, Joseph Smith said, “You have got to learn to become gods yourselves, the same as all gods have done before you.” How does this work with clear verses like Isaiah 43:10 (Please read aloud . . .)}}
{{QandA|Question: How do you explain these two verses? Isaiah 43:10-11 (lists passage)}}
ANSWER HERE
{{QandA|Question: I believe Jesus and God are the same in substance. How can this Jesus be the same as the Mormon Jesus? My Jesus is God, yours is not.}}
ANswer here
{{QandA|Question: In light of the fact that the early Church Fathers all believed that God was agenetos (uncreated), how do you justify your attempt to correlate their doctrine of theosis with the LDS belief that God was a man who progressed to become a god?}}
ANSWER HERE
{{QandA|Question: How do you justify believing in Christ while denying his deity? Jesus says, "I and my Father are one. No one comes to the Father but by me." Mormonism says , "Jesus is the Son of God, but not God. Jesus is Satan’s brother, God’s spirit child. These two beliefs cannot be found in the Bible (untouched by Mormons), and so are heretical, discounting the truth of the Christ Mormons believe in.}}

ANSWER HERE
{{DVDHeadingBox|''Theosis'' or Humans Becoming Like God}}

{{QandA|Question: In what ways, ''specifically'', can Mormons become like God?}}

Latter-day Saints accept the teachings of the Bible that the Saints can become like God and Christ. We regard Christ as the model or pattern toward which the believer is journeying:

* Said Jesus, "To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne" ({{b||Revelation|3|21}}).
* "Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is. And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure" ({{s|1|John|3|2-3}}).
* "The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together" ({{b||Romans|8|17}}).

{{SeeAlso|Deification_of_man#Scriptures|l1=Other Bible verses on human deification}}
Latter-day Saints are always mystified when creedal Christians dispute this point—the Bible teaches clearly that the believer will be like Christ in every way: a joint-heir with him of his glories, attributes, and powers, through his grace.

'''''To learn more:''''
* [[Deification_of_man|''Theosis'' or human deification]]

{{QandA|Question: In {{s||DC|132|37}}, it says we have the ability to become gods. Is that Christian? Nowhere in the Bible does it state that we can become gods. If so, where?}}

* Said Jesus, "To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne" ({{b||Revelation|3|21}}).
* "Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is. And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure" ({{s|1|John|3|2-3}}).
* "The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together" ({{b||Romans|8|17}}).

{{SeeAlso|Deification_of_man#Scriptures|l1=Other Bible verses on human deification}}

This belief, although contrary to the views of some conservative Protestants, is entirely Christian. Many early Christian writers and thinkers discussed it:

* Irenaeus: "We were not made gods at our beginning, but first we were made men, then, in the end, gods." {{ref|irenaeus}}
* Clement of Alexandria: "yea, I say, the Word of God became a man so that you might learn from a man how to become a god." {{ref|clement of alex}}
* Justin Martyr: "[By Psalm 82] it is demonstrated that all men are deemed worthy of becoming “gods,” and even of having power to become sons of the Highest."{{ref|justin}}

There are many others.

{{SeeAlso|Deification_of_man#UnChristian.3F|l1=Early Christians on human deification}}

In addition, such Christian groups as the eastern orthodox continue to hold the belief today. It is the modern conservative Protestant, not the Latter-day Saint, that is out of step with the larger sweep of Christian thought and belief on this issue.

Latter-day Saints are always mystified when creedal Christians dispute this point—the Bible and the early Christians teach clearly that the believer will be like Christ in every way: a joint-heir with him of his glories, attributes, and powers, through his grace. They were not shy about using the term "god" to describe this state.

'''''To learn more:''''
* [[Deification_of_man|''Theosis'' or human deification]]

{{DVDHeadingBox|Another gospel?}}
{{QandA|Question: {{b||Galatians|1|6}}, 59 A.D. Paul said, “I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel.” Why have the LDS moved from the Gospel of the Bible? “Let him be accursed who moves away!” {{b||Galations|1|9}}
{{QandA|Question: {{b||Galatians|1|8-10}} --- No other Gospel!}}

The authors of these questions are "begging the question"—they are assuming that which they wish to prove. They are presuming that ''their'' version of Christian doctrine and belief is true, and assuming that it was the same as the doctrine taught to Paul's converts in Galatia.

Latter-day Saints agree with this scripture—but, insist that because of apostasy, the doctrine, rites, and practices of modern "creedal Christians" have been altered from the days of Paul. This is a good example of why an appeal to our own Bible interpretation alone can never resolve the question of God's truth. These issues are discussed further in the section below.

{{QandA|Question: How can you be sure the angel Moroni was sent by God? Please explain {{b||Galatians|1|8-9}}.}}

The question can be turned around: how can the critic be sure that the angel Moroni was ''not'' sent by God? Such matters can only be settled by appealing to God for an answer, as discussed below.
{{DVDHeadingBox|Testimony and determining truth}}
{{QandA|Question: Muslims, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Hindus, etc. all have prayed about the truth of their beliefs. How is your prayer test objective?}}

This question presumes that these other faith groups use prayer to God to determine the truth of their beliefs. In fact, it has not been our experience that most religious groups (including those mentioned) used prayer for knowledge in the way enjoyed upon Latter-day Saints.

The question could also be turned around and posed to the questioner with even greater force: Muslims, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Hindus all have holy texts which they study and regard as evidence for their beliefs, just as Christians have their Bibles. All of them are convinced that their holy texts are accurate, and that the interpretation which they give them is the correct one which will lead them to God. How is ''your'' reading of the Bible or ''your'' holy book "objective"? How do you know that ''you'' have gotten it right and they are all wrong?

Quite simply, there is no "objective" test for a spiritual reality that will convince another person. A conservative Protestant's reading of the Bible is no more objective than a Mormon's reading of the same Bible, or a Muslim's reading of the Qu'ran. All may be sincere, all may do their best, but all cannot be right.

The only being who cannot be mistaken is God. Thus, only God may confirm or correct our best conclusions. The Bible insists: "If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God" ({{b||James|1|4}}). Latter-day Saints encourage all who hear their message to study it and come to their best conclusion, and then to ask God in the name of his Son if the message is true.

{{QandA|Question: {{b|2|Timothy|3|16}} and {{b||John|17|17}} establish the truth of God’s word. Is the Bible, the word of God, still true if I am not so convinced by a feeling or spiritual experience? {{b||John|14|6}} --- Jesus stated that He is the Truth.}}

Something remains true regardless of what we believe, feel, or experience about it. But, why ought we conclude that the Bible is true? What would we say to the Muslim or Hindu equally convinced that their book is true? One cannot appeal to the Bible's claims that it is true as evidence—after all the Qu'ran and the Book of Mormon also claim to be true.

Critics on this point must realize that only something from ''outside'' a holy book or religious teaching can prove the truth or falsity of the book or teaching. And, Latter-day Saints believe the only reliable source is God—not fallible humans' interpretations of a book, however holy or inspired.

{{QandA|Question: Can we trust our hearts through the Holy Spirit’s revelation through the burning of the bosom? The Bible says that our hearts are the most deceitful of all things (Jeremiah 17:9). How do we know real truth? }}

ANSWER
{{DVDHeadingBox|Scripture}}
{{QandA|Are the Bible & Book of Mormon equally important for LDS?}}

The Book of Mormon itself says that one of its roles is to reinforce and confirm the truth of the Bible, just as the Bible will reinforce and confirm the truth of the Book of Mormon ({{s|2|Nephi|3|12}}). Asking which is more important is a bit like asking which eye a person values more—both provide valuable insight, and one would rather have one than none, but the view is better with both than with either separately.

{{QandA|How can you say that you believe the Bible is the word of God if it is fallible?}}

Latter-day Saints believe the Bible to be the Word of God because of the testimony of the Holy Ghost which is in them. Because God bears witness through his Holy Spirit of the truth, Latter-day Saints are not troubled by the need for a person or text to be "perfect" or "incapable of error" for God to teach them His truths through it.

Only God is without error and infallible—he is able to do his own work, and teach truth from any source in which it is to be found.

{{QandA|If the Bible is not believed to be inerrant, how do you determine what to believe and not to believe? Is the Book of Mormon believed to be inerrant?}}

See above for the first part of this question. For the second part: no, the Book of Mormon expressly says that it is ''not'' inerrant. Because Latter-day Saints use scripture as a step to receiving direct revelation, and not the final step in their process of determining truth, they do not require infallible prophets or infallible books. They need only trust in the Spirit of the infallible God.

{{DVDHeadingBox|Book of Mormon and science}}
{{QandA|Question: With all the civilizations and battles in NA & SA, where is the archeological evidence of these civilizations and battles?}}

ANSWER

{{QandA|Question: The story of the Mormon church is that Hebrew tribes came and settled in North and South America. And these were the Native Americans. Yet, DNA evidence shows Native Americans are from the Asian background, not Jewish.}}

The Book of Mormon speaks only of two or three small groups from the Middle East that settled somewhere in the Americas. It does not require that these be the only peoples before, during, or after Book of Mormon times. Church writers and leaders have been saying this for over a century.

ANSWER

{{QandA|Question: Comparing the Book of Mormon with the Holy Bible: how do you explain that every landmark and war battle referenced in the Bible can be historically proven using other historical documents, while the wars/battles and landmarks referenced in the Book of Mormon cannot? There are no archaeological evidence or historical references besides Mormon documents.}}

In the first place, this claim is false. There are many Biblical sites which have yet to be identified archaeologically, and many sites that are disputed.

In the second place, the world of the Bible enjoys several advantages over the New World setting for the Book of Mormon:
* the cities in the Bible have been continually inhabited from the time of the Bible to the present. By contrast, much of the New World has not even been explored or excavated by archaeology.
* the languages spoken at the time of the Bible are closely related to the languages now spoken in the area, and these languages are well-understood by scholarship. By contrast, there is ''no'' pre-Columbian settlement in the New World for which we know the pre-Columbian name. Even if we had a Nephite city, how would we know when we have only (say) a Spanish name for it?

A final mistake in this question presumes that a historical site somehow "proves" that the Bible is true. It does not. The site of the city of Troy has been found, but this does not "prove" that the Greek gods of the ''Iliad'' are true gods, or that it's account is accurate.

'''''To learn more:'''''
* [[Archeology_and_the_Bible|The Bible and archaeology]]
* [[Book_of_Mormon_archaeology|Book of Mormon and archaeology]]

{{QandA|Question: The Bible references cities that are still standing and backed by maps today. Why can’t the same be said for the Book of Mormon?}}
Answer
{{QandA|Question: What historical concrete evidence exists to prove the basis of plates or any other Mormon beliefs? Why has land never been excavated?}}

Answer
{{DVDHeadingBox|Miscellaneous}}
{{QandA|Who is your living prophet?}}

The current president of the Church (usually called "the prophet") is Thomas S. Monson. He is assisted by two counselors and Twelve apostles, all of whom are sustained by the Church as "prophets, seers, and revelators."

In a different sense, all Latter-day Saints aspire to be "prophets," since "the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy" ({{b||Revelation|19|10}}). Like Moses we "would God that all the LORD's people were prophets, and that the LORD would put his spirit upon them!" ({{b||Numbers|11|29}}).
{{QandA|Question: Do you believe there are people who follow a false Christ? How would you define what a false Christ is?}}

ANSWER

{{QandA|Question: Why do Mormons baptize the dead when they are already dead?}}

ANSWER

{{QandA|Question: Genesis clearly states that God created the earth, the stars, the skies, and everything in it. A man with a lifetime of education who doesn’t know the Lord is a fool.}}

ANSWER

{{QandA|Brigham Young stated, "The Christian God is the Mormon’s devil." Do you (the LDS Church) still believe that statement, or was Brigham Young a false prophet?}}

ANSWER

{{QandA|Does the Mormon church teach that God had a physical union with Mary to conceive Jesus?}}

ANSWER
{{QandA|Did you say you bless the bread and the water(?) in your ordinance?}}

ANSWER

{{QandA|Did Brigham Young teach the Adam-God doctrine?}}

ANSWER

{{QandA|The question about the use of the title "Christian" is not an important one. More importantly, why does the LDS Church continue to hold Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, Erastus Snow, etc. as prophets when countless prophecies that they have made have been proven false?}}

ANSWER

{{QandA|Endnotes}}
#{{note|irenaeus}} {{ECF1|start=94}}
#{{note|clement of alex}} Clement of Alexandria, ''The Instructor'', 3.1 see also Clement, ''Stromateis'', 23.
#{{note|justin}} Justin Martyr, ''Dialogue with Trypho'', 124.
{{DoYouHaveQuestions}}

Questions: Are Mormons Christians

2009-08-25T11:33:08Z

BenjaminPorter:

{{DoYouHaveQuestions}}
__NOTOC__
{{DVDHeadingBox|Questions at a Recent Public Meeting}}
{{QandA-Title|Questions about Church members}}
Recently, one unit of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints held a public information session entitled "Are Mormons Christians?" Many members and non-members attended, including clergy from other denominations. Written questions were taken from the audience, and answered extemporaneously.

These questions are reproduced below by the kind permission of those who held the fireside. FAIR volunteers have here suggested some answers to these questions—many of which are commonly asked—and then provided links to further material for interested members and non-members who wish to learn more about these issues.
{{DVDHeadingBox|Latter-day Saints as Christians}}
{{QandA|Question: If Mormons believe their church is the only true church on earth, wouldn’t it be more important to define the ''differences'' in Mormonism and not be so concerned with whether others consider you Christian or not?}}

Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believe that their first and most important duty is to testify of Christ. They have each made a covenant to "stand as witnesses of God at all times, and in all things, and in all places that [they] may be in, even unto death, that [they] may be redeemed of God and be numbered with those of the first resurrection" ({{s||Mosiah|18|9}}). Therefore, Latter-day Saints consider themselves honor-bound to rebut the common claim that they are not Christians.

Furthermore, Latter-day Saints do not wish for those who hear them to abandon the knowledge and faith in Christ which they already possess. Rather, they hope only to add to what non-members already believed about Jesus. It would be counterproductive, then, to focus on differences without first making clear the great truth that Latter-day Saints believe with the rest of the Christian world—that Jesus was the Son of God, that he was born of a virgin, lived a sinless life, suffered and was crucified for the sins of the world, and was resurrected the third day to reign in glory forever and ever.
{{QandA|The focus of tonight’s presentation seemed to stress that Mormonism is like other “Christian denominations.” That seems odd, given that Joseph Smith’s reason for founding Mormonism was that all the existing Christian denominations were wrong. Please explain this apparent contradiction.}}

Joseph's reason for restoring the Church was that God told him that all existing Christian denominations were in error ''in some way(s)''. They had also lost the priesthood authority of God.

It was the Bible that lead Joseph to his decision to pray to God. He believed that the Bible was true and a guide to life, but was confused by the fact that each denomination understood it differently—correctly concluding that God was not the author of such confusion, he sought to learn the correct path to walk.

Latter-day Saints do not wish to be confused with "other Christian denominations." But, they strongly object to being told that they are not Christian at all.

{{QandA|Question: Luther never denied the deity of Christ, thus allowing him to be a Christian.}}

Joseph Smith and Latter-day Saints do not deny the deity of Christ either—they insist upon it. We agree that neither Luther or Latter-day Saints should be considered non-Christians.

{{QandA|Question: The classification of Christian that secularists have given you is representative of the advertising you have put out.}}

ANSWER

{{QandA|Question: A comment: I may not agree with your doctrine, but I think those who worship Christ should support one another. United we stand, divided we fall.}}

ANSWER
{{QandA|Question: You are presenting many different ideas or groups who claim Christianity, but all do not hold to the same truth. So, who is right? There can be only one truth. All others are false. }}

ANSWER

{{QandA|Question: I find the term "Christian" to be vague by your definition. What should be shown is whether or not the LDS Church adheres to the Bible and if LDS doctrine is in sync with biblical teachings. Which book is superior?}}

ANSWER

{{DVDHeadingBox|Salvation}}

ANSWER
{{QandA|Question: What must a Mormon do to attain eternal life forever with God?}}

Eternal life is a gift from God. He promises us this gift if we enter into and keep a covenant with Christ. This covenant is made through faith in Christ, repentance, baptism, receipt of the Holy Ghost, and enduring to the end. As part of the covenant, members promise to serve God and Christ and to walk in newness of life through the grace of God.

{{QandA|Explain the works part of your ministry? Is this mandatory, and why?}}

Answer

{{QandA|Question: If salvation is not by faith alone, how can man be forgiven?}}

ANSWER

{{QandA|Question: Are Mormons born again?}}

Answer

{{QandA|Question: The Bible clearly states that the New Testament brings GRACE by the bloodshed of Jesus Christ. The two new commandments are 1) love your Lord your God with all your heart, and 2) love your neighbor as you would love yourself. So, because you believe in works, why did Christ have to die on the cross for our sins if you can work for your own salvation? Hebrews 10:12.}}

ANSWER

{{QandA|Question: In Ephesians 2:8-9 it says that we have been saved through grace by faith, not of works, so no man can boast. But compared to 2 Nephi 25:23 it says that "we are saved after all we can do." Why is this verse saying that we must work to attain eternal life when Ephesians says otherwise?}}

ANSWER

{{DVDHeadingBox|Jesus}}
{{QandA|Question: In Mormonism, is it believed that Jesus is God’s only Son? Because it has been stated that all people are literal spirit children of God, yet in {{s||John|3|16}} it states that “God sent His only son...."}}

Jesus is the Only Begotten Son of the Father. This means that only he has God as the father of his physical, mortal body.

To be a ''spirit'' child of God is an entirely separate matter.

{{QandA|John 1:1, 14 teach that Jesus is God, God the Son. {{b||Philippians|2|5-11}} clearly indicate that Jesus is “equal with God,” but gave up his place with the Father to become the Savior of mankind. Why does the Church of Jesus Christ of LDS not teach this truth?}}

The Church ''does'' teach this truth. Jesus was God. He voluntarily gave up his exalted state, and condescended to come to earth to become the savior, in accordance with the will of the Father. He was resurrected and returned to dwell in glory with the Father, exactly as this scripture teaches.
{{QandA|Question: The Bible teaches in Colossians 1:16 and John 1:1-3 and other places that Jesus created all things, including Satan. How does this work with the Mormon view that Jesus is a created being and Satan’s brother?}}
{{QandA|Question: If Christ is a created being, please explain how Christ created everything but himself. According to John 1:3, all things were made by him, and without him was not anything made that was made.” Christ could not have been created and yet create everything that was made.}}
{{QandA|Question: Jesus is not Satan’s brother.}}

ANSWER
{{DVDHeadingBox|"Only one God" and the Trinity}}
{{QandA|Is there more than one God in the Godhead? ["Godhead" is an LDS term often used as other Christians use the term "Holy Trinity.]}}

This question turns on the question of how language is used. In one sense, there is only one God. In another sense, there are three beings to whom the title "God" is rightly applied: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost. Thus, in one sense the answer is, "No," because these personages together make up "one God." In another sense, the answer is "Yes." One must first be clear about which sense one means before answering the question. And, in answering the question, one must realize that the other sense is not suddenly false.

All Christian groups must grapple with this issue. Much of Christianity settled on the Nicene creed as a solution. The Latter-day Saints reject that solution as extra-biblical.

'''''To learn more''''':
* [[Godhead_and_the_Trinity|Godhead and the trinity]]
{{QandA|Question: Isaiah 44:6, 8 says: “I am the first and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.” “Is there a god beside me? Yes, there is no god; I know not any.” The LDS Church does not believe God is the first or the last and believes there are a host of other gods. How do you answer scripture on this point?}}
{{QandA|Question: Teachings of Joseph Smith, p. 370 --- Joseph Smith teaches multiple gods. Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, pp. 576-577 --- “As each of these persons is a God, it is evident from this standpoint alone that a plurality of Gods exists.” How does this compare with Isaiah 44:6-8, Psalms 90:2, Isaiah 43:10?}}
{{QandA|Question: In the King Follett discourse, Joseph Smith said, “You have got to learn to become gods yourselves, the same as all gods have done before you.” How does this work with clear verses like Isaiah 43:10 (Please read aloud . . .)}}
{{QandA|Question: How do you explain these two verses? Isaiah 43:10-11 (lists passage)}}
ANSWER HERE
{{QandA|Question: I believe Jesus and God are the same in substance. How can this Jesus be the same as the Mormon Jesus? My Jesus is God, yours is not.}}
ANswer here
{{QandA|Question: In light of the fact that the early Church Fathers all believed that God was agenetos (uncreated), how do you justify your attempt to correlate their doctrine of theosis with the LDS belief that God was a man who progressed to become a god?}}
ANSWER HERE
{{QandA|Question: How do you justify believing in Christ while denying his deity? Jesus says, "I and my Father are one. No one comes to the Father but by me." Mormonism says , "Jesus is the Son of God, but not God. Jesus is Satan’s brother, God’s spirit child. These two beliefs cannot be found in the Bible (untouched by Mormons), and so are heretical, discounting the truth of the Christ Mormons believe in.}}

ANSWER HERE
{{DVDHeadingBox|''Theosis'' or Humans Becoming Like God}}

{{QandA|Question: In what ways, ''specifically'', can Mormons become like God?}}

Latter-day Saints accept the teachings of the Bible that the Saints can become like God and Christ. We regard Christ as the model or pattern toward which the believer is journeying:

* Said Jesus, "To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne" ({{b||Revelation|3|21}}).
* "Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is. And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure" ({{s|1|John|3|2-3}}).
* "The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together" ({{b||Romans|8|17}}).

{{SeeAlso|Deification_of_man#Scriptures|l1=Other Bible verses on human deification}}
Latter-day Saints are always mystified when creedal Christians dispute this point—the Bible teaches clearly that the believer will be like Christ in every way: a joint-heir with him of his glories, attributes, and powers, through his grace.

'''''To learn more:''''
* [[Deification_of_man|''Theosis'' or human deification]]

{{QandA|Question: In {{s||DC|132|37}}, it says we have the ability to become gods. Is that Christian? Nowhere in the Bible does it state that we can become gods. If so, where?}}

* Said Jesus, "To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne" ({{b||Revelation|3|21}}).
* "Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is. And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure" ({{s|1|John|3|2-3}}).
* "The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together" ({{b||Romans|8|17}}).

{{SeeAlso|Deification_of_man#Scriptures|l1=Other Bible verses on human deification}}

This belief, although contrary to the views of some conservative Protestants, is entirely Christian. Many early Christian writers and thinkers discussed it:

* Irenaeus: "We were not made gods at our beginning, but first we were made men, then, in the end, gods." {{ref|irenaeus}}
* Clement of Alexandria: "yea, I say, the Word of God became a man so that you might learn from a man how to become a god." {{ref|clement of alex}}
* Justin Martyr: "[By Psalm 82] it is demonstrated that all men are deemed worthy of becoming “gods,” and even of having power to become sons of the Highest."{{ref|justin}}

There are many others.

{{SeeAlso|Deification_of_man#UnChristian.3F|l1=Early Christians on human deification}}

In addition, such Christian groups as the eastern orthodox continue to hold the belief today. It is the modern conservative Protestant, not the Latter-day Saint, that is out of step with the larger sweep of Christian thought and belief on this issue.

Latter-day Saints are always mystified when creedal Christians dispute this point—the Bible and the early Christians teach clearly that the believer will be like Christ in every way: a joint-heir with him of his glories, attributes, and powers, through his grace. They were not shy about using the term "god" to describe this state.

'''''To learn more:''''
* [[Deification_of_man|''Theosis'' or human deification]]

{{DVDHeadingBox|Another gospel?}}
{{QandA|Question: {{b||Galatians|1|6}}, 59 A.D. Paul said, “I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel.” Why have the LDS moved from the Gospel of the Bible? “Let him be accursed who moves away!” {{b||Galations|1|9}}
{{QandA|Question: {{b||Galatians|1|8-10}} --- No other Gospel!}}

The authors of these questions are "begging the question"—they are assuming that which they wish to prove. They are presuming that ''their'' version of Christian doctrine and belief is true, and assuming that it was the same as the doctrine taught to Paul's converts in Galatia.

Latter-day Saints agree with this scripture—but, insist that because of apostasy, the doctrine, rites, and practices of modern "creedal Christians" have been altered from the days of Paul. This is a good example of why an appeal to our own Bible interpretation alone can never resolve the question of God's truth. These issues are discussed further in the section below.

{{QandA|Question: How can you be sure the angel Moroni was sent by God? Please explain {{b||Galatians|1|8-9}}.}}

The question can be turned around: how can the critic be sure that the angel Moroni was ''not'' sent by God? Such matters can only be settled by appealing to God for an answer, as discussed below.
{{DVDHeadingBox|Testimony and determining truth}}
{{QandA|Question: Muslims, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Hindus, etc. all have prayed about the truth of their beliefs. How is your prayer test objective?}}

This question presumes that these other faith groups use prayer to God to determine the truth of their beliefs. In fact, it has not been our experience that most religious groups (including those mentioned) used prayer for knowledge in the way enjoyed upon Latter-day Saints.

The question could also be turned around and posed to the questioner with even greater force: Muslims, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Hindus all have holy texts which they study and regard as evidence for their beliefs, just as Christians have their Bibles. All of them are convinced that their holy texts are accurate, and that the interpretation which they give them is the correct one which will lead them to God. How is ''your'' reading of the Bible or ''your'' holy book "objective"? How do you know that ''you'' have gotten it right and they are all wrong?

Quite simply, there is no "objective" test for a spiritual reality that will convince another person. A conservative Protestant's reading of the Bible is no more objective than a Mormon's reading of the same Bible, or a Muslim's reading of the Qu'ran. All may be sincere, all may do their best, but all cannot be right.

The only being who cannot be mistaken is God. Thus, only God may confirm or correct our best conclusions. The Bible insists: "If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God" ({{b||James|1|4}}). Latter-day Saints encourage all who hear their message to study it and come to their best conclusion, and then to ask God in the name of his Son if the message is true.

{{QandA|Question: {{b|2|Timothy|3|16}} and {{b||John|17|17}} establish the truth of God’s word. Is the Bible, the word of God, still true if I am not so convinced by a feeling or spiritual experience? {{b||John|14|6}} --- Jesus stated that He is the Truth.}}

Something remains true regardless of what we believe, feel, or experience about it. But, why ought we conclude that the Bible is true? What would we say to the Muslim or Hindu equally convinced that their book is true? One cannot appeal to the Bible's claims that it is true as evidence—after all the Qu'ran and the Book of Mormon also claim to be true.

Critics on this point must realize that only something from ''outside'' a holy book or religious teaching can prove the truth or falsity of the book or teaching. And, Latter-day Saints believe the only reliable source is God—not fallible humans' interpretations of a book, however holy or inspired.

{{QandA|Question: Can we trust our hearts through the Holy Spirit’s revelation through the burning of the bosom? The Bible says that our hearts are the most deceitful of all things (Jeremiah 17:9). How do we know real truth? }}

ANSWER
{{DVDHeadingBox|Scripture}}
{{QandA|Are the Bible & Book of Mormon equally important for LDS?}}

The Book of Mormon itself says that one of its roles is to reinforce and confirm the truth of the Bible, just as the Bible will reinforce and confirm the truth of the Book of Mormon ({{s|2|Nephi|3|12}}). Asking which is more important is a bit like asking which eye a person values more—both provide valuable insight, and one would rather have one than none, but the view is better with both than with either separately.

{{QandA|How can you say that you believe the Bible is the word of God if it is fallible?}}

Latter-day Saints believe the Bible to be the Word of God because of the testimony of the Holy Ghost which is in them. Because God bears witness through his Holy Spirit of the truth, Latter-day Saints are not troubled by the need for a person or text to be "perfect" or "incapable of error" for God to teach them His truths through it.

Only God is without error and infallible—he is able to do his own work, and teach truth from any source in which it is to be found.

{{QandA|If the Bible is not believed to be inerrant, how do you determine what to believe and not to believe? Is the Book of Mormon believed to be inerrant?}}

See above for the first part of this question. For the second part: no, the Book of Mormon expressly says that it is ''not'' inerrant. Because Latter-day Saints use scripture as a step to receiving direct revelation, and not the final step in their process of determining truth, they do not require infallible prophets or infallible books. They need only trust in the Spirit of the infallible God.

{{DVDHeadingBox|Book of Mormon and science}}
{{QandA|Question: With all the civilizations and battles in NA & SA, where is the archeological evidence of these civilizations and battles?}}

ANSWER

{{QandA|Question: The story of the Mormon church is that Hebrew tribes came and settled in North and South America. And these were the Native Americans. Yet, DNA evidence shows Native Americans are from the Asian background, not Jewish.}}

The Book of Mormon speaks only of two or three small groups from the Middle East that settled somewhere in the Americas. It does not require that these be the only peoples before, during, or after Book of Mormon times. Church writers and leaders have been saying this for over a century.

ANSWER

{{QandA|Question: Comparing the Book of Mormon with the Holy Bible: how do you explain that every landmark and war battle referenced in the Bible can be historically proven using other historical documents, while the wars/battles and landmarks referenced in the Book of Mormon cannot? There are no archaeological evidence or historical references besides Mormon documents.}}

Comparing the Book of Mormon with the Holy Bible: how do you explain that every landmark and war battle referenced in the Bible can be historically proven using other historical documents, while the wars/battles and landmarks referenced in the Book of Mormon cannot? There are no archaeological evidence or historical references besides Mormon documents.

In the first place, this claim is false. There are many Biblical sites which have yet to be identified archaeologically, and many sites that are disputed.

In the second place, the world of the Bible enjoys several advantages over the New World setting for the Book of Mormon:
* the cities in the Bible have been continually inhabited from the time of the Bible to the present. By contrast, much of the New World has not even been explored or excavated by archaeology.
* the languages spoken at the time of the Bible are closely related to the languages now spoken in the area, and these languages are well-understood by scholarship. By contrast, there is ''no'' pre-Columbian settlement in the New World for which we know the pre-Columbian name. Even if we had a Nephite city, how would we know when we have only (say) a Spanish name for it?

A final mistake in this question presumes that a historical site somehow "proves" that the Bible is true. It does not. The site of the city of Troy has been found, but this does not "prove" that the Greek gods of the ''Iliad'' are true gods, or that it's account is accurate.

'''''To learn more:'''''
* [[Archeology_and_the_Bible|The Bible and archaeology]]
* [[Book_of_Mormon_archaeology|Book of Mormon and archaeology]]

{{QandA|Question: The Bible references cities that are still standing and backed by maps today. Why can’t the same be said for the Book of Mormon?}}
Answer
{{QandA|Question: What historical concrete evidence exists to prove the basis of plates or any other Mormon beliefs? Why has land never been excavated?}}

Answer
{{DVDHeadingBox|Miscellaneous}}
{{QandA|Who is your living prophet?}}

The current president of the Church (usually called "the prophet") is Thomas S. Monson. He is assisted by two counselors and Twelve apostles, all of whom are sustained by the Church as "prophets, seers, and revelators."

In a different sense, all Latter-day Saints aspire to be "prophets," since "the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy" ({{b||Revelation|19|10}}). Like Moses we "would God that all the LORD's people were prophets, and that the LORD would put his spirit upon them!" ({{b||Numbers|11|29}}).
{{QandA|Question: Do you believe there are people who follow a false Christ? How would you define what a false Christ is?}}

ANSWER

{{QandA|Question: Why do Mormons baptize the dead when they are already dead?}}

ANSWER

{{QandA|Question: Genesis clearly states that God created the earth, the stars, the skies, and everything in it. A man with a lifetime of education who doesn’t know the Lord is a fool.}}

ANSWER

{{QandA|Brigham Young stated, "The Christian God is the Mormon’s devil." Do you (the LDS Church) still believe that statement, or was Brigham Young a false prophet?}}

ANSWER

{{QandA|Does the Mormon church teach that God had a physical union with Mary to conceive Jesus?}}

ANSWER
{{QandA|Did you say you bless the bread and the water(?) in your ordinance?}}

ANSWER

{{QandA|Did Brigham Young teach the Adam-God doctrine?}}

ANSWER

{{QandA|The question about the use of the title "Christian" is not an important one. More importantly, why does the LDS Church continue to hold Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, Erastus Snow, etc. as prophets when countless prophecies that they have made have been proven false?}}

ANSWER

{{QandA|Endnotes}}
#{{note|irenaeus}} {{ECF1|start=94}}
#{{note|clement of alex}} Clement of Alexandria, ''The Instructor'', 3.1 see also Clement, ''Stromateis'', 23.
#{{note|justin}} Justin Martyr, ''Dialogue with Trypho'', 124.
{{DoYouHaveQuestions}}

Questions: Are Mormons Christians

2009-08-25T10:57:25Z

BenjaminPorter:

{{DoYouHaveQuestions}}
__NOTOC__
{{DVDHeadingBox|Questions at a Recent Public Meeting}}
{{QandA-Title|Questions about Church members}}
Recently, one unit of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints held a public information session entitled "Are Mormons Christians?" Many members and non-members attended, including clergy from other denominations. Written questions were taken from the audience, and answered extemporaneously.

These questions are reproduced below by the kind permission of those who held the fireside. FAIR volunteers have here suggested some answers to these questions—many of which are commonly asked—and then provided links to further material for interested members and non-members who wish to learn more about these issues.
{{DVDHeadingBox|Latter-day Saints as Christians}}
{{QandA|Question: If Mormons believe their church is the only true church on earth, wouldn’t it be more important to define the ''differences'' in Mormonism and not be so concerned with whether others consider you Christian or not?}}

Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believe that their first and most important duty is to testify of Christ. They have each made a covenant to "stand as witnesses of God at all times, and in all things, and in all places that [they] may be in, even unto death, that [they] may be redeemed of God and be numbered with those of the first resurrection" ({{s||Mosiah|18|9}}). Therefore, Latter-day Saints consider themselves honor-bound to rebut the common claim that they are not Christians.

Furthermore, Latter-day Saints do not wish for those who hear them to abandon the knowledge and faith in Christ which they already possess. Rather, they hope only to add to what non-members already believed about Jesus. It would be counterproductive, then, to focus on differences without first making clear the great truth that Latter-day Saints believe with the rest of the Christian world—that Jesus was the Son of God, that he was born of a virgin, lived a sinless life, suffered and was crucified for the sins of the world, and was resurrected the third day to reign in glory forever and ever.
{{QandA|The focus of tonight’s presentation seemed to stress that Mormonism is like other “Christian denominations.” That seems odd, given that Joseph Smith’s reason for founding Mormonism was that all the existing Christian denominations were wrong. Please explain this apparent contradiction.}}

Joseph's reason for restoring the Church was that God told him that all existing Christian denominations were in error ''in some way(s)''. They had also lost the priesthood authority of God.

It was the Bible that lead Joseph to his decision to pray to God. He believed that the Bible was true and a guide to life, but was confused by the fact that each denomination understood it differently—correctly concluding that God was not the author of such confusion, he sought to learn the correct path to walk.

Latter-day Saints do not wish to be confused with "other Christian denominations." But, they strongly object to being told that they are not Christian at all.

{{QandA|Question: Luther never denied the deity of Christ, thus allowing him to be a Christian.}}

Joseph Smith and Latter-day Saints do not deny the deity of Christ either—they insist upon it. We agree that neither Luther or Latter-day Saints should be considered non-Christians.

{{QandA|Question: The classification of Christian that secularists have given you is representative of the advertising you have put out.}}

ANSWER

{{QandA|Question: A comment: I may not agree with your doctrine, but I think those who worship Christ should support one another. United we stand, divided we fall.}}

ANSWER
{{QandA|Question: You are presenting many different ideas or groups who claim Christianity, but all do not hold to the same truth. So, who is right? There can be only one truth. All others are false. }}

ANSWER

{{QandA|Question: I find the term "Christian" to be vague by your definition. What should be shown is whether or not the LDS Church adheres to the Bible and if LDS doctrine is in sync with biblical teachings. Which book is superior?}}

ANSWER

{{DVDHeadingBox|Salvation}}

ANSWER
{{QandA|Question: What must a Mormon do to attain eternal life forever with God?}}

Eternal life is a gift from God. He promises us this gift if we enter into and keep a covenant with Christ. This covenant is made through faith in Christ, repentance, baptism, receipt of the Holy Ghost, and enduring to the end. As part of the covenant, members promise to serve God and Christ and to walk in newness of life through the grace of God.

{{QandA|Explain the works part of your ministry? Is this mandatory, and why?}}

Answer

{{QandA|Question: If salvation is not by faith alone, how can man be forgiven?}}

ANSWER

{{QandA|Question: Are Mormons born again?}}

Answer

{{QandA|Question: The Bible clearly states that the New Testament brings GRACE by the bloodshed of Jesus Christ. The two new commandments are 1) love your Lord your God with all your heart, and 2) love your neighbor as you would love yourself. So, because you believe in works, why did Christ have to die on the cross for our sins if you can work for your own salvation? Hebrews 10:12.}}

ANSWER

{{QandA|Question: In Ephesians 2:8-9 it says that we have been saved through grace by faith, not of works, so no man can boast. But compared to 2 Nephi 25:23 it says that "we are saved after all we can do." Why is this verse saying that we must work to attain eternal life when Ephesians says otherwise?}}

ANSWER

{{DVDHeadingBox|Jesus}}
{{QandA|Question: In Mormonism, is it believed that Jesus is God’s only Son? Because it has been stated that all people are literal spirit children of God, yet in {{s||John|3|16}} it states that “God sent His only son...."}}

Jesus is the Only Begotten Son of the Father. This means that only he has God as the father of his physical, mortal body.

To be a ''spirit'' child of God is an entirely separate matter.

{{QandA|John 1:1, 14 teach that Jesus is God, God the Son. {{b||Philippians|2|5-11}} clearly indicate that Jesus is “equal with God,” but gave up his place with the Father to become the Savior of mankind. Why does the Church of Jesus Christ of LDS not teach this truth?}}

The Church ''does'' teach this truth. Jesus was God. He voluntarily gave up his exalted state, and condescended to come to earth to become the savior, in accordance with the will of the Father. He was resurrected and returned to dwell in glory with the Father, exactly as this scripture teaches.
{{QandA|Question: The Bible teaches in Colossians 1:16 and John 1:1-3 and other places that Jesus created all things, including Satan. How does this work with the Mormon view that Jesus is a created being and Satan’s brother?}}
{{QandA|Question: If Christ is a created being, please explain how Christ created everything but himself. According to John 1:3, all things were made by him, and without him was not anything made that was made.” Christ could not have been created and yet create everything that was made.}}
{{QandA|Question: Jesus is not Satan’s brother.}}

ANSWER
{{DVDHeadingBox|"Only one God" and the Trinity}}
{{QandA|Is there more than one God in the Godhead? ["Godhead" is an LDS term often used as other Christians use the term "Holy Trinity.]}}

This question turns on the question of how language is used. In one sense, there is only one God. In another sense, there are three beings to whom the title "God" is rightly applied: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost. Thus, in one sense the answer is, "No," because these personages together make up "one God." In another sense, the answer is "Yes." One must first be clear about which sense one means before answering the question. And, in answering the question, one must realize that the other sense is not suddenly false.

All Christian groups must grapple with this issue. Much of Christianity settled on the Nicene creed as a solution. The Latter-day Saints reject that solution as extra-biblical.

'''''To learn more''''':
* [[Godhead_and_the_Trinity|Godhead and the trinity]]
{{QandA|Question: Isaiah 44:6, 8 says: “I am the first and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.” “Is there a god beside me? Yes, there is no god; I know not any.” The LDS Church does not believe God is the first or the last and believes there are a host of other gods. How do you answer scripture on this point?}}
{{QandA|Question: Teachings of Joseph Smith, p. 370 --- Joseph Smith teaches multiple gods. Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, pp. 576-577 --- “As each of these persons is a God, it is evident from this standpoint alone that a plurality of Gods exists.” How does this compare with Isaiah 44:6-8, Psalms 90:2, Isaiah 43:10?}}
{{QandA|Question: In the King Follett discourse, Joseph Smith said, “You have got to learn to become gods yourselves, the same as all gods have done before you.” How does this work with clear verses like Isaiah 43:10 (Please read aloud . . .)}}
{{QandA|Question: How do you explain these two verses? Isaiah 43:10-11 (lists passage)}}
ANSWER HERE
{{QandA|Question: I believe Jesus and God are the same in substance. How can this Jesus be the same as the Mormon Jesus? My Jesus is God, yours is not.}}
ANswer here
{{QandA|Question: In light of the fact that the early Church Fathers all believed that God was agenetos (uncreated), how do you justify your attempt to correlate their doctrine of theosis with the LDS belief that God was a man who progressed to become a god?}}
ANSWER HERE
{{QandA|Question: How do you justify believing in Christ while denying his deity? Jesus says, "I and my Father are one. No one comes to the Father but by me." Mormonism says , "Jesus is the Son of God, but not God. Jesus is Satan’s brother, God’s spirit child. These two beliefs cannot be found in the Bible (untouched by Mormons), and so are heretical, discounting the truth of the Christ Mormons believe in.}}

ANSWER HERE
{{DVDHeadingBox|''Theosis'' or Humans Becoming Like God}}

{{QandA|Question: In what ways, ''specifically'', can Mormons become like God?}}

Latter-day Saints accept the teachings of the Bible that the Saints can become like God and Christ. We regard Christ as the model or pattern toward which the believer is journeying:

* Said Jesus, "To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne" ({{b||Revelation|3|21}}).
* "Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is. And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure" ({{s|1|John|3|2-3}}).
* "The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together" ({{b||Romans|8|17}}).

{{SeeAlso|Deification_of_man#Scriptures|l1=Other Bible verses on human deification}}
Latter-day Saints are always mystified when creedal Christians dispute this point—the Bible teaches clearly that the believer will be like Christ in every way: a joint-heir with him of his glories, attributes, and powers, through his grace.

'''''To learn more:''''
* [[Deification_of_man|''Theosis'' or human deification]]

{{QandA|Question: In {{s||DC|132|37}}, it says we have the ability to become gods. Is that Christian? Nowhere in the Bible does it state that we can become gods. If so, where?}}

* Said Jesus, "To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne" ({{b||Revelation|3|21}}).
* "Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is. And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure" ({{s|1|John|3|2-3}}).
* "The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together" ({{b||Romans|8|17}}).

{{SeeAlso|Deification_of_man#Scriptures|l1=Other Bible verses on human deification}}

This belief is also, contrary to the views of some conservative Protestants, entirely Christian. Many early Christian writers and thinkers discussed it:

* Irenaeus: "We were not made gods at our beginning, but first we were made men, then, in the end, gods." {{ref|irenaeus}}
* Clement of Alexandria: "yea, I say, the Word of God became a man so that you might learn from a man how to become a god." {{ref|clement of alex}}
* Justin Martyr: "[By Psalm 82] it is demonstrated that all men are deemed worthy of becoming “gods,” and even of having power to become sons of the Highest."{{ref|justin}}

There are many others.

{{SeeAlso|Deification_of_man#UnChristian.3F|l1=Early Christians on human deification}}

In addition, such Christian groups as the eastern orthodox continue to hold the belief today. It is the modern conservative Protestant, not the Latter-day Saint, that is out of step with the larger sweep of Christian thought and belief on this issue.

Latter-day Saints are always mystified when creedal Christians dispute this point—the Bible and the early Christians teach clearly that the believer will be like Christ in every way: a joint-heir with him of his glories, attributes, and powers, through his grace. They were not shy about using the term "god" to describe this state.

'''''To learn more:''''
* [[Deification_of_man|''Theosis'' or human deification]]

{{DVDHeadingBox|Another gospel?}}
{{QandA|Question: {{b||Galatians|1|6}}, 59 A.D. Paul said, “I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel.” Why have the LDS moved from the Gospel of the Bible? “Let him be accursed who moves away!” {{b||Galations|1|9}}
{{QandA|Question: {{b||Galatians|1|8-10}} --- No other Gospel!}}

The authors of these questions are "begging the question"—they are assuming that which they wish to prove. They are presuming that ''their'' version of Christian doctrine and belief is true, and assuming that it was the same as the doctrine taught to Paul's converts in Galatia.

Latter-day Saints agree with this scripture—but, insist that because of apostasy, the doctrine, rites, and practices of modern "creedal Christians" have been altered from the days of Paul. This is a good example of why an appeal to our own Bible interpretation alone can never resolve the question of God's truth. These issues are discussed further in the section below.

{{QandA|Question: How can you be sure the angel Moroni was sent by God? Please explain {{b||Galatians|1|8-9}}.}}

The question can be turned around: how can the critic be sure that the angel Moroni was ''not'' sent by God? Such matters can only be settled by appealing to God for an answer, as discussed below.
{{DVDHeadingBox|Testimony and determining truth}}
{{QandA|Question: Muslims, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Hindus, etc. all have prayed about the truth of their beliefs. How is your prayer test objective?}}

This question presumes that these other faith groups use prayer to God to determine the truth of their beliefs. In fact, it has not been our experience that most religious groups (including those mentioned) used prayer for knowledge in the way enjoyed upon Latter-day Saints.

The question could also be turned around and posed to the questioner with even greater force: Muslims, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Hindus all have holy texts which they study and regard as evidence for their beliefs, just as Christians have their Bibles. All of them are convinced that their holy texts are accurate, and that the interpretation which they give them is the correct one which will lead them to God. How is ''your'' reading of the Bible or ''your'' holy book "objective"? How do you know that ''you'' have gotten it right and they are all wrong?

Quite simply, there is no "objective" test for a spiritual reality that will convince another person. A conservative Protestant's reading of the Bible is no more objective than a Mormon's reading of the same Bible, or a Muslim's reading of the Qu'ran. All may be sincere, all may do their best, but all cannot be right.

The only being who cannot be mistaken is God. Thus, only God may confirm or correct our best conclusions. The Bible insists: "If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God" ({{b||James|1|4}}). Latter-day Saints encourage all who hear their message to study it and come to their best conclusion, and then to ask God in the name of his Son if the message is true.

{{QandA|Question: {{b|2|Timothy|3|16}} and {{b||John|17|17}} establish the truth of God’s word. Is the Bible, the word of God, still true if I am not so convinced by a feeling or spiritual experience? {{b||John|14|6}} --- Jesus stated that He is the Truth.}}

Something remains true regardless of what we believe, feel, or experience about it. But, why ought we to conclude that the Bible is true? What would we say to the Muslim or Hindu equally convinced that their book is true? One cannot appeal to the Bible's claims that it is true as evidence—after all the Qu'ran and the Book of Mormon also claim to be true.

Critics on this point must realize that only something from ''outside'' a holy book or religious teaching can prove the truth or falsity of the book or teaching. And, Latter-day Saints believe the only reliable source is God—not fallible humans' interpretations of a book, however holy or inspired.

{{QandA|Question: Can we trust our hearts through the Holy Spirit’s revelation through the burning of the bosom? The Bible says that our hearts are the most deceitful of all things (Jeremiah 17:9). How do we know real truth? }}

ANSWER
{{DVDHeadingBox|Scripture}}
{{QandA|Are the Bible & Book of Mormon equally important for LDS?}}

The Book of Mormon itself says that one of its roles is to reinforce and confirm the truth of the Bible, just as the Bible will reinforce and confirm the truth of the Book of Mormon ({{s|2|Nephi|3|12}}). Asking which is more important is a bit like asking which eye a person values more—both provide valuable insight, and one would rather have one than none, but the view is better with both than with either separately.

{{QandA|How can you say that you believe the Bible is the word of God if it is fallible?}}

Latter-day Saints believe the Bible to be the Word of God because of the testimony of the Holy Ghost which is in them. Because God bears witness through his Holy Spirit of the truth, Latter-day Saints are not troubled by the need for a person or text to be "perfect" or "incapable of error" for God to teach them His truths through it.

Only God is without error and infallible—he is able to do his own work, and teach truth from any source in which it is to be found.

{{QandA|If the Bible is not believed to be inerrant, how do you determine what to believe and not to believe? Is the Book of Mormon believed to be inerrant?}}

See above for the first part of this question. For the second part: no, the Book of Mormon expressly says that it is ''not'' inerrant. Because Latter-day Saints use scripture as a step to receiving direct revelation, and not the final step in their process of determining truth, they do not require infallible prophets or infallible books. They need only trust in the Spirit of the infallible God.

{{DVDHeadingBox|Book of Mormon and science}}
{{QandA|Question: With all the civilizations and battles in NA & SA, where is the archeological evidence of these civilizations and battles?}}

ANSWER

{{QandA|Question: The story of the Mormon church is that Hebrew tribes came and settled in North and South America. And these were the Native Americans. Yet, DNA evidence shows Native Americans are from the Asian background, not Jewish.}}

The Book of Mormon speaks only of two or three small groups from the Middle East that settled somewhere in the Americas. It does not require that these be the only peoples before, during, or after Book of Mormon times. Church writers and leaders have been saying this for over a century.

ANSWER

{{QandA|Question: Comparing the Book of Mormon with the Holy Bible: how do you explain that every landmark and war battle referenced in the Bible can be historically proven using other historical documents, while the wars/battles and landmarks referenced in the Book of Mormon cannot? There are no archaeological evidence or historical references besides Mormon documents.}}

Comparing the Book of Mormon with the Holy Bible: how do you explain that every landmark and war battle referenced in the Bible can be historically proven using other historical documents, while the wars/battles and landmarks referenced in the Book of Mormon cannot? There are no archaeological evidence or historical references besides Mormon documents.

In the first place, this claim is false. There are many Biblical sites which have yet to be identified archaeologically, and many sites that are disputed.

In the second place, the world of the Bible enjoys several advantages over the New World setting for the Book of Mormon:
* the cities in the Bible have been continually inhabited from the time of the Bible to the present. By contrast, much of the New World has not even been explored or excavated by archaeology.
* the languages spoken at the time of the Bible are closely related to the languages now spoken in the area, and these languages are well-understood by scholarship. By contrast, there is ''no'' pre-Columbian settlement in the New World for which we know the pre-Columbian name. Even if we had a Nephite city, how would we know when we have only (say) a Spanish name for it?

A final mistake in this question presumes that a historical site somehow "proves" that the Bible is true. It does not. The site of the city of Troy has been found, but this does not "prove" that the Greek gods of the ''Iliad'' are true gods, or that it's account is accurate.

'''''To learn more:'''''
* [[Archeology_and_the_Bible|The Bible and archaeology]]
* [[Book_of_Mormon_archaeology|Book of Mormon and archaeology]]

{{QandA|Question: The Bible references cities that are still standing and backed by maps today. Why can’t the same be said for the Book of Mormon?}}
Answer
{{QandA|Question: What historical concrete evidence exists to prove the basis of plates or any other Mormon beliefs? Why has land never been excavated?}}

Answer
{{DVDHeadingBox|Miscellaneous}}
{{QandA|Who is your living prophet?}}

The current president of the Church (usually called "the prophet") is Thomas S. Monson. He is assisted by two counselors and Twelve apostles, all of whom are sustained by the Church as "prophets, seers, and revelators."

In a different sense, all Latter-day Saints aspire to be "prophets," since "the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy" ({{b||Revelation|19|10}}). Like Moses we "would God that all the LORD's people were prophets, and that the LORD would put his spirit upon them!" ({{b||Numbers|11|29}}).
{{QandA|Question: Do you believe there are people who follow a false Christ? How would you define what a false Christ is?}}

ANSWER

{{QandA|Question: Why do Mormons baptize the dead when they are already dead?}}

ANSWER

{{QandA|Question: Genesis clearly states that God created the earth, the stars, the skies, and everything in it. A man with a lifetime of education who doesn’t know the Lord is a fool.}}

ANSWER

{{QandA|Brigham Young stated, "The Christian God is the Mormon’s devil." Do you (the LDS Church) still believe that statement, or was Brigham Young a false prophet?}}

ANSWER

{{QandA|Does the Mormon church teach that God had a physical union with Mary to conceive Jesus?}}

ANSWER
{{QandA|Did you say you bless the bread and the water(?) in your ordinance?}}

ANSWER

{{QandA|Did Brigham Young teach the Adam-God doctrine?}}

ANSWER

{{QandA|The question about the use of the title "Christian" is not an important one. More importantly, why does the LDS Church continue to hold Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, Erastus Snow, etc. as prophets when countless prophecies that they have made have been proven false?}}

ANSWER

{{QandA|Endnotes}}
#{{note|irenaeus}} {{ECF1|start=94}}
#{{note|clement of alex}} Clement of Alexandria, ''The Instructor'', 3.1 see also Clement, ''Stromateis'', 23.
#{{note|justin}} Justin Martyr, ''Dialogue with Trypho'', 124.
{{DoYouHaveQuestions}}

Criticism of Mormonism/Books/One Nation Under Gods/Use of sources/Wilford Woodruff 1889 revelation

2009-01-19T13:17:35Z

BenjaminPorter: /* The Problem */

__NOTOC__
{{FAIRAnalysisHeader
|title=[[../../]]
|author=Richard Abanes
|noauthor=
|section=[[../../Use of sources|Use of sources]], Revelation in 1889 promised Church would prevail against government?
|previous=[[../An Example of Biased Histories|An Example of Biased Histories]]
|next=[[../Destroying Governments and Religions|Destroying Governments and Religions]]
|notes={{AuthorsDisclaimer}}
}}
=Revelation in 1889 promised Church would prevail against government?=
==The Quotes==
===One Nation under Gods, page 323 (hardback)===

*Did Wilford Woodruff receive a revelation on November 24, 1889 the said that the Church would prevail against the Government effort to seize the Church's assets?
*{{AuthorQuote|"Despite Christ's assurances that the ruling would favor the Saints, May 19, 1890, saw a five to four decision by the Supreme Court to uphold the government's right to close the LDS church, seize its property, and redistribute it."}}

===One Nation under Gods, page YYYY (paperback)===

{{nw}}

==The References==
===Endnote 48, page 588 (hardback)===

*Samuel Taylor, 19.

===Endnote 15, page ZZZZ (paperback)===

{{nw}}

==The Problem==

The revelation reported by Wilford Woodruff read, in part, as follows:

:I the Lord hold the destiny of the Courts in your midst, and the destiny of this Nation, and all other nations of the earth in mine own hands; all all [sic] that I have revealed, and promised and decreed concerning the generation in which you live, shall come to pass, and no power shall stay my hand. Let not my Servants who are called to the Presidency of my Church, deny my word or my law, which concerns the Salvation of the Children of Men, Let them pray for the Holy Spirit, which shall be given them to guide them in their acts. Place not yourselves in jeopardy to your enemies by promise; your enemies seek your distruction [sic] and the distruction [sic] of my people. If the Saints will hearken unto my voice, and the counsel of my Servants the wicked shall not prevail. Let my servants, who officiate as your Counselors before the Courts, make their pleadings as they are moved upon by the Holy Spirit, without any further pledges from the Priesthood, and they shall be justified....Let my servants call upon the Lord in mighty prayer, retain the Holy Ghost as your constant companion, and act as you are moved upon by that spirit, and all will be well with you.{{ref|prophecy.1889}}

The leaders are promised:
* all God has promised and decreed shall come to pass.
* the First Presidency is not at that time to deny or renounce plural marriage (this question was under debate at the meeting at which the revelation was received).{{ref|renounce.1}}
* they will be guided by the Holy Spirit.
* the wicked will not prevail if the Saints hearken to God's voice.
* those making arguments in court should not rely on further concessions from the First Presidency.
* as the leaders follow the Holy Spirit, "all will be well."

Despite the author's claim, there is no hint that the Lord will make the Saints victorious in court—they are merely commanded to trust God, and avoid making further bargains or compromises in the hope of softening the legal blow.

The revelation is clear about what the Saints' "enemies" sought, and what the Lord promised would not happen:

:your enemies seek your distruction [sic] and the distruction [sic] of my people. If the Saints will hearken unto my voice, and the counsel of my Servants the wicked shall not prevail.

Some anti-Mormons would later admit that polygamy was not the real issue; they sought to control Utah at the expense of the Saints:

:Some non-Mormon men…admitted that polygamy was not the most important issue. Fred T. Dubois, a longtime activist against polygamy and Utah statehood, later wrote that “those of us who understood the situation were not nearly so much opposed to polygamy as we were to the political domination of the church. We realized, however, that we could not make those who did not come actually in contact with it, understand what this political domination meant. We made use of polygamy, in consequence, as our great weapon of offense and to gain recruits to our standard.”{{ref|nichols.1}}

==Conclusion==

The Saints ''were not'' destroyed. LDS political influence and control remain intact in Utah to this day. Despite efforts to destroy the Church as a corporate entity, or deny the Saints political representation, all these efforts came to naught. The prophecy was fulfilled.

==Endnotes==
#{{note|prophecy.1889}} L. John Nuttall Journal, 27 November 1889 (Brigham Young University, Special Collections, Mor M270.1 N963 V.3), 106–107; see also Revelation to Wilford Woodruff, in {{WWJ1|vol=9|start=68–69|date=24 November 1889}}. Also available in Clark, ''Messages of the First Presidency'' 3:175–176.
#{{note|renounce.1}} Quinn, 38; citing George Q. Cannon, Diary, 23-24 Nov. 1889, copy in CR 1/48; also First Presidency Office Journal, 24 Nov. 1889, copy in CR 1/48.
#{{note|nichols.1}} Jeffrey D. Nichols, ''Prostitution, Polygamy, and Power: Salt Lake City, 1847–1918'' (Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 2002), Chapter 1; citing Dubois, ''Dubois’s Making of a State'', 48; quoted in Lyman, ''Political Deliverance'', 38–39, n. 42
=Further reading=
{{FAIRAnalysisWiki}}

Criticism of Mormonism/Books/One Nation Under Gods/Use of sources/Church and state all one now

2009-01-07T22:00:41Z

BenjaminPorter: /* The Problem */

__NOTOC__
{{FAIRAnalysisHeader
|title=[[../../]]
|author=Richard Abanes
|noauthor=
|section=[[../../Use of sources|Use of sources]], Church and State is all one now
|previous=[[../An Example of Biased Histories|An Example of Biased Histories]]
|next=[[../Destroying Governments and Religions|Destroying Governments and Religions]]
|notes={{AuthorsDisclaimer}}
}}
=Church and State is all one now=
==The Quotes==
===One Nation under Gods, page 223 (hardback)===

John Taylor said "We used to have a difference between Church and State, but it is all one now..."

===One Nation under Gods, page YYYY (paperback)===

{{nw}}

==The References==
===Endnote 96, page 552 (hardback)===

*{{JDwiki|author=John Taylor|url=http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Journal_of_Discourses/Volume_5/Education%E2%80%94Revelation,_Obedience,_etc.|vol=5|pages=266}}

===Endnote 15, page ZZZZ (paperback)===

{{nw}}

==The Problem==

The historical setting is one in which Johnson's army was en route to menace the Saints. A larger section of Taylor's discourse helps us appreciate his intent:

:Now, let me ask how we are going to stand, '''except we are guided by the revelations of God'''? And let me further ask how you are going to get the revelations of God, except you live your religion and obey those set over you? Let me further ask, What is the use professing to be the people of God if we do not live our religion and magnify our calling?

:I speak of these things merely for argument's sake....

:For instance, there is an army coming up here. Can any of you tell what will be the result, except the proper authorities dictate? Do you know what will be the best? But suppose we get through with this, and I suppose that some of you may begin to guess for this year: but can you for next? Is there a man here that can tell how and where to hide his family and his grain? Are there any in this congregation who know anything about it and that give counsel to this people either for present or coming emergencies? This is bringing things to a focus. '''Now, you wise men, or men of education and literary attainments, or philosophers, speak and display your wisdom. If you cannot, and if we have not any knowledge in this matter, what next?''' Why, we have got to be dependent upon the authority that is over us; and if we cannot submit, how can we be governed by it?

:'''This principle pervades all, whether in a civil or military capacity or in any other capacity'''. We used to have a difference between Church and State, but it is all one now. Thank God, we have no more temporal and spiritual! We have got Church and State together, and we used to talk of '''baptism and repentance''', and we used to whip out sectarian priests with their own Bible, '''and we thought that we were tremendous fellows'''.

:But '''in what part of the Bible do you find what we are to do this year or the next'''? This will be part of a new Bible, for when it takes place it will be written, and then that will be a Bible, and then the world will find that we shall have a "Mormon Bible."

:Men have been opposed to the Book of Mormon because it was a new Bible. The poor fools did not know that wherever there was a true Church there was revelation, and that wherever there was revelation there was the word of God to man and materials to make Bibles of. {{ea}}

Taylor's remark that "we have got Church and State together" becomes more understandable when viewed in context. He points out that previously, the Saints would speak of religious subjects, and apply revelation to them, and were delighted that they could "whip out sectarian priests" who denied on-going prophetic revelation. But now, says Taylor, we have moved beyond that point. We are now in a situation in which we will not benefit from revelation only in religious matters. The Saints are alone, unpopular, and soon to be the victims of an approaching army.

Taylor offers to let secular wisdom—wise men, men of education, philosophers, etc.—solve the secular problems that now face the Saints. If they cannot do it (and Taylor and his audience apparently believe that they cannot) then the only other option is to fall back on revelation—but this will not be revelation about what the world would call purely "religious matters," but it will be applied to a temporal emergency.

Taylor is not, then, gloating that there is no more secular power in Utah territory. Rather, he is pointing out that no one among the Saints has secular solutions to the problems which face them—which might be frightening, but is ''also'' a blessing, since they can now trust God and their faith in ''all matters'', not just the purely "religious." Their right to self-government, far from their enemies, means that they can make the decision as they think best.

=Further reading=
{{FAIRAnalysisWiki}}

Criticism of Mormonism/Books/One Nation Under Gods/Use of sources/Church and state all one now

2009-01-07T21:56:52Z

BenjaminPorter: /* The Problem */

__NOTOC__
{{FAIRAnalysisHeader
|title=[[../../]]
|author=Richard Abanes
|noauthor=
|section=[[../../Use of sources|Use of sources]], Church and State is all one now
|previous=[[../An Example of Biased Histories|An Example of Biased Histories]]
|next=[[../Destroying Governments and Religions|Destroying Governments and Religions]]
|notes={{AuthorsDisclaimer}}
}}
=Church and State is all one now=
==The Quotes==
===One Nation under Gods, page 223 (hardback)===

John Taylor said "We used to have a difference between Church and State, but it is all one now..."

===One Nation under Gods, page YYYY (paperback)===

{{nw}}

==The References==
===Endnote 96, page 552 (hardback)===

*{{JDwiki|author=John Taylor|url=http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Journal_of_Discourses/Volume_5/Education%E2%80%94Revelation,_Obedience,_etc.|vol=5|pages=266}}

===Endnote 15, page ZZZZ (paperback)===

{{nw}}

==The Problem==

The historical setting is one in which Johnson's army was en route to menace the Saints. A larger section of Taylor's discourse helps us appreciate his intent:

:Now, let me ask how we are going to stand, '''except we are guided by the revelations of God'''? And let me further ask how you are going to get the revelations of God, except you live your religion and obey those set over you? Let me further ask, What is the use professing to be the people of God if we do not live our religion and magnify our calling?

:I speak of these things merely for argument's sake....

:For instance, there is an army coming up here. Can any of you tell what will be the result, except the proper authorities dictate? Do you know what will be the best? But suppose we get through with this, and I suppose that some of you may begin to guess for this year: but can you for next? Is there a man here that can tell how and where to hide his family and his grain? Are there any in this congregation who know anything about it and that give counsel to this people either for present or coming emergencies? This is bringing things to a focus. '''Now, you wise men, or men of education and literary attainments, or philosophers, speak and display your wisdom. If you cannot, and if we have not any knowledge in this matter, what next?''' Why, we have got to be dependent upon the authority that is over us; and if we cannot submit, how can we be governed by it?

:'''This principle pervades all, whether in a civil or military capacity or in any other capacity'''. We used to have a difference between Church and State, but it is all one now. Thank God, we have no more temporal and spiritual! We have got Church and State together, and we used to talk of '''baptism and repentance''', and we used to whip out sectarian priests with their own Bible, '''and we thought that we were tremendous fellows'''.

:But '''in what part of the Bible do you find what we are to do this year or the next'''? This will be part of a new Bible, for when it takes place it will be written, and then that will be a Bible, and then the world will find that we shall have a "Mormon Bible."

:Men have been opposed to the Book of Mormon because it was a new Bible. The poor fools did not know that wherever there was a true Church there was revelation, and that wherever there was revelation there was the word of God to man and materials to make Bibles of. {{ea}}

Taylor's remark that "we have got Church and State together" becomes more understandable when viewed in context. He points out that previously, the Saints would speak of religious subjects, and apply revelation to them, and were delighted that they could "whip out sectarian priests" who denied on-going prophetic revelation. But now, says Taylor, we have moved beyond that point. We are now in a situation in which we will not benefit from revelation only in religious matters. The Saints are alone, unpopular, and soon to the victims of an approaching army.

Taylor offers to let secular wisdom—wise men, men of education, philosophers, etc.—solve the secular problems that now face the Saints. If they cannot do it (and Taylor and his audience apparently believe that they cannot) then the only other option is to fall back on revelation—but this will not be revelation about what the world would call purely "religious matters," but it will be applied to a temporal emergency.

Taylor is not, then, gloating that there is no more secular power in Utah territory. Rather, he is pointing out that no one among the Saints has secular solutions to the problems which face them—which might be frightening, but is ''also'' a blessing, since they can now trust God and their faith in ''all matters'', not just the purely "religious." Their right to self-government, far from their enemies, means that they can make the decision as they think best.

=Further reading=
{{FAIRAnalysisWiki}}

Question: Why do Mormons follow the practice of most Christians by resting and worshiping on Sunday?

2009-01-07T17:19:33Z

BenjaminPorter: /* Early Christian authors on the Christian Sabbath */

{{EarlyChristianityPortal}}
{{question}}
 {{draft}}
==Question==
The Old Testament commands men to rest on the Sabbath, the seventh day of the week. Why do Mormons then follow the practice of most Christians by resting and worshiping on Sunday?

==Answer==
We believe the Lord's day ({{s||Revelation|1|10}}) to be the first day of the week.

This understanding is not unique to the Latter-day Saints; in fact, it has its origins early in the Christian century.

===Biblical evidence===

There is no question that the Old Testament refers to the Sabbath being on the seventh day — but, it is important to remember that the Old Testament law and practice was substantially changed in the early Christian church.

As {{s||Hebrews|7|12}} says

:For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.

The Mosaic law was fulfilled and so worship was altered, and this included the Sabbath as well.

To be consistent, advocates of the Old Testament Sabbath should also keep the seventh month of every year, and the seventh year as Sabbaths also. And in the seventh year, the fields which you farmed would have to be left to the poor and to the beasts of the field. You would also have to release all debts owed to you in this selfsame year. Other requirements that would still be in force would include the preparation of all food the evening before the Sabbath, and you wouldn't be able to kindle a fire on the Sabbath ({{s||Exodus|35|3}}). And those breaking the Sabbath would have to be put to death ({{s||Exodus|31|14-17}})! This view of Sabbath worship is not the same as that spoken of in the New Testament.

The Acts of the Apostles tells us

:And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight ({{s||Acts|20|7}}).

Thus, in the earliest days of Christian worship, a group of Christ's followers gathered together in a house (where Church meetings were held in those days) on Sunday, where bread was broken (a term used for the sacrament or communion ({{s|1|Corinthians|11|24}}), while a Church leader teaches of Christ. This sounds like a Church meeting held on the Sabbath.

===Early Christian authors on the Christian Sabbath===

Other Christian authors not found in the Bible support this view of Acts.

Ignatius (died A.D. 98–117) was taught by John the Apostle, and he understood what the Lord's day meant in John's Book of Revelation. He said

:if, then, those who walked in ancient customs came to a new hope, no longer sabbathing, but living by the Lord's day, on which we came to life through Him and through his death....

Ignatius makes a distinction between "sabbathing" (i.e. observing the Jewish Sabbath on Saturday) and the "Lord's day" (the first day of the week). He continues:

:let every friend of Christ keep the Lord’s Day as a festival, the resurrection-day, the queen and chief of all the days [of the week]. Looking forward to this, the prophet declared, “To the end, for the eighth day,” on which our life both sprang up again, and the victory over death was obtained in Christ, whom the children of perdition, the enemies of the Saviour, deny, “whose god is their belly, who mind earthly things,” ({{s||Philipians|3|18-19}}) who are “lovers of pleasure, and not lovers of God, having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof,” ({{s|2|Timothy|3|4}}). These make merchandise for Christ, corrupting His word, and giving up Jesus to sale; they are corrupters of women, and covetous of other men's possessions, swallowing up wealth insatiably; from whom may ye be delivered by the mercy of God through our Lord Jesus Christ!{{ref|fn1}}

Here he gives a little more detail on the Lord's day. It is the "eighth day," or the first day of the week, and can be understood in Justin Martyr's (A.D. 100–165) teachings as such:

:The command of circumcision, again, bidding [them] always circumcise the children on the eighth day, was a type of the true circumcision, by which we are circumcised from deceit and iniquity through Him who rose from the dead on the first day after the Sabbath, [namely through] our Lord Jesus Christ. For the first day after the Sabbath, remaining the first of all the days , is called, however, the eighth, according to the number of all the days of the cycle, and [yet] remains the first.{{ref|fn2}}

Justin also wrote:

:the day of the sun is the day on which we all gather in a common meeting, because it is the first day, the day on which God, changing darkness and matter, created the world; and it is the day on which Jesus Christ our Savior rose from the dead for He was crucified on the day before that of “kronos” (Greek counter part of the Roman god Saturn which is where Saturday gets its name); and on the day after that of “kronos”, which is the day of the sun (Sunday), He appeared to His Apostles and disciples, and taught them these things which we have also submitted to you for your consideration.

He also taught

:and on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together in to one place, and the memoirs of the Apostles or the writings of the Prophets are read as long as time permits; then when the reader has ceased, the President verbally instructs and exhorts to imitation of these good things{{ref|fn3}}

Here, Justin points out that Christians worshipped on Sunday. He also says:

:But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Saviour on the same day rose from the dead. For He was crucified on the day before that of Saturn (Saturday); and on the day after that of Saturn, which is the day of the Sun, having appeared to His apostles and disciples, He taught them these things, which we have submitted to you also for your consideration.{{ref|fn4}}

The Epistle of Barnabas, which purports to have been written by Barnabas, Paul's missionary companion, reads,

:Lastly he says to them, I cannot stand your new moons and your Sabbaths. Consider what he means by it: the Sabbaths, he says, that you now keep are not acceptable to me, but only those which I have made, when resting from all things I shall begin the eighth day, that is, the beginning of the other world." Wherefore, also, we keep the eighth day with joyfulness, the day also on which Jesus rose again from the dead. And when He had manifested Himself, He ascended into the heavens.{{ref|fn5}}

In the ''Didache'', which was written around A.D. 140, it says

:on the Lord's day of the Lord gather together, break bread and give thanks, after confessing your transgressions so that your sacrifice may be pure.{{ref|fn9}}{{nc}}

Again, we see that the Christians are told, on the Lords day (Sunday) they are to gather together and meet for the celebration of the Lord's supper (LDS readers would call this the "sacrament.")

The redundancy of “the Lord's day of the Lord” in Greek indicates that the term “Lord's day” had
already become a common usage for Sunday, so much so that it is now used as a distinct term
apart from its root meaning.{{ref|fn10}}

Augustine (A.D. 354–430) says:

:"the Apostles decreed that Sunday must be kept holy" and "every lover of Christ celebrates the Lords day, consecrated to the resurrection of Christ, as the queen and chief of all days." {{ref|fn6}} {{nc}}

===Biblical Commentators===

Various Biblical commentators also agree that the Sabbath as observed by the early Christians was Sunday:

Dr. Adam Clark, in his ''Commentary'' treating Revelation 1:10, says:

:'The Lord's day' the first day of the week, observed as the Christian Sabbath, because on it Jesus Christ rose from the dead: therefore it was called the Lords day; and has taken place of the Jewish Sabbath, throughout the Christian world.{{ref|fn7}}{{nc}}

Dr. Thomas Scott, in his ''Commentary'' dealing with this same verse, says:

This was 'on the Lord's day' which can be meant of no other, than the day on which the Lord Jesus arose from the dead, even "the first day of the week": and it is conclusive proof, that the first day was set apart, and kept holy, by the primitive Christians, in commemoration of the great event: for on what other account could it have been thus mentioned!"{{ref|fn8}}{{nc}}

In the Jameson, Fausett, and Brown's Commentary on this same passage, they write:

:...on the Lords day--Though forcibly detained from Church communion with the brethren in the
sanctuary on the Lord's day, the weekly commemoration of the resurrection, John was holding
spiritual communion with them. This is the earliest mention of the term 'the Lord's day!' But the
consecration of the day to worship, almsgiving, and the Lord's supper, is implied, {{s||Acts|20|7}};{{s|1|Corinthians|16|2}}, cf. {{s||John|20|19-26}}. The name corresponds to 'the Lord's supper,' {{s|1|Corinthians|11|20}}. Ignatius seems to allude to 'the Lord's day' (''ad. Magnes'', 9) and Irenaeus in the ''Quaest. ad Orthod''. (in Justin Martyr). Justin Martyr ''Apology'' 2:98 &c. 'On Sunday we hold our joint meeting; for the first day is that on which God, having removed darkness and chaos, made the world, and Jesus Christ our Savior rose from the dead. On the day before Saturday they crucified Him, and on the day after Saturday, which is Sunday, having appeared to His apostles and disciples, he taught these things.' To the Lord's day Pliny doubtless refers (Ex 97, B10), 'The Christians on a fixed day before dawn meet and sing a hymn to Christ as God.'"{{ref|fn11}}{{nc}}

===Non-Christian authors===

The Roman historians, Suetonius and Pliny, who lived and wrote in the first centuries of the
Christian era, during the bloody martyr ages, are good witnesses in this problem. As they were
neither Christians nor Jews, but heathens, and not concerned in the controversy in any respect, their incidental historic testimony is compelling.

They report that Christians charged with violating Roman law through their worship were asked: "Dominicum servaste?" — "Hast thou kept the Lord's day?" The Christian responded: "Christianus sum" — "I am a Christian." "Intermittere non possum" — "I can not omit it." This response doomed the Christian to martyrdom.{{ref|pliny1}}{{nc}}

To understanding the above exchange, it is important to note that the Jewish Sabbath was never was called "the Lord's day," but simply "the Sabbath day." If the early Christians had kept the seventh day, they would have been asked: "Sabbaticum servaste?" — "Hast thou kept the Sabbath day?" But this question never was asked by their persecutors. It is historically untenable to deny that the Lord's day was kept from the Apostolic age onward.

It is a significant fact that the day of Pentecost, upon which day the apostles received
their spiritual endowment by the outpouring of the Holy Ghost, “that year fell on the first day of the week”—that is, Sunday.{{ref|fn12}}

==Conclusion==

Latter-day Saints do not base their worship practices on an analysis of early Christian history, or on the comments of scholars in Biblical commentaries, though these sources can confirm Church teachings. Rather, the Saints follow the guidance of a living prophet. However, it seems clear that the Latter-day Saint practice of observing the day of rest and worship on Sunday—like most of the Christian world—is consistent with the earliest Christian practice of which we have record.

Interestingly, however, the most important aspect of Sabbath worship for the LDS seems to be the worship, and not the day on which it is held. Most LDS worship occurs on Sunday. General Authorities, who must often travel on conference assignments on Sunday, fast and receive the sacrament weekly on Thursdays. Church branches in Israel worship on Saturday. Branches in Muslim countries, such as Egypt, meet on Friday, the Muslim holy day.{{ref|worshipdays1}} Wrote one account of the Church in Israel:

:Jerusalem is home to three major religions: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. None of the three shares the same day of worship. Islam recognizes Friday as a holy day, Judaism celebrates the Sabbath on Saturday, while Christianity generally adheres to a Sunday day of worship. These differences posed significant challenges in the lives of the Saints living in the Holy Land, and David Galbraith posed questions regarding this matter to President Lee during the Prophet's visit to Jerusalem [in September 1972].

:Following President Lee's visit, branch president David Galbraith wrote a letter to the First Presidency wherein he outlined four major concerns and formally recommended that the day of worship for Latter-day Saints in the Holy Land be changed. The four concerns were as follows: First, for the Jews, public transportation ceases on Saturday, stores and places of entertainment are closed, and in Jerusalem the streets are full of families going to and from their synagogues. Second, Sunday, on the other hand, is a normal working day. Those attending the universities have classes, many of the children have school, and, in fact, everyone except those in the diplomatic corps have other obligations on that day. Third, the members were scattered throughout the country, and the majority relied on public transportation. It would be impossible to hold late afternoon or evening services on Sunday. Fourth, the members of the Church had been holding their meetings on the Jewish Sabbath rather than Sunday for some time with at least the tacit approval of the mission.

:Two months after President Harold B. Lee's visit to the Holy Land, he authorized President David Galbraith to conduct worship services in Israel on the Jewish Sabbath (Saturday). This authorization is dated November 20, 1972. This decision in Israel served as a precedent to include Friday observance as a day of worship in countries of primarily Islamic populations, such as Egypt and Jordan.{{ref|alterday1}}

Clearly, the Lord is far more concerned that His people worship Him regularly, and that they set aside a day to dedicate to him. He does not wish us to contend about a matter as trivial as the day dedicated to his worship.(See: {{s|3|Nephi|11|29-30}}, {{s||Colossians|2|16}}.)

Early Christians chose a new Sabbath day, partly to separate themselves from their Jewish roots, and to make clear that the Christian covenant of grace was a ''new'' covenant or testament from the Mosaic law.

The modern Church, guided by prophets and apostles, does not seek contention with others over the "proper" day of worship; rather, they invite all to worship and come unto Christ. This tends to be done on the day which accords best with the practices and patterns of the culture in which they find themselves.

==Endnotes==

#{{note|fn1}} {{Anf1| author=Irenaeus|article=Ignatius to the Magnesians|vol=1|citation=|start=63}}
#{{note|fn2}}{{Anf1| author=Justin Martyr|article=Dialogue with Trypho|vol=1|citation=Chapter 41|start=215}}
#{{note|fn3}}{{Anf1| author=Justin Martyr|article=First Apology|vol=1|citation=Chapter 67|start=186}}
#{{note|fn4}} {{Anf1| author=Justin Martyr|article=First Apology|vol=1|citation=Chapter 67|start=186}}
#{{note|fn5}} {{Anf1| author=Attributed to Barnabas|article=Epistle of Barnabas|vol=1|citation=Chapter 15|start=147}}
#{{note|fn9}}{{nc}}
#{{note|fn10}} William A. Jurgens, ''The Faith of the Early Fathers'', Volume 1, (Liturgical Press, 1970), 5. ISBN 0814604323.
#{{note|fn6}} {{NC}}
#{{note|fn7}} {{nc}}
#{{note|fn8}} {{nc}}
#{{note|fn11}}{{nc}}
#{{note|pliny1}}{{nc}}
#{{note|fn12}} "Lord's day," in ''Smith's Bible Dictionary'' (Hackett and Abbott’s edition) 2:1677. See also ''First Name'' Bramhall, "Discourse on the Sabbath and the Lords day," in ''Need Title'' (Oxford edition, ''YEAR?'') vol. 5:51—“and when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in place.” It is very possible that all the believers were in "one place" was because they were worshipping together.{{NeedCite}}''Note need for more info on these references''
#{{note|worshipdays1}} Personal communication from those who have lived in Israel and Egypt, FAIR e-mail list.
#{{note|alterday1}} LaMar C. Berrett and Blair G. Van Dyke, ''Holy Lands: A History of the Latter-day Saints in the Near East'' (American Fork, Utah: Covenant Communications, 2005), 372–373.

==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===
{{ApostasyWiki}}

===FAIR web site===
{{ApostasyFAIR}}

===External links===
{{ApostasyLinks}}

===Printed material===
{{ApostasyPrint}}

Question: Why do Mormons follow the practice of most Christians by resting and worshiping on Sunday?

2009-01-07T17:11:06Z

BenjaminPorter: /* Biblical evidence */

{{EarlyChristianityPortal}}
{{question}}
 {{draft}}
==Question==
The Old Testament commands men to rest on the Sabbath, the seventh day of the week. Why do Mormons then follow the practice of most Christians by resting and worshiping on Sunday?

==Answer==
We believe the Lord's day ({{s||Revelation|1|10}}) to be the first day of the week.

This understanding is not unique to the Latter-day Saints; in fact, it has its origins early in the Christian century.

===Biblical evidence===

There is no question that the Old Testament refers to the Sabbath being on the seventh day — but, it is important to remember that the Old Testament law and practice was substantially changed in the early Christian church.

As {{s||Hebrews|7|12}} says

:For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.

The Mosaic law was fulfilled and so worship was altered, and this included the Sabbath as well.

To be consistent, advocates of the Old Testament Sabbath should also keep the seventh month of every year, and the seventh year as Sabbaths also. And in the seventh year, the fields which you farmed would have to be left to the poor and to the beasts of the field. You would also have to release all debts owed to you in this selfsame year. Other requirements that would still be in force would include the preparation of all food the evening before the Sabbath, and you wouldn't be able to kindle a fire on the Sabbath ({{s||Exodus|35|3}}). And those breaking the Sabbath would have to be put to death ({{s||Exodus|31|14-17}})! This view of Sabbath worship is not the same as that spoken of in the New Testament.

The Acts of the Apostles tells us

:And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight ({{s||Acts|20|7}}).

Thus, in the earliest days of Christian worship, a group of Christ's followers gathered together in a house (where Church meetings were held in those days) on Sunday, where bread was broken (a term used for the sacrament or communion ({{s|1|Corinthians|11|24}}), while a Church leader teaches of Christ. This sounds like a Church meeting held on the Sabbath.

===Early Christian authors on the Christian Sabbath===

Other Christian authors not found in the Bible support this view of Acts.

Ignatius (died A.D. 98–117) was taught by John the Apostle, and he understood what the Lord's day meant in John's Book of Revelation. He said

:if, then, those who walked in ancient customs came to a new hope, no longer sabbathing, but living by the Lord's day, on which we came to life through Him and through his death....

Ignatius makes a distinction between "sabbathing" (i.e. observing the Jewish Sabbath on Saturday) and the "Lord's day" (the first day of the week). He continues:

:let every friend of Christ keep the Lord’s Day as a festival, the resurrection-day, the queen and chief of all the days [of the week]. Looking forward to this, the prophet declared, “To the end, for the eighth day,” on which our life both sprang up again, and the victory over death was obtained in Christ, whom the children of perdition, the enemies of the Saviour, deny, “whose god is their belly, who mind earthly things,” ({{s||Philipians|3|18-19}}) who are “lovers of pleasure, and not lovers of God, having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof,” ({{s|2|Timothy|3|4}}). These make merchandise for Christ, corrupting His word, and giving up Jesus to sale; they are corrupters of women, and covetous of other men's possessions, swallowing up wealth insatiably; from whom may ye be delivered by the mercy of God through our Lord Jesus Christ!{{ref|fn1}}

Here he gives a little more detail on the Lord's day. It is the "eighth day," or the first day of the week, and can be understood in Justin Martyr's (A.D. 100–165) teachings as such:

:The command of circumcision, again, bidding [them] always circumcise the children on the eighth day, was a type of the true circumcision, by which we are circumcised from deceit and iniquity through Him who rose from the dead on the first day after the Sabbath, [namely through] our Lord Jesus Christ. For the first day after the Sabbath, remaining the first of all the days , is called, however, the eighth, according to the number of all the days of the cycle, and [yet] remains the first.{{ref|fn2}}

Justin also wrote:

:the day of the sun is the day on which we all gather in a common meeting, because it is the first
day, the day on which God, changing darkness and matter, created the world; and it is the day on which Jesus Christ our Savior rose from the dead for He was crucified on the day before that of
“kronos” (Greek counter part of the Roman god Saturn which is where Saturday gets its name); and on
the day after that of “kronos”, which is the day of the sun (Sunday), He appeared to His Apostles
and disciples, and taught them these things which we have also submitted to you for your consideration.

He also taught

:and on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together in to one place, and the memoirs of the Apostles or the writings of the Prophets are read as long as time permits; then when the reader has ceased, the President verbally instructs and exhorts to imitation of these good things{{ref|fn3}}

Here, Justin points out that Christians worshipped on Sunday. He also says:

:But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Saviour on the same day rose from the dead. For He was crucified on the day before that of Saturn (Saturday); and on the day after that of Saturn, which is the day of the Sun, having appeared to His apostles and disciples, He taught them these things, which we have submitted to you also for your consideration.{{ref|fn4}}

The Epistle of Barnabas, which purports to have been written by Barnabas, Paul's missionary companion, reads,

:Lastly he says to them, I cannot stand your new moons and your Sabbaths. Consider what he means by it: the Sabbaths, he says, that you now keep are not acceptable to me, but only those which I have made, when resting from all things I shall begin the eighth day, that is, the beginning of the other world." Wherefore, also, we keep the eighth day with joyfulness, the day also on which Jesus rose again from the dead. And when He had manifested Himself, He ascended into the heavens.{{ref|fn5}}

In the ''Didache'', which was written around A.D. 140, it says

:on the Lord's day of the Lord gather together, break bread and give thanks, after confessing your transgressions so that your sacrifice may be pure.{{ref|fn9}}{{nc}}

Again, we see that the Christians are told, on the Lords day (Sunday) they are to gather together and meet for the celebration of the Lord's supper (LDS readers would call this the "sacrament.")

The redundancy of “the Lord's day of the Lord” in Greek indicates that the term “Lord's day” had
already become a common usage for Sunday, so much so that it is now used as a distinct term
apart from its root meaning.{{ref|fn10}}

Augustine (A.D. 354–430) says:

:"the Apostles decreed that Sunday must be kept holy" and "every lover of Christ celebrates the Lords day, consecrated to the resurrection of Christ, as the queen and chief of all days." {{ref|fn6}} {{nc}}

===Biblical Commentators===

Various Biblical commentators also agree that the Sabbath as observed by the early Christians was Sunday:

Dr. Adam Clark, in his ''Commentary'' treating Revelation 1:10, says:

:'The Lord's day' the first day of the week, observed as the Christian Sabbath, because on it Jesus Christ rose from the dead: therefore it was called the Lords day; and has taken place of the Jewish Sabbath, throughout the Christian world.{{ref|fn7}}{{nc}}

Dr. Thomas Scott, in his ''Commentary'' dealing with this same verse, says:

This was 'on the Lord's day' which can be meant of no other, than the day on which the Lord Jesus arose from the dead, even "the first day of the week": and it is conclusive proof, that the first day was set apart, and kept holy, by the primitive Christians, in commemoration of the great event: for on what other account could it have been thus mentioned!"{{ref|fn8}}{{nc}}

In the Jameson, Fausett, and Brown's Commentary on this same passage, they write:

:...on the Lords day--Though forcibly detained from Church communion with the brethren in the
sanctuary on the Lord's day, the weekly commemoration of the resurrection, John was holding
spiritual communion with them. This is the earliest mention of the term 'the Lord's day!' But the
consecration of the day to worship, almsgiving, and the Lord's supper, is implied, {{s||Acts|20|7}};{{s|1|Corinthians|16|2}}, cf. {{s||John|20|19-26}}. The name corresponds to 'the Lord's supper,' {{s|1|Corinthians|11|20}}. Ignatius seems to allude to 'the Lord's day' (''ad. Magnes'', 9) and Irenaeus in the ''Quaest. ad Orthod''. (in Justin Martyr). Justin Martyr ''Apology'' 2:98 &c. 'On Sunday we hold our joint meeting; for the first day is that on which God, having removed darkness and chaos, made the world, and Jesus Christ our Savior rose from the dead. On the day before Saturday they crucified Him, and on the day after Saturday, which is Sunday, having appeared to His apostles and disciples, he taught these things.' To the Lord's day Pliny doubtless refers (Ex 97, B10), 'The Christians on a fixed day before dawn meet and sing a hymn to Christ as God.'"{{ref|fn11}}{{nc}}

===Non-Christian authors===

The Roman historians, Suetonius and Pliny, who lived and wrote in the first centuries of the
Christian era, during the bloody martyr ages, are good witnesses in this problem. As they were
neither Christians nor Jews, but heathens, and not concerned in the controversy in any respect, their incidental historic testimony is compelling.

They report that Christians charged with violating Roman law through their worship were asked: "Dominicum servaste?" — "Hast thou kept the Lord's day?" The Christian responded: "Christianus sum" — "I am a Christian." "Intermittere non possum" — "I can not omit it." This response doomed the Christian to martyrdom.{{ref|pliny1}}{{nc}}

To understanding the above exchange, it is important to note that the Jewish Sabbath was never was called "the Lord's day," but simply "the Sabbath day." If the early Christians had kept the seventh day, they would have been asked: "Sabbaticum servaste?" — "Hast thou kept the Sabbath day?" But this question never was asked by their persecutors. It is historically untenable to deny that the Lord's day was kept from the Apostolic age onward.

It is a significant fact that the day of Pentecost, upon which day the apostles received
their spiritual endowment by the outpouring of the Holy Ghost, “that year fell on the first day of the week”—that is, Sunday.{{ref|fn12}}

==Conclusion==

Latter-day Saints do not base their worship practices on an analysis of early Christian history, or on the comments of scholars in Biblical commentaries, though these sources can confirm Church teachings. Rather, the Saints follow the guidance of a living prophet. However, it seems clear that the Latter-day Saint practice of observing the day of rest and worship on Sunday—like most of the Christian world—is consistent with the earliest Christian practice of which we have record.

Interestingly, however, the most important aspect of Sabbath worship for the LDS seems to be the worship, and not the day on which it is held. Most LDS worship occurs on Sunday. General Authorities, who must often travel on conference assignments on Sunday, fast and receive the sacrament weekly on Thursdays. Church branches in Israel worship on Saturday. Branches in Muslim countries, such as Egypt, meet on Friday, the Muslim holy day.{{ref|worshipdays1}} Wrote one account of the Church in Israel:

:Jerusalem is home to three major religions: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. None of the three shares the same day of worship. Islam recognizes Friday as a holy day, Judaism celebrates the Sabbath on Saturday, while Christianity generally adheres to a Sunday day of worship. These differences posed significant challenges in the lives of the Saints living in the Holy Land, and David Galbraith posed questions regarding this matter to President Lee during the Prophet's visit to Jerusalem [in September 1972].

:Following President Lee's visit, branch president David Galbraith wrote a letter to the First Presidency wherein he outlined four major concerns and formally recommended that the day of worship for Latter-day Saints in the Holy Land be changed. The four concerns were as follows: First, for the Jews, public transportation ceases on Saturday, stores and places of entertainment are closed, and in Jerusalem the streets are full of families going to and from their synagogues. Second, Sunday, on the other hand, is a normal working day. Those attending the universities have classes, many of the children have school, and, in fact, everyone except those in the diplomatic corps have other obligations on that day. Third, the members were scattered throughout the country, and the majority relied on public transportation. It would be impossible to hold late afternoon or evening services on Sunday. Fourth, the members of the Church had been holding their meetings on the Jewish Sabbath rather than Sunday for some time with at least the tacit approval of the mission.

:Two months after President Harold B. Lee's visit to the Holy Land, he authorized President David Galbraith to conduct worship services in Israel on the Jewish Sabbath (Saturday). This authorization is dated November 20, 1972. This decision in Israel served as a precedent to include Friday observance as a day of worship in countries of primarily Islamic populations, such as Egypt and Jordan.{{ref|alterday1}}

Clearly, the Lord is far more concerned that His people worship Him regularly, and that they set aside a day to dedicate to him. He does not wish us to contend about a matter as trivial as the day dedicated to his worship.(See: {{s|3|Nephi|11|29-30}}, {{s||Colossians|2|16}}.)

Early Christians chose a new Sabbath day, partly to separate themselves from their Jewish roots, and to make clear that the Christian covenant of grace was a ''new'' covenant or testament from the Mosaic law.

The modern Church, guided by prophets and apostles, does not seek contention with others over the "proper" day of worship; rather, they invite all to worship and come unto Christ. This tends to be done on the day which accords best with the practices and patterns of the culture in which they find themselves.

==Endnotes==

#{{note|fn1}} {{Anf1| author=Irenaeus|article=Ignatius to the Magnesians|vol=1|citation=|start=63}}
#{{note|fn2}}{{Anf1| author=Justin Martyr|article=Dialogue with Trypho|vol=1|citation=Chapter 41|start=215}}
#{{note|fn3}}{{Anf1| author=Justin Martyr|article=First Apology|vol=1|citation=Chapter 67|start=186}}
#{{note|fn4}} {{Anf1| author=Justin Martyr|article=First Apology|vol=1|citation=Chapter 67|start=186}}
#{{note|fn5}} {{Anf1| author=Attributed to Barnabas|article=Epistle of Barnabas|vol=1|citation=Chapter 15|start=147}}
#{{note|fn9}}{{nc}}
#{{note|fn10}} William A. Jurgens, ''The Faith of the Early Fathers'', Volume 1, (Liturgical Press, 1970), 5. ISBN 0814604323.
#{{note|fn6}} {{NC}}
#{{note|fn7}} {{nc}}
#{{note|fn8}} {{nc}}
#{{note|fn11}}{{nc}}
#{{note|pliny1}}{{nc}}
#{{note|fn12}} "Lord's day," in ''Smith's Bible Dictionary'' (Hackett and Abbott’s edition) 2:1677. See also ''First Name'' Bramhall, "Discourse on the Sabbath and the Lords day," in ''Need Title'' (Oxford edition, ''YEAR?'') vol. 5:51—“and when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in place.” It is very possible that all the believers were in "one place" was because they were worshipping together.{{NeedCite}}''Note need for more info on these references''
#{{note|worshipdays1}} Personal communication from those who have lived in Israel and Egypt, FAIR e-mail list.
#{{note|alterday1}} LaMar C. Berrett and Blair G. Van Dyke, ''Holy Lands: A History of the Latter-day Saints in the Near East'' (American Fork, Utah: Covenant Communications, 2005), 372–373.

==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===
{{ApostasyWiki}}

===FAIR web site===
{{ApostasyFAIR}}

===External links===
{{ApostasyLinks}}

===Printed material===
{{ApostasyPrint}}

Kirtland Safety Society

2009-01-06T23:59:34Z

BenjaminPorter: /* Illegal? */

{{JosephSmithPortal}}
{{GermanWiki|http://www.de.fairmormon.org/index.php/Kirtland_Safety_Society}}
==Criticism==
Critics attack Joseph Smith over the Kirtland Safety Society (KSS) on multiple grounds:
* they claim the KSS was a "wildcat bank"
* they claim that the bank was illegal, and that the Church broke the law by founding it
* they claim it was a money-making scheme for Joseph
* they claim its failure proves Joseph was not a prophet

===Source(s) of the Criticism===
*{{CriticalWork:Brodie:No Man Knows|pages=Chapter 14}}
* William Alexander Linn, ''The Story of the Mormons'' (New York: Russell & Russell, 1902).

==Response==

After presenting a timeline of events associated with the KSS, this article will discuss:
* vocabulary often used in discussions of banks and banking
* the reason for the formation of the KSS
* the status of banks in the 1830s frontier
* the way in which the KSS functioned

The criticisms will then be addressed.

==Timeline of KSS==

;27 March 1836: Kirtland Temple dedication

;August 1836: Oliver Cowdery investigates the production of bank notes, so consideration of a bank underway by this date.

;2 November 1836: The Kirtland Safety Society Bank’s constitution is drafted. Sidney Rigdon made president; Joseph Smith made cashier.

;1 January 1837 : Oliver Cowdery arrives with printing plates for bank notes; Orson Hyde reports that the state legislature will not grant them a charter. Their inability to receive a charter leads them to form a joint-stock company, the Kirtland Safety Society Anti-Banking Company (KSS).

;2 January 1837 : KSS opens for business.

;6 January 1837 : Notes from the KSS begin circulating

;23 January 1837: The KSS announces it can redeem notes with land, but was unable to redeem its notes in specie (gold)

;1 February 1837: KSS notes circulating at only 12.5 cents per dollar face value

;10 February 1837: A second attempt is made to get a bank charter; some non-Mormons are part of this application, including Joseph Smith’s lawyer and Samuel Medary, a future governor of two states.{{ref|adams1}}

; April 1837: Joseph Smith twice warns the Saints that the KSS will fail if the members do not accept the notes as payment for goods and services

; May 1837: All banks in Ohio suspend specie payment as a banking panic spreads west from New York.

;8 June 1837 : Joseph Smith resigns from KSS, as he is convinced the bank is not viable

;June 1837 : LDS newspaper ''Messenger and Advocate'' reports that Kirtland land prices have increased 800% during the past year alone.{{ref|messenger1}}

;July 1837: Extant note for $100 with Warren Parrish's signature.

;August 1837: Joseph Smith denounces the new leadership of the KSS, since Parrish, at least, was continuing to issue new scrip even though the bank was failing.

;27 September 1837 : Joseph and Sidney Rigdon go to visit Missouri; in their absence, the Kirtland Church is rent by strife and apostasy

;October 1837: Joseph and Sidney found guilty at trial of illegal banking and issuing unauthorized bank paper currency (a civil, not criminal offense). They are fined $1,000 each, and appeal.

;November 1837 : Final failure of the KSS. Joseph is left with debts of $100,000; he has goods and land, but these are unable to be converted into ready cash

;22 December 1837 : Brigham Young flees Kirtland for Missouri, convinced that his life is in danger from apostates because of his staunch defense of Joseph Smith

;12 January 1838 : Joseph Smith, having returned to Kirtland, leaves with Sidney Rigdon to escape the risk of prison and mob action

==Terms and Definitions==

;face value: the specie value marked on scrip. For a $20 note, the face value would be $20.
;note: another term for ''scrip''
;redeem: to exchange scrip for specie at the bank
;specie: hard currency, precious metal coins of accepted value (gold or silver)
;scrip: paper money, issued by a bank. An example of KSS scrip can be seen [http://www.mormonmoney.com/Kirtland%20Anti-Bank%20Notes.htm here].
;suspension of payment: an indication by a bank that, until further notice, it can no longer redeem its scrip with the face value of specie.
;wildcat bank: a bank established as a money-making scam. "A wildcat bank was one in which the managers of the bank made a deliberate effort to evade paying off notes by making the place of redemption inaccessible to those trying to trade notes for specie" (Partridge, 451). Thus, the bank kept the specie, and the note holder was left with worthless paper which no one would honor, since it could not be redeemed (the bank being located "where the wildcats are"). Such banks usually collapsed quite quickly when it became clear that their notes were not easily redeemed.

==Why form a bank?==

In the early days of the Church, the finances of Joseph Smith and the institutional Church were enmeshed. This was not unusual, as the idea of religious groups functioning as corporations and holding property was frowned on in Jacksonian America.

In 1836, the Church was centered at Kirtland, and was undergoing substantial growth. The Saints were constructing the Kirtland temple, at considerable cost, as well as financing property and business acquisitions, the immigration of poor members to Ohio, and missionary work.

To finance this explosive growth, loans were sought. Joseph Smith and the Church had extensive loans; some loans were for Joseph, some for Kirtland, and some for the Church. In some instances, Joseph was the only borrower, in other cases he was one among many who were liable for a given debt.

Banks do not loan money to those they consider poor risks, and so to his contemporaries, Joseph clearly appeared to have the ability to meet his obligations. The amount of the loans seems to have been less than the total value of the lands, businesses, and goods which Joseph and the Church owned. However, these assets were difficult to liquify—the loans were often short-term (from a few weeks to around 180 days) and so cash flow problems beset Joseph continually.{{ref|hill1}}

==What were banks like at the time?==

This sort of situation is difficult for a modern reader to appreciate: we have easy world-wide banking, debit cards, credit cards, mortgages, and lines of credit. Kirtland was not alone in this struggle—hundreds of frontier communities tried to set up banks in the late 1830s.

As one author remarked:

:The founders of the Kirtland Bank would have avoided their distress if national and state leaders had allowed financial markets to grow in an orderly manner. One medium-sized, twenty-year mortgage would have solved most of the financial problems faced by these founders.{{ref|adams2}}

The Saints were land rich but cash poor. Credit was scarce on the frontier, and even specie was in short supply. The Saints could not easily convert their considerable land wealth into cash to pay for purchases. (One cannot, for example, pay someone 1/10 of an acre of land for a barrel of nails!)

There were no national banks, and many Democrats were strongly anti-bank. Those on the frontier needed help desperately to keep their economies moving:

:The attitude was, essentially, that "the East won't finance us and if they do, they will kill us with interest." The conclusion that frontier communities should finance themselves, whatever their hard equity, was not unique to Kirtland. Added to the economic condition of the western frontier was the Mormon impulse favoring self-sufficiency.{{ref|firmage1}}

The failure of the Kirtland bank was not unusual, especially for rural banks—fully half of the banks formed in the 1830s had failed by 1845. This was due in large part to the economic realities of the time:

:Most economic historians do not believe that banks at that time were usually operated by unprincipled men for selfish ends. More typically, it is the consensus that the instability of bank credit was inherent in the structure of the banking system and involved factors beyond the control of individual banks. The main flaw in state banking in the 1830s was that it was predominantly a rural institution and had little liquidity or shift-ability. In the large cities of the East, loans could be liquidated—that is, turned into cash quickly—by simply calling for payment, but this could not be done in the outlying areas...Thus the reckless and inexperienced management of many state banks was combined with a scarcity of productive commercial loans to create a state banking system with grave weaknesses. As a consequence, most state banks fulfilled their functions at the expense of constant bank failures, violent business fluctuations, and enormous losses to noteholders and depositors.{{ref|partridge1}}

==How did the KSS work?==

Given that banking was in its infancy, the Saints were not sophisticated in their understanding of how a bank worked. Even Brigham Young, an astute businessman, was confused. Brigham deposited a note with his mark on it.{{ref|jensen1}} He was shocked to receive the same note in payment from someone else a few days later! It seems that Brigham thought that the bank kept his note for him, and did not allow it to circulate. He thought of a 'bank' as something more like a safe deposit box—one puts their valuables in, and the bank keeps those same valuables safe, does not lend them out, and returns the exact same items back when asked. Brigham did not understand that a bank keeps a record of money deposited, but uses the funds deposited to make loans and investments, and to pay other creditors.{{ref|adams3}}

In principle, the KSS was to use land and specie to back its notes. The notes would then circulate and function as “money,” which would allow the cash-strapped Kirtland economy to function.

After failing to receive a charter for a bank, the KSS was hastily reconfigured as "a joint stock association, with limited power to issues notes" called the "Kirtland Safety Society Anti-Banking Company."{{ref|partridge2}}

==Criticisms==
==="Wildcat bank"?===

There is no evidence that the KSS was a “wildcat bank.” It was located in Kirtland, a large and thriving town in Ohio. The bank did not decline to exchange scrip for specie. In fact, this willingness to honor its notes created trouble for the bank early on, since they had insufficient funds to honor their notes after only about two weeks.

===Illegal?===

Starting operations without a charter was clearly an unwise decision. It is doubtful that Joseph and associates had time to receive legal advice between the time their first charter application was denied and the beginning of banking operations,{{ref|adams4}} but the documents creating the KSS clearly bear the marks of being drafted by legal counsel.{{ref|hill6}} While the legal advice they received was probably poor, this is a professional failing on the lawyer's part. Furthermore, there was considerable debate as to whether the anti-banking laws were even constitutional.

A second charter application was made with the support of Joseph Smith’s non-LDS lawyer, Benjamin Bissell, and other non-Mormons. The bank’s supporters probably hoped that they could eventually get a charter when the political circumstances were more favorable, and the support of legal and political personalities probably encouraged them in their course of action.

Clearly, Joseph and his supporters did not simply set out to be reckless; they had both political and legal perspectives which gave them cause for optimism.

However, even with a charter, the bank would not have survived the financial crisis of 1837:

:Even with a charter the Kirtland bank likely would have failed during the economic turmoil of 1837. At best a charter would have allowed the bank to survive a few months longer to close without raising a flurry of law suits and apostasy and to be known by posterity as a simple business failure rather than as a shady venture. It is also clear that with or without the bank the economic turmoil that began in 1837 would have wrecked the Mormon community in Kirtland because of its highly levered position and the extremely short term nature of its debts…painful as it was the bank affair probably did little to alter the course of Mormon history.{{ref|adams5}}

In short, the KSS was found by a jury to be an illegal bank. The leaders of the Church made a sincere effort to solve the pressing financial problems which beset them, and were probably hasty and somewhat naïve about the undertaking. There does not seem to have been a willful effort to deceive or extort. And, the legal issues are not entirely clear, even in retrospect:

:The question whether the activities of the Society in 1837 were indeed unlawful under Ohio law requires considerable and fairly sophisticated legal analysis. Although we are now satisfied that the activities of the Society did indeed violate the proscriptions of the 1816 Ohio Statute, that conclusion is not entirely free from doubt, even with the benefit of hindsight. It must have been much less clear in 1837, when Joseph Smith was faced with a decision as to how to proceed in the face of the refusal of the Ohio Legislature to grant a charter.{{ref|hill2}}

In any case, the financial crisis of 1837 likely could not have been averted even if all the legalities had been observed.

===Enriching Joseph?===

Joseph did not profit personally from the bank, and withdrew his support before the failure. Joseph probably suffered more legal repercussions than anyone from the event. There is no evidence that Joseph was “getting rich,” or attempting to do so, from the bank. He paid more for his stock in the bank than 85% of the subscribers, and he put more of his own money into the bank than anyone else, save one person.{{ref|hill3}}

In June 1837, Kirtland land values had increased by 800% in just one year, so the idea of backing the bank with land does not seem unreasonable.

Furthermore, the bank's weakness became a drain on Joseph, and he expended considerable resources trying to save it—including obtaining three new loans—which only worsened his position in the end.{{ref|hill4}}

Joseph was left with debts of $100,000. He had that value in goods and land, but it was difficult to convert these to cash. (Ironically, it was this very issue which had led to the bank's formation in the first place.)

Joseph fled for fear of his life, but also left creditors behind. Admirably, even as late as 1843, he continued to work to settle his Kirtland debts, even though he was far away in Nauvoo and effectively beyond the reach of his creditors.{{ref|hill5}}

===Not a prophet?===

'''''See also: [[One_Nation_Under_Gods/Use_of_sources/Warren_Parrish_and_Kirtland_Safety_Society_"revelation"|Warren Parrish reported that Joseph claimed a revelation about the Kirtland Safety Society]]''''' 
Joseph did not record or claim a revelation on the formation of the Kirtland Safety Society. It seems, rather, to have been his attempt to solve a complex and serious problem that probably had no good solution given the financial tools available to him. His anxiety to solve the Church’s financial problems led to an ill-advised venture, but Joseph was not alone: hundreds of thousands of frontier settlers had to resort to similar tactics:

:Erroneous banking policies caused financial services to expand much more slowly than the growth in real economic activities retarded the growth process and forced people to create illegal mediums of exchange to substitute for inefficient barter.{{ref|adams6}}

Joseph insisted that a prophet was only a prophet [[Fallibility_of_prophets | when he was acting as such]]. The Kirtland Bank episode is a good example of fallible men doing their best to solve an intractable problem.

Brigham Young described an incident from his own life that speaks to the KSS period:

:I can tell the people that once in my life I felt a want of confidence in brother Joseph Smith, soon after I became acquainted with him. It was not concerning religious matters-it was not about his revelations-but it was in relation to his financiering-to his managing the temporal affairs which he undertook. A feeling came over me that Joseph was not right in his financial management, though I presume the feeling did not last sixty seconds, and perhaps not thirty...
:Though I admitted in my feelings and knew all the time that Joseph was a human being and subject to err, still it was none of my business to look after his faults. I repented of my unbelief, and that too, very suddenly; I repented about as quickly as I committed the error. It was not for me to question whether Joseph was dictated by the Lord at all times and under all circumstances or not...
:Had I not thoroughly understood this and believed it, I much doubt whether I should ever have embraced what is called "Mormonism." He was called of God; God dictated him, and if He had a mind to leave him to himself and let him commit an error, that was no business of mine. And it was not for me to question it, if the Lord was disposed to let Joseph lead the people astray, for He had called him and instructed him to gather Israel and restore the Priesthood and kingdom to them.
:That was my faith, and it is my faith still… it is taught to the people now continually, to have implicit confidence in our leaders to be sure that we live so that Christ is within us a living fountain, that we may have the Holy Ghost within us to actuate, dictate, and direct us every hour and moment of our lives. How are we going to obtain implicit confidence in all the words and doings of Joseph? By one principle alone, that is, to live so that the voice of the Spirit will testify to us all the time that he is the servant of the Most High...{{ref|brigham1}}

Thus, Brigham did not deny the error, or insist that it could not happen. But, he did not allow himself to be distracted by it.

==Conclusion==

The Kirtland Safety Society was an unwise venture that was probably illegal, though legal counsel was divided on that matter at the time. The intent of Church leaders does not seem to have been to break the law, but to solve a vexing problem which thousands of others also faced. The failure of the bank was not due to mismanagement or a desire to enrich individuals, but due to the relatively fragile nature of the time’s financial infrastructure, and the economic conditions of 1837. Even had the bank possessed a charter, the outcome would have been little different, save that the Church leaders would have suffered fewer legal problems and harassment.

The Kirtland Safety Society is an excellent example of why Latter-day Saints do not put their trust in men, but in God. It also demonstrates that the Saints will continue to support fallible men as prophets of God.

==Endnotes==
#{{note|adams1}} {{BYUS|author=Dale W. Adams|article=Chartering the Kirtland Bank|vol= 23|num=4|date=Fall 1983|start=477|end=478}} {{link|url=http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/cgi-bin/docviewer.exe?CISOROOT=/byustudies&CISOPTR=25601&CISOSHOW=24614}}{{GL|url=http://gospelink.com/library/doc?doc_id=282604}}
#{{note|messenger1}} {{MA1 | author=? | article=?|date=June 1837|vol=3|num=9|start=521}}
#{{note|hill1}} See {{BYUS|author=Marvin S. Hill, Keith C. Rooker and Larry T. Wimmer|article=The Kirtland Economy Revisited: A Market Critique of Sectarian Economics|vol=17|num=4|date=Summer 1977|start=389|end=471}}{{link|url=http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/cgi-bin/docviewer.exe?CISOROOT=/byustudies&CISOPTR=21958&CISOSHOW=6877}}{{GL1|url=http://gospelink.com/library/doc?doc_id=282335}}
#{{note|adams2}} Adams, 481–482.
#{{note|firmage1}} {{zioncourts|start=54|end=58}} ISBN 0252069803.
#{{note|partridge1}} {{BYUS|author=Scott H. Partridge|article=The Failure of the Kirtland Safety Society|vol=12|num=4|date=Summer 1972|start=446|end=447}}{{link|url=http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/cgi-bin/docviewer.exe?CISOROOT=/byustudies&CISOPTR=21938&CISOSHOW=3856}} {{GL1|url=http://gospelink.com/library/doc?doc_id=282115}}
#{{note|jensen1}}{{HR1|vol=5|start=433}}
#{{note|adams3}} See Adams, 475–476.
#{{note|partridge2}} Partridge, 439
#{{note|adams4}} Adams, 475.
#{{note|hill6}} Hill, Rooker, & Wimmer, 457.
#{{note|adams5}} Adams, 480.
#{{note|hill2}} Hill, Rooker, & Wimmer, 441.
#{{note|hill3}} Hill, Rooker, & Wimmer, 456.
#{{note|hill4}} Hill, Rooker, & Wimmer, 432.
#{{note|hill5}} Hill, Rooker, & Wimmer, 458.
#{{note|adams6}} Adams, 481.
#{{note|brigham1}}{{JoD4_1|author=Brigham Young|title=He That Loveth Not His Brother...|date=29 March 1857|start=297|end=297}}

==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===
{{JSLegalWiki}}
{{JosephSmithWiki}}

===FAIR web site===
{{JosephSmithFAIR}}

===External links===
*{{BYUS|author=Dale W. Adams|article=Chartering the Kirtland Bank|vol= 23|num=4|date=Fall 1983|start=477|end=478}} {{link|url=http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/cgi-bin/docviewer.exe?CISOROOT=/byustudies&CISOPTR=25601&CISOSHOW=24614}}{{GL|url=http://gospelink.com/library/doc?doc_id=282604}}
*{{BYUS|author=Marvin S. Hill, Keith C. Rooker and Larry T. Wimmer|article=The Kirtland Economy Revisited: A Market Critique of Sectarian Economics|vol=17|num=4|date=Summer 1977|start=389|end=471}}{{link|url=http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/cgi-bin/docviewer.exe?CISOROOT=/byustudies&CISOPTR=21958&CISOSHOW=6877}}{{GL1|url=http://gospelink.com/library/doc?doc_id=282335}}
*{{BYUS|author=Paul Sampson and Larry T. Wimmer|article=The Kirtland Safety Society: The Stock Ledger Book and the Bank Failure|vol=12|num=4|date=Summer 1972|start=427|end=436}}{{link|url=http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/cdm4/document.php?CISOROOT=/byustudies&CISOPTR=277&CISOSHOW=271&REC=2}}
*{{BYUS|author=Scott H. Partridge|article=The Failure of the Kirtland Safety Society|vol=12|num=4|date=Summer 1972|start=437|end=454}}{{link|url=http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/cdm4/document.php?CISOROOT=/byustudies&CISOPTR=277&CISOSHOW=272&REC=1}}
*Images of KSS scrip and other "Mormon Money"{{link|url=http://www.mormonmoney.com/}}

===Printed material===
*{{StoryOfLDS|start=117|end=125}}
*{{HeavensResound|start=313|end=317}}
* {{UHQ|author=R. Kent Fielding|article=The Mormon Economy in Kirtland, Ohio,|vol=27|num=4|date=October 1959|start=331|end=356}}
* R. Kent Fielding, " The Growth of the Mormon Church in Kirtland, Ohio," PhD Dissertation, Indiana University, 1957.

Kirtland Safety Society

2009-01-06T23:58:45Z

BenjaminPorter: /* Illegal? */

{{JosephSmithPortal}}
{{GermanWiki|http://www.de.fairmormon.org/index.php/Kirtland_Safety_Society}}
==Criticism==
Critics attack Joseph Smith over the Kirtland Safety Society (KSS) on multiple grounds:
* they claim the KSS was a "wildcat bank"
* they claim that the bank was illegal, and that the Church broke the law by founding it
* they claim it was a money-making scheme for Joseph
* they claim its failure proves Joseph was not a prophet

===Source(s) of the Criticism===
*{{CriticalWork:Brodie:No Man Knows|pages=Chapter 14}}
* William Alexander Linn, ''The Story of the Mormons'' (New York: Russell & Russell, 1902).

==Response==

After presenting a timeline of events associated with the KSS, this article will discuss:
* vocabulary often used in discussions of banks and banking
* the reason for the formation of the KSS
* the status of banks in the 1830s frontier
* the way in which the KSS functioned

The criticisms will then be addressed.

==Timeline of KSS==

;27 March 1836: Kirtland Temple dedication

;August 1836: Oliver Cowdery investigates the production of bank notes, so consideration of a bank underway by this date.

;2 November 1836: The Kirtland Safety Society Bank’s constitution is drafted. Sidney Rigdon made president; Joseph Smith made cashier.

;1 January 1837 : Oliver Cowdery arrives with printing plates for bank notes; Orson Hyde reports that the state legislature will not grant them a charter. Their inability to receive a charter leads them to form a joint-stock company, the Kirtland Safety Society Anti-Banking Company (KSS).

;2 January 1837 : KSS opens for business.

;6 January 1837 : Notes from the KSS begin circulating

;23 January 1837: The KSS announces it can redeem notes with land, but was unable to redeem its notes in specie (gold)

;1 February 1837: KSS notes circulating at only 12.5 cents per dollar face value

;10 February 1837: A second attempt is made to get a bank charter; some non-Mormons are part of this application, including Joseph Smith’s lawyer and Samuel Medary, a future governor of two states.{{ref|adams1}}

; April 1837: Joseph Smith twice warns the Saints that the KSS will fail if the members do not accept the notes as payment for goods and services

; May 1837: All banks in Ohio suspend specie payment as a banking panic spreads west from New York.

;8 June 1837 : Joseph Smith resigns from KSS, as he is convinced the bank is not viable

;June 1837 : LDS newspaper ''Messenger and Advocate'' reports that Kirtland land prices have increased 800% during the past year alone.{{ref|messenger1}}

;July 1837: Extant note for $100 with Warren Parrish's signature.

;August 1837: Joseph Smith denounces the new leadership of the KSS, since Parrish, at least, was continuing to issue new scrip even though the bank was failing.

;27 September 1837 : Joseph and Sidney Rigdon go to visit Missouri; in their absence, the Kirtland Church is rent by strife and apostasy

;October 1837: Joseph and Sidney found guilty at trial of illegal banking and issuing unauthorized bank paper currency (a civil, not criminal offense). They are fined $1,000 each, and appeal.

;November 1837 : Final failure of the KSS. Joseph is left with debts of $100,000; he has goods and land, but these are unable to be converted into ready cash

;22 December 1837 : Brigham Young flees Kirtland for Missouri, convinced that his life is in danger from apostates because of his staunch defense of Joseph Smith

;12 January 1838 : Joseph Smith, having returned to Kirtland, leaves with Sidney Rigdon to escape the risk of prison and mob action

==Terms and Definitions==

;face value: the specie value marked on scrip. For a $20 note, the face value would be $20.
;note: another term for ''scrip''
;redeem: to exchange scrip for specie at the bank
;specie: hard currency, precious metal coins of accepted value (gold or silver)
;scrip: paper money, issued by a bank. An example of KSS scrip can be seen [http://www.mormonmoney.com/Kirtland%20Anti-Bank%20Notes.htm here].
;suspension of payment: an indication by a bank that, until further notice, it can no longer redeem its scrip with the face value of specie.
;wildcat bank: a bank established as a money-making scam. "A wildcat bank was one in which the managers of the bank made a deliberate effort to evade paying off notes by making the place of redemption inaccessible to those trying to trade notes for specie" (Partridge, 451). Thus, the bank kept the specie, and the note holder was left with worthless paper which no one would honor, since it could not be redeemed (the bank being located "where the wildcats are"). Such banks usually collapsed quite quickly when it became clear that their notes were not easily redeemed.

==Why form a bank?==

In the early days of the Church, the finances of Joseph Smith and the institutional Church were enmeshed. This was not unusual, as the idea of religious groups functioning as corporations and holding property was frowned on in Jacksonian America.

In 1836, the Church was centered at Kirtland, and was undergoing substantial growth. The Saints were constructing the Kirtland temple, at considerable cost, as well as financing property and business acquisitions, the immigration of poor members to Ohio, and missionary work.

To finance this explosive growth, loans were sought. Joseph Smith and the Church had extensive loans; some loans were for Joseph, some for Kirtland, and some for the Church. In some instances, Joseph was the only borrower, in other cases he was one among many who were liable for a given debt.

Banks do not loan money to those they consider poor risks, and so to his contemporaries, Joseph clearly appeared to have the ability to meet his obligations. The amount of the loans seems to have been less than the total value of the lands, businesses, and goods which Joseph and the Church owned. However, these assets were difficult to liquify—the loans were often short-term (from a few weeks to around 180 days) and so cash flow problems beset Joseph continually.{{ref|hill1}}

==What were banks like at the time?==

This sort of situation is difficult for a modern reader to appreciate: we have easy world-wide banking, debit cards, credit cards, mortgages, and lines of credit. Kirtland was not alone in this struggle—hundreds of frontier communities tried to set up banks in the late 1830s.

As one author remarked:

:The founders of the Kirtland Bank would have avoided their distress if national and state leaders had allowed financial markets to grow in an orderly manner. One medium-sized, twenty-year mortgage would have solved most of the financial problems faced by these founders.{{ref|adams2}}

The Saints were land rich but cash poor. Credit was scarce on the frontier, and even specie was in short supply. The Saints could not easily convert their considerable land wealth into cash to pay for purchases. (One cannot, for example, pay someone 1/10 of an acre of land for a barrel of nails!)

There were no national banks, and many Democrats were strongly anti-bank. Those on the frontier needed help desperately to keep their economies moving:

:The attitude was, essentially, that "the East won't finance us and if they do, they will kill us with interest." The conclusion that frontier communities should finance themselves, whatever their hard equity, was not unique to Kirtland. Added to the economic condition of the western frontier was the Mormon impulse favoring self-sufficiency.{{ref|firmage1}}

The failure of the Kirtland bank was not unusual, especially for rural banks—fully half of the banks formed in the 1830s had failed by 1845. This was due in large part to the economic realities of the time:

:Most economic historians do not believe that banks at that time were usually operated by unprincipled men for selfish ends. More typically, it is the consensus that the instability of bank credit was inherent in the structure of the banking system and involved factors beyond the control of individual banks. The main flaw in state banking in the 1830s was that it was predominantly a rural institution and had little liquidity or shift-ability. In the large cities of the East, loans could be liquidated—that is, turned into cash quickly—by simply calling for payment, but this could not be done in the outlying areas...Thus the reckless and inexperienced management of many state banks was combined with a scarcity of productive commercial loans to create a state banking system with grave weaknesses. As a consequence, most state banks fulfilled their functions at the expense of constant bank failures, violent business fluctuations, and enormous losses to noteholders and depositors.{{ref|partridge1}}

==How did the KSS work?==

Given that banking was in its infancy, the Saints were not sophisticated in their understanding of how a bank worked. Even Brigham Young, an astute businessman, was confused. Brigham deposited a note with his mark on it.{{ref|jensen1}} He was shocked to receive the same note in payment from someone else a few days later! It seems that Brigham thought that the bank kept his note for him, and did not allow it to circulate. He thought of a 'bank' as something more like a safe deposit box—one puts their valuables in, and the bank keeps those same valuables safe, does not lend them out, and returns the exact same items back when asked. Brigham did not understand that a bank keeps a record of money deposited, but uses the funds deposited to make loans and investments, and to pay other creditors.{{ref|adams3}}

In principle, the KSS was to use land and specie to back its notes. The notes would then circulate and function as “money,” which would allow the cash-strapped Kirtland economy to function.

After failing to receive a charter for a bank, the KSS was hastily reconfigured as "a joint stock association, with limited power to issues notes" called the "Kirtland Safety Society Anti-Banking Company."{{ref|partridge2}}

==Criticisms==
==="Wildcat bank"?===

There is no evidence that the KSS was a “wildcat bank.” It was located in Kirtland, a large and thriving town in Ohio. The bank did not decline to exchange scrip for specie. In fact, this willingness to honor its notes created trouble for the bank early on, since they had insufficient funds to honor their notes after only about two weeks.

===Illegal?===

Starting operations without a charter was clearly an unwise decision. It is doubtful that Joseph and associates had time to receive legal advice between the time their first charter application was denied and the beginning of banking operations,{{ref|adams4}} but the documents creating the KSS clearly bear the marks of being drafted by legal counsel.{{ref|hill6}} While the legal advice they received was probably poor, this is a professional failing on the lawyer's part. Furthermore, there was considerable debate as to whether the anti-banking laws were even constitutional.

A second charter application was made with the support of Joseph Smith’s non-LDS lawyer, Benjamin Bissell, and other non-Mormons. The bank’s supporters probably hoped that they could eventually get a charter when the political circumstances were more favorable, and the support of legal and political personalities probably encouraged them in their course of action.

Clearly, Joseph and his supporters did not simply set out to be reckless; they had both political and legal perspectives which gave them cause for optimism.

However, even with a charter, the bank would not have survived the financial crisis of 1837:

:Even with a charter the Kirtland bank likely would have failed during the economic turmoil of 1837. At best a charter would have allowed the bank to survive a few months longer to close without raising a flurry of law suits and apostasy and to be known by posterity as a simple business failure rather than as a shady venture. It is also clear that with or without the bank the economic turmoil that began in 1837 would have wrecked the Mormon community in Kirtland because of its highly levered position and the extremely short term nature of its debts…painful as it was the bank affair probably did little to alter the course of Mormon history.{{ref|adams5}}

In short, the KSS was found by a jury to be an illegal bank. The leaders of the Church made a sincere effort to solve the pressing financial problems which beset them, and were probably hasty and somewhat naïve about the undertaking. There does not seem to have been a willful effort to deceive or extort. And, the legal issues are not entirely clear, even in retrospect:

:The question of whether the activities of the Society in 1837 were indeed unlawful under Ohio law requires considerable and fairly sophisticated legal analysis. Although we are now satisfied that the activities of the Society did indeed violate the proscriptions of the 1816 Ohio Statute, that conclusion is not entirely free from doubt, even with the benefit of hindsight. It must have been much less clear in 1837, when Joseph Smith was faced with a decision as to how to proceed in the face of the refusal of the Ohio Legislature to grant a charter.{{ref|hill2}}

In any case, the financial crisis of 1837 likely could not have been averted even if all the legalities had been observed.

===Enriching Joseph?===

Joseph did not profit personally from the bank, and withdrew his support before the failure. Joseph probably suffered more legal repercussions than anyone from the event. There is no evidence that Joseph was “getting rich,” or attempting to do so, from the bank. He paid more for his stock in the bank than 85% of the subscribers, and he put more of his own money into the bank than anyone else, save one person.{{ref|hill3}}

In June 1837, Kirtland land values had increased by 800% in just one year, so the idea of backing the bank with land does not seem unreasonable.

Furthermore, the bank's weakness became a drain on Joseph, and he expended considerable resources trying to save it—including obtaining three new loans—which only worsened his position in the end.{{ref|hill4}}

Joseph was left with debts of $100,000. He had that value in goods and land, but it was difficult to convert these to cash. (Ironically, it was this very issue which had led to the bank's formation in the first place.)

Joseph fled for fear of his life, but also left creditors behind. Admirably, even as late as 1843, he continued to work to settle his Kirtland debts, even though he was far away in Nauvoo and effectively beyond the reach of his creditors.{{ref|hill5}}

===Not a prophet?===

'''''See also: [[One_Nation_Under_Gods/Use_of_sources/Warren_Parrish_and_Kirtland_Safety_Society_"revelation"|Warren Parrish reported that Joseph claimed a revelation about the Kirtland Safety Society]]''''' 
Joseph did not record or claim a revelation on the formation of the Kirtland Safety Society. It seems, rather, to have been his attempt to solve a complex and serious problem that probably had no good solution given the financial tools available to him. His anxiety to solve the Church’s financial problems led to an ill-advised venture, but Joseph was not alone: hundreds of thousands of frontier settlers had to resort to similar tactics:

:Erroneous banking policies caused financial services to expand much more slowly than the growth in real economic activities retarded the growth process and forced people to create illegal mediums of exchange to substitute for inefficient barter.{{ref|adams6}}

Joseph insisted that a prophet was only a prophet [[Fallibility_of_prophets | when he was acting as such]]. The Kirtland Bank episode is a good example of fallible men doing their best to solve an intractable problem.

Brigham Young described an incident from his own life that speaks to the KSS period:

:I can tell the people that once in my life I felt a want of confidence in brother Joseph Smith, soon after I became acquainted with him. It was not concerning religious matters-it was not about his revelations-but it was in relation to his financiering-to his managing the temporal affairs which he undertook. A feeling came over me that Joseph was not right in his financial management, though I presume the feeling did not last sixty seconds, and perhaps not thirty...
:Though I admitted in my feelings and knew all the time that Joseph was a human being and subject to err, still it was none of my business to look after his faults. I repented of my unbelief, and that too, very suddenly; I repented about as quickly as I committed the error. It was not for me to question whether Joseph was dictated by the Lord at all times and under all circumstances or not...
:Had I not thoroughly understood this and believed it, I much doubt whether I should ever have embraced what is called "Mormonism." He was called of God; God dictated him, and if He had a mind to leave him to himself and let him commit an error, that was no business of mine. And it was not for me to question it, if the Lord was disposed to let Joseph lead the people astray, for He had called him and instructed him to gather Israel and restore the Priesthood and kingdom to them.
:That was my faith, and it is my faith still… it is taught to the people now continually, to have implicit confidence in our leaders to be sure that we live so that Christ is within us a living fountain, that we may have the Holy Ghost within us to actuate, dictate, and direct us every hour and moment of our lives. How are we going to obtain implicit confidence in all the words and doings of Joseph? By one principle alone, that is, to live so that the voice of the Spirit will testify to us all the time that he is the servant of the Most High...{{ref|brigham1}}

Thus, Brigham did not deny the error, or insist that it could not happen. But, he did not allow himself to be distracted by it.

==Conclusion==

The Kirtland Safety Society was an unwise venture that was probably illegal, though legal counsel was divided on that matter at the time. The intent of Church leaders does not seem to have been to break the law, but to solve a vexing problem which thousands of others also faced. The failure of the bank was not due to mismanagement or a desire to enrich individuals, but due to the relatively fragile nature of the time’s financial infrastructure, and the economic conditions of 1837. Even had the bank possessed a charter, the outcome would have been little different, save that the Church leaders would have suffered fewer legal problems and harassment.

The Kirtland Safety Society is an excellent example of why Latter-day Saints do not put their trust in men, but in God. It also demonstrates that the Saints will continue to support fallible men as prophets of God.

==Endnotes==
#{{note|adams1}} {{BYUS|author=Dale W. Adams|article=Chartering the Kirtland Bank|vol= 23|num=4|date=Fall 1983|start=477|end=478}} {{link|url=http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/cgi-bin/docviewer.exe?CISOROOT=/byustudies&CISOPTR=25601&CISOSHOW=24614}}{{GL|url=http://gospelink.com/library/doc?doc_id=282604}}
#{{note|messenger1}} {{MA1 | author=? | article=?|date=June 1837|vol=3|num=9|start=521}}
#{{note|hill1}} See {{BYUS|author=Marvin S. Hill, Keith C. Rooker and Larry T. Wimmer|article=The Kirtland Economy Revisited: A Market Critique of Sectarian Economics|vol=17|num=4|date=Summer 1977|start=389|end=471}}{{link|url=http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/cgi-bin/docviewer.exe?CISOROOT=/byustudies&CISOPTR=21958&CISOSHOW=6877}}{{GL1|url=http://gospelink.com/library/doc?doc_id=282335}}
#{{note|adams2}} Adams, 481–482.
#{{note|firmage1}} {{zioncourts|start=54|end=58}} ISBN 0252069803.
#{{note|partridge1}} {{BYUS|author=Scott H. Partridge|article=The Failure of the Kirtland Safety Society|vol=12|num=4|date=Summer 1972|start=446|end=447}}{{link|url=http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/cgi-bin/docviewer.exe?CISOROOT=/byustudies&CISOPTR=21938&CISOSHOW=3856}} {{GL1|url=http://gospelink.com/library/doc?doc_id=282115}}
#{{note|jensen1}}{{HR1|vol=5|start=433}}
#{{note|adams3}} See Adams, 475–476.
#{{note|partridge2}} Partridge, 439
#{{note|adams4}} Adams, 475.
#{{note|hill6}} Hill, Rooker, & Wimmer, 457.
#{{note|adams5}} Adams, 480.
#{{note|hill2}} Hill, Rooker, & Wimmer, 441.
#{{note|hill3}} Hill, Rooker, & Wimmer, 456.
#{{note|hill4}} Hill, Rooker, & Wimmer, 432.
#{{note|hill5}} Hill, Rooker, & Wimmer, 458.
#{{note|adams6}} Adams, 481.
#{{note|brigham1}}{{JoD4_1|author=Brigham Young|title=He That Loveth Not His Brother...|date=29 March 1857|start=297|end=297}}

==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===
{{JSLegalWiki}}
{{JosephSmithWiki}}

===FAIR web site===
{{JosephSmithFAIR}}

===External links===
*{{BYUS|author=Dale W. Adams|article=Chartering the Kirtland Bank|vol= 23|num=4|date=Fall 1983|start=477|end=478}} {{link|url=http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/cgi-bin/docviewer.exe?CISOROOT=/byustudies&CISOPTR=25601&CISOSHOW=24614}}{{GL|url=http://gospelink.com/library/doc?doc_id=282604}}
*{{BYUS|author=Marvin S. Hill, Keith C. Rooker and Larry T. Wimmer|article=The Kirtland Economy Revisited: A Market Critique of Sectarian Economics|vol=17|num=4|date=Summer 1977|start=389|end=471}}{{link|url=http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/cgi-bin/docviewer.exe?CISOROOT=/byustudies&CISOPTR=21958&CISOSHOW=6877}}{{GL1|url=http://gospelink.com/library/doc?doc_id=282335}}
*{{BYUS|author=Paul Sampson and Larry T. Wimmer|article=The Kirtland Safety Society: The Stock Ledger Book and the Bank Failure|vol=12|num=4|date=Summer 1972|start=427|end=436}}{{link|url=http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/cdm4/document.php?CISOROOT=/byustudies&CISOPTR=277&CISOSHOW=271&REC=2}}
*{{BYUS|author=Scott H. Partridge|article=The Failure of the Kirtland Safety Society|vol=12|num=4|date=Summer 1972|start=437|end=454}}{{link|url=http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/cdm4/document.php?CISOROOT=/byustudies&CISOPTR=277&CISOSHOW=272&REC=1}}
*Images of KSS scrip and other "Mormon Money"{{link|url=http://www.mormonmoney.com/}}

===Printed material===
*{{StoryOfLDS|start=117|end=125}}
*{{HeavensResound|start=313|end=317}}
* {{UHQ|author=R. Kent Fielding|article=The Mormon Economy in Kirtland, Ohio,|vol=27|num=4|date=October 1959|start=331|end=356}}
* R. Kent Fielding, " The Growth of the Mormon Church in Kirtland, Ohio," PhD Dissertation, Indiana University, 1957.

Kirtland Safety Society

2009-01-06T23:52:06Z

BenjaminPorter: /* Why form a bank? */

Criticism of Mormonism/Books/One Nation Under Gods/Use of sources/Haranguing non-Mormons

2009-01-06T01:32:51Z

BenjaminPorter: /* Conclusion */

__NOTOC__
{{FAIRAnalysisHeader
|title=[[../../]]
|author=Richard Abanes
|noauthor=
|section=[[../../Use of sources|Use of sources]], CLAIM
|previous=[[../Those Power-Hungry Mormons|Those Power-Hungry Mormons]]
|next=[[../Redeemed by September 1836|Redeemed by September 1836]]
|notes={{AuthorsDisclaimer}}
}}
=Haranguing non-Mormons and threatening with imminent destruction=
==The Quotes==
===One Nation under Gods, page 105 (hardback and paperback)===

*The ''Evening and Morning Star'' was "haranguing non-Mormons" by threatening them with "imminent destruction" if they did not repent.

==The References==
===Endnote 12, page 524 (hardback); page 522 (paperback)===

*"The Last Days," ''Evening and Morning Star'', February 1833, vol. 1, no. 10, 65.
*Note: there is no p. 65 in Vol. 1, No. 10. This error exists in both the hardback and paperback. It should be Vol. 9 for that page and article name.

==The Problem==

The cited page nowhere "harangues" the non-Mormons. Most of the page is given up to a quotation from the apocryphal book of 2 Esdras. The quoted material runs from [http://www.artbible.info/bible/2_esdras/9.html 9:28-47], [http://www.artbible.info/bible/2_esdras/10.html 10:1-59], [http://www.artbible.info/bible/2_esdras/13.html 13:1-36].

Before these quotations, the author notes:

:SOMETHING singular attaches itself to the phrase, The last days. We can take up the bible, and read what took place in the beginning, without any emotion, and generally without realizing what did happen; but when we read the prophecies touching the last days, the very soul starts to know what shall be....We see nation rising against nation; we hear of the pestilence destroying its thousands in one place, and its tens of thousands in another; the plague consuming all before it, and we witness the terror that reigns in the hearts of the wicked, and we are ready to exclaim, The Lord is certainly about bringing the world to an account of its iniquity. Let us reflect, then, in the last days, that there was to be great tribulation: for the Savior says, [Matt. 24:7] nation shall rise against nation, kingdom against kingdom, and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes in divers places; and the prophets have declared that the valleys should rise; that the mountains should be laid low; that a great earthquake should be, in which the sun should become black as sackcloth of hair, and the moon turn into blood; yea, the Eternal God hath declared that the great deep shall roll back into the north countries and that the land of Zion and the land of Jerusalem shall be joined together, as they were before they were divided in the days of Peleg. No wonder the mind starts at the sound of the last days! Great things will come to pass in them: sickness, sorrow, pain and death, will come upon the wicked; the righteous will be gathered from all nations, as well as Israel, to Zion, and the Jews assemble at Jerusalem, to behold the Lord of glory gather all things in one, that there may be on earth, one fold and one Shepherd.

The author then begins to quote 2 Esdras, and this consumes the rest of Abanes' cited page. After the long quote, the author then continues in a similar vein.

:Our Savior, who knew all things that should come to pass in the last days, even when he come in his glory to reign on earth with his saints, said before the end should come, there should be great tribulations, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever should be.

:Paul, who had the privilege of seeing his Lord and master in the flesh, and who knew a man that was caught up into the third heaven, while on this all important subject, thus wrote: -- [2 Tim. 3:1-5] This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, without natural affection, truce-breakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, traitors, heady, high-minded, lovers of pleasure more than lovers of God; having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away....(p. 66)

And, in the following page:

:We have an earnest desire that men should escape the calamities, that will soon be poured out upon the earth, to scourge the inhabitants. Those that will not hear, as has been the case in all ages, pass on and are punished. The inhabitants before the flood, rejected the preaching of Noah, and were drowned. The men of Sodom and Gomorrah repented not of their sins, and died in their wickedness. Pharaoh, after seeing the mighty works of the Lord, died for his folly. But the Lord is merciful, the Lord is just, and, as in ancient days, so now, even in these last days, he warns, that men may repent and live. So much for the world. To the church, a word fitly spoken is like the dew that descended upon the mountains of Zion: for there the Lord commanded the blessing life forever more. Beloved brethren, you know these are the last days, for the Lord hath said so. You, then, have not to look across the ocean for testimony, for you have it in your hearts. -- You have not to send to heaven for proof, for the judgments of God are already sent forth unto victory as evidence that the end is nigh....

:Wherefore, while he is revealing unto you the great things that will shortly come to pass, learn wisdom, and rejoice for the day, even the day of righteousness that will soon come; yea, that day that was sought for by all holy men, and they found it not because of wickedness and abominations, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth; but obtained a promise that they should find it, and see it in their flesh, and so will you, if you continue faithful. Are you sensible of the blessings and privileges you enjoy? you can look upon the world and upon them that profess to worship their God, and see the course of evil, and shun it, because the Lord has shown you the right way. You can see some for gold; some for fame; some for blood; some for persecution; some for fun; some for pleasure; some for vanity; some for lying; some for this, and some for that, and you can pray to God to keep you from such follies, and he will do so, if your hearts are pure.

:What blessings! you can shun the dreadful distress of nations, if you are humble and honest in all things before the Lord: you can overcome the world and enter into his rest, where trouble will cease. You ought to rejoice, with joy unspeakable; for while the nations are crumbling to pieces, and men are filling up the tombs without repentance, you know your redemption is nigh, and you believe that Israel will soon be gathered home to meet his God, when he comes in his glory.

:Men without the Spirit of God to guide them into sacred truth have long labored six times as much for the perishable things of this world, as for the one thing needful: brethren, you have better knowledge, act accordingly, for the earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof. Counsel not the Lord but walk by faith, showing good works, that your examples may be worthy of imitation.

:The love of money fills the hearts of the wicked; but what profit would it be to you, with all your knowledge, of what must shortly come to pass, if you could gain the whole world for thirty or forty years, and then loose your inheritance, and eternal life? This is a solemn question, and when the faithful enter into the joys of their Lord, they will be more apt to say: [1 Cor. 2:9] Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither has it entered into the heart of men to conceive, what the Lord has prepared for them that love him. The Lord will hear when saints do pray.

==Conclusion==
This message is a fairly standard Christian apocalyptic—the days are perilous, the world is becoming more wicked, and the scriptures have foretold it. But, those who accept God and his covenant need not fear, though the days are dark. Most of the message is addressed directly to Latter-day Saints; there is little here that would be out of place in any nineteenth-century Christian reflection on "the last days."

There is certainly no suggestion that the members of the Church are threatening to inflict "imminent destruction" on non-members, as one might conclude from Abanes' summary.

=Further reading=
{{AbanesWorks}}

Joseph Smith/Polygamy/Essays/Illegal marriages in Ohio

2009-01-06T01:12:32Z

BenjaminPorter: /* Illegal for Mormons to Perform Marriages? */

__NOTOC__
{{BookHeader
|title=[[../]]
|author=
|noauthor=
|section=Illegal marriages in Ohio
|previous=[[../Early womanizer|Early womanizer]]
|next=[[../Age of wives|Age of wives]]
|notes={{PolygamyBook}}
}}

===Source(s) of criticism===
* {{CriticalWork:Abanes:One Nation|pages=129, 529n14-15 (paperback)}}
* {{CriticalWork:Brodie:No Man Knows|pages=183}}
* {{CriticalWork:Brooke:Refiner's Fire|pages=212}}
* {{CriticalWork:Quinn:Mormon Hierarchy|pages=88}}
* {{CriticalWork:Van Wagoner:Mormon Polygamy|pages=7}}

==Introduction==
{{PolygamyPortal}}

Plural marriage would eventually involve a complex collision of religious belief, secular law, and personal conscience. Many historians have presumed that Joseph Smith always had a cavalier attitude toward civil laws which conflicted with his marital concepts. Even before the broad implementation of plural marriage, critics point to marriages performed by Joseph in Ohio as evidence that he would readily violate secular laws.

As John Brooke put it:

:Specifically prohibited from performing the marriage ceremony by the local county court, Smith brushed aside a state-licensed church elder to perform the rites of marriage between Newel [Knight] and Lydia [Bailey] himself. She was not divorced from her non-Mormon husband, so this technically bigamous marriage also challenged a broader moral code…Over the next two months Joseph Smith performed five more illegal marriages.{{ref|fn1}}

Brooke claims Joseph was forbidden to perform marriages, that he performed a bigamous marriage, and that he repeatedly disobeyed state marriage laws.

Michael Quinn makes the same type of claim when he opines that

:in November 1835 [Joseph] announced a doctrine I call “theocratic ethics.” He used this theology of justify his violation of Ohio’s marriage laws by performing a marriage for Newel Knight and the undivorced Lydia Goldthwaite without legal authority to do so…Theocratic ethics justified LDS leaders and (by extension) regular Mormons in actions which were contrary to conventional ethics and sometimes in violation of criminal laws.{{ref|fn2}}

Quinn's introduction of the expression "theocratic ethics" is an excellent example of his regrettable tendency to coin an expression, and then proceed as if his act of definition proves that the phenomenon he has labeled actually exists.{{ref|fn3}} In another context, one non-LDS reviewer of Quinn regretted this use of "rather artificial categories that acquire an aura of scholarly respectability through the magic of 'Quinnspeak.'"{{ref|fn4}}

Quinn's vocabulary implies that Joseph was using a different sort of ethical standard as most people—and, the term "theocratic" is loaded, since it generally has negative associations. Quinn also makes the entirely unwarranted conclusion "by extension" that Joseph's supposed irregular actions meant that a "regular Mormon" would be likewise justified in following a novel ethical scheme.

Despite such confident claims, the historical record regarding Ohio marriages disagrees with this portrait in almost every particular.{{ref|fn5}} Newel Knight, a young widower, wished to marry Lydia Bailey. Lydia was married to an abusive drunkard, who had abandoned her years before. Sidney Rigdon had been refused a license to marry as a Mormon minister, and so many concluded that Mormon elders would not receive state sanction to perform marriages.

Because Seymour Brunson had been a preacher prior to being a Mormon, he held a license to solemnize marriages. Brunson was thus about to perform the Knight-Bailey wedding. In what Van Wagoner calls "a bold display of civil disobedience,"{{ref|fn6}} Joseph Smith stepped forward and announced that he would perform the marriage.

==Illegal for Mormons to Perform Marriages?==

On the surface, it appears that the critics are justified in arguing that Joseph had no right to perform marriages, and chose to do so anyway. Scott Bradshaw's research, however, found that refusing Rigdon permission to marry was "not justifiable from a legal point of view." Such a legal decision in Ohio "was rare in the 1830s, perhaps even unheard of."{{ref|fn7}} The court's refusal to grant Rigdon a license to marry as a Mormon minister likely stemmed from religious prejudice.

The Knight-Bailey wedding was not illegal, since Newel Knight obtained a marriage license from the secular authorities. The state of Ohio did not contest Joseph's performance of the marriage, since it then issued a marriage certificate for the Knights' marriage. Joseph later performed other marriages in Ohio, and these couples likewise received marriage certificates after Joseph submitted the necessary paperwork.

A review of Ohio state law demonstrates that Joseph's decision to marry—and his prophesy that he had the right to marry, and that his enemies would never prosecute him for marrying—was correct. Ohio's 1824 marriage law stated that "a religious society…could perform marriages without a license so long as the ceremony was done ‘agreeable to the rules and regulations of their respective churches.’"{{ref|fn8}}

The "rules and regulations" regarding marriage for the Church had been established since the publication of what was then D&C 101 in September 1835.{{ref|fn9}} The Knight-Bailey wedding did not occur until 24 November 1835, and Joseph Smith surely had the authority to perform weddings in the Church if anyone did, especially since D&C 101 declared that marriage "should be performed by a presiding high priest, bishop, elder, or priest."{{ref|fn10}}

When applying to the county clerk for marriage certificates of other marriages which he performed, Joseph specifically noted that they were solemnized "agreeably to the rules and regulations of the Church…on matrimony," a clear reference to the 1824 Ohio statute.

==Bigamy?==

Joseph's decision to solemnize marriages was in accord with Ohio state law. Because Lydia Bailey was not divorced, however, the critics have also charged Joseph with permitting a bigamous marriage, and thus flaunting the law.

:Lydia and Newel were aware of the prohibition on bigamy, and Lydia refused to marry Newel until they approached Joseph for his counsel:
Broth[er] Joseph after p[ray]or & reflecting a little or in other words enquiring [of the] Lord Said it is all right, She is his & the sooner they [are] married the better. Tell them no law shall hurt [them]. They need not fear either the law of God or man for [it] shall not touch them; & the Lord bless them. This [is the] will of the Lord concerning the matter.{{ref|fn11}}

Ohio law had, until just prior to their wedding, allowed spouses to remarry without formal divorce if they had been abandoned for three years. This described Lydia's case, and Newel tried to so persuade her before speaking with Joseph. Lydia's concern about remarriage seems to have been motivated mainly by spiritual worries that it was wrong in the sight of God to remarry, even if the law might allow it.

It was doubtless because of abandonment that Newel obtained the marriage license.{{ref|fn13}} He was likely unaware—as, perhaps, were those who granted the license—that the law had recently changed the abandonment period to ''five'' years, and so the marriage might have been illegal on those grounds.

The Knights' predicament highlights an aspect of early nineteenth-century marriage which modern readers often ignore. Communication in this period was difficult, travel was slow, and record keeping requirements varied widely across the United States. As a result, technical "bigamy" was a common state of affairs for all social classes at this period in American history.{{ref|fn14}} This made the prosecution of bigamy rare, and in cases of abandonment some spouses had to simply remarry since obtaining a formal divorce was difficult or impossible:

:Since bigamy was only prosecuted on the complaint of a spouse (one whose honor had been offended or for whom the loss of support was irremediable) and when the offending spouse could be found by summons, most bigamists were probably never arrested...From the standpoint of the legal historian, it is perhaps surprising that anyone prosecuted bigamy at all. Given the confusion over conflicting state laws on marriage, there were many ways to escape notice, if not conviction.{{ref|fn15}}

Ohio law also required that persons seeking a divorce apply to the state supreme court, and be state residents for two years—so, on these terms Lydia would have been in violation of the law. But, it is not clear that she, Newel, or those who granted the marriage license were aware of this technicality.

Despite potentially violating some legal niceties, however, Lydia almost certainly did not engage in bigamy. Shortly after the Knights' marriage, she learned that her wastrel husband had died. The Knights viewed this as vindication of Joseph's prophetic gifts, since he had promised them that there was no moral or legal impediment to their marriage—and, he was right.{{ref|fn16}}

==Conclusion==

Joseph did not knowingly violate marriage laws in Ohio, and seems to have used his prophetic gifts to spare victims of the nineteenth-century's legal and bureaucratic immaturity unnecessary suffering. The secular powers honoured Joseph's marriages, and provided documentation to ratify his acts. As happens so often, critics condemn Joseph Smith and the early Saints without providing the proper context for their legal choices or moral actions. As we consider the wider implementation of plural marriage in Nauvoo, such context will become increasingly important.

==Endnotes==
#{{note|fn1}} John L. Brooke, The Refiner's Fire : The Making of Mormon Cosmology, 1644-1844 (Cambridge ; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 212
#{{note|fn2}} D. Michael Quinn, The Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power (Salt Lake City: Signature Books in association with Smith Research Associates, 1994), 88.
#{{note|fn3}} For a critique of Quinn's concept of "theocratic ethics," see Dean C. Jessee, "Review of D. Michael Quinn's the Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power," Journal of Mormon History 22/2 (Fall 1996): 163–165. Jessee also treats the matter of Joseph Smith performing marriages in Ohio on pp. 166–167.
#{{note|fn4}}Klaus J. Hansen, "Quinnspeak (Review of Same-Sex Dynamics among Nineteenth-Century Americans: A Mormon Example by D. Michael Quinn)," FARMS Review of books 10/1 (1998).
#{{note|fn5}} Unless otherwise indicated, the facts in this chapter are drawn from M. Scott Bradshaw, "Joseph Smith’s Performance of Marriages in Ohio," Brigham Young University Studies 39/4 (2000). See also William G. Hartley, "Newel and Lydia Bailey Knight’s Kirtland Love Story and Historic Wedding," Brigham Young University Studies 39/4 (2000).
#{{note|fn6}}Richard S. Van Wagoner, Mormon Polygamy: A History, 2nd ed. (Salt Lake City, Utah: Signature Books, 1989), 7.
#{{note|fn7}} Bradshaw, "Joseph Smith’s Performance of Marriages in Ohio," 43, 45.
#{{note|fn8}} Ohio's "Act Regulating Marriages," (1824); cited in Hartley, "Newel and Lydia Bailey Knight’s Kirtland Love Story and Historic Wedding," 18
#{{note|fn9}} See Doctrine and Covenants (1835 edition), Section CI. . (In 1876, this section was eventually removed, and replaced with the plural marriage revelation as D&C 132.) We must remember that at this point in Church history, the concept of a "temple sealing" or "eternal" marriage was certainly not being taught, and may well not have even been known to Joseph Smith. All Church marriages at the time were what modern members would call "civil marriages," such as those performed by an LDS bishop today.
#{{note|fn10}} Doctrine and Covenants (1835 edition), Section CI [{{s||DC|101|1}}].
#{{note|fn11}} Newel Knight, Autobiography and Journal, LDS Church Archives, folder one, [45] in Hartley, "Newel and Lydia Bailey Knight’s Kirtland Love Story and Historic Wedding," 18.
#{{note|fn12}} Lydia's history says that Newel "endeavour[ed] to show her that according to the law she was a free woman, having been deserted for three years with nothing provided for her support." – See Hartley, "Newel and Lydia Bailey Knight’s Kirtland Love Story and Historic Wedding," 15; citing Susa Young Gates [as "Homespun"], Lydia Knight's History: The First Book of the Noble Women's Lives Series (Salt Lake City, Utah: Juvenile Instructor Office, 1883), 28.
#{{note|fn13}} – See Hartley, "Newel and Lydia Bailey Knight’s Kirtland Love Story and Historic Wedding," page??
#{{note|fn14}} See Hendrik Harlog, Man & Wife in America: A History (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 2000), 87; cited in Allen L. Wyatt, "Zina and Her Men: An Examination of the Changing Marital State of Zina Diantha Huntington Jacobs Smith Young," (Mesa, Arizona: FAIR, 2006 FAIR Conference).
#{{note|fn15}} Beverly J. Schwartzberg, Grass Widows, Barbarians, and Bigamists: Fluid Marriage in Late Nineteenth-Century America (Santa Barbara, California: University of California at Santa Barbara Ph.D. dissertation, 2001), 51–52; cited in Wyatt, "Zina and Her Men."
#{{note|fn16}}Hartley, "Newel and Lydia Bailey Knight’s Kirtland Love Story and Historic Wedding," 18.

==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===
{{PolygamyWiki}}

===FAIR web site===
{{PolygamyFAIR}}

===External links===
{{PolygamyLinks}}

===Printed material===
{{PolygamyPrint}}

The Bible/Translations

2009-01-06T00:30:36Z

BenjaminPorter: /* "Translated correctly"? */

{{BiblePortal}}
==Criticism==
The Church insists on using the Authorized ("King James") Version as its official Bible, even though more modern translations are easier to read, are more accurate, and include more recent manuscript discoveries.

Critics sometimes complain that the eight Article of Faith about believing the Bible "as far as it is translated correctly," implies that Bible translators are trying to hide God's truth.

===Source(s) of the criticism===
*{{CriticalWork:McKeeverJohnson:Mormonism 101|pages=Chapter 7}}

==Response==
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints uses the Authorized (King James) Version as its official Bible. Some reasons include:

* historical continuity with the restoration, since the KJV was used by the first generation of prophets and Church members
* the Book of Mormon was based on the KJV text; parallels and allusions to Biblical concepts are thus easier to recognize in the KJV than a more modern translation
* Church leaders feel the benefits of standardization avoid, for example, unprofitable disputes about which member's Bible is a "better" translation
* theologically, the Church disagrees with some modern trends in some Biblical translations (e.g., removing references to priesthood offices not embraced by some denomiations, gender-neutral language when referring to God, etc.)

However, there is nothing in Church policy or official Church teaching that forbids Latter-day Saints from reading other Bible translations in their personal study. Many do so.

=="Translated correctly"?==

Critics McKeever and Johnson write of the LDS position:

:It is doubtful that our many modern-day translations were produced by unprincipled people who wanted to keep God's truth hidden. In actuality, quite the opposite is true. The motivation behind a new translation is, in most cases, to give a clearer understanding of what God wants to reveal to His people. Granted. Some translations do a better job at achieving this goal than others.{{ref|fn26}}

This is of course only partially correct. Consider, for example, the popular version the New Living Translation. In its introduction we read the following:

:The translators have made a conscious effort to provide a text that can be easily understood by the average reader of modern English. To this end, we have used the vocabulary and language structures commonly used by the average person. The result is a translation of the Scriptures written generally at the reading level of a junior high school student.{{ref|fn27}}

A little earlier they admit to a bias within the translation. This translation was prepared by "ninety evangelical scholars…commissioned in 1989 to begin revising The Living Bible."{{ref|fn28}} This is fine if you are an Evangelical, but, if you are not, then the translation shows clear theological preferences in its translation. The King James Version, the New International Version, and all other translations generally come with a theological perspective in the translation of the text. Some are criticized much more than others (like the New World Translation of the Jehovah's Witnesses). The LDS Church has chosen the King James Version as its official Bible. The reasons for this were twofold. First, it is a well-respected and easily accessible translation (even if a bit dated), and second, it was the only English translation of the Bible available to the early leaders of the LDS Church, and so all of their biblical citations are taken from it.

McKeever and Johnson try to show that by the term translation in the eighth Article of Faith, we really mean transmission. They write:

:Some Mormons have recognized that the word translated as used in the Articles of Faith is not entirely correct. Knowledgeable Mormons who have studied the methods of translating languages admit that the transmission, not the translation, of the biblical texts concerns them.{{ref|fn29}}

Said one LDS student of the scriptures:

:Speaking as a 'knowledgeable Mormon who has studied the methods of translating languages,' I respectfully disagree. The Articles of Faith were written by the Prophet Joseph Smith, who was not interested in the transmission at all, but rather in the translation. He studied Hebrew and Greek in an attempt to come closer to the original language of the Bible. When we do this, we become aware of some startling problems with the translation of the New Testament.

:Take for example, a passage from Paul used to support the doctrinal teaching of celibacy in the church (1 Corinthians 7). One of the fundamental problems with interpretations of this chapter revolve around the topic's introduction in the first two verses. The following are two separate translations of the text as found in popular translations of the Bible. The KJV, and those Bibles that follow the more traditional reading, use the first line of text as an introduction, and then have Paul raising the subject of discussion:

::''Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.''{{ref|fn30}}

:In other words, as a response to the things which the Corinthians wrote to Paul, his response is "It is good for a man…" It thus puts the concept of a man not touching a woman into the mouth of Paul. Other translations move the first line of text into the introduction, as the words of the Corinthians to Paul, as in the following text:

::''Now for the matters you wrote about. You say, "It is a good thing for a man not to have intercourse with a woman." Rather, in the face of so much immorality, let each man have his own wife and each woman her own husband.{{ref|fn31}}

:In other words, the Corinthians asked Paul if it was good for a man not to touch a woman. And Paul responds negatively. Two completely different interpretations, both being absolutely correct translations syntactically from the exact same passage in Greek. Yet, it has a profound change on the message that Paul is giving in this passage of his epistle. Is this an issue of translation or transmission? McKeever and Johnson earlier stated that "Translation means to take words from one language and put them into the words of another."{{ref|fn32}} This is an oversimplification that does not do justice to the subject. At the very least, some concern should have been given to the idea that translation also means to preserve, as closely as possible the intent of the author.

:In cases like the example above, where an original text (which might have given more information) is not available, the translation will largely be determined by the predisposition of the theology of the translator. In this case, it is the doctrine that determines the translation. If this were an isolated incident, it would not be such an important factor. But it becomes important when we realize that many of these difficulties are found in core doctrines of the Church. Raymond Brown, a well-known Catholic theologian, only finds three verses in all of the New Testament where Jesus is clearly called God, the rest being questionable on either syntactical grounds or because of manuscript evidence presenting significant challenges to originality.{{ref|fn33}} He then adds that of these three, none show a predisposition towards a doctrine of the trinity.{{ref|fn34}} This is not to say that I (or Brown) question the divinity of Jesus Christ. Merely that translation and interpretation play a much larger role than the one suggested by McKeever and Johnson. As Brown puts it: "Firm adherence to the later theological and ontological developments that led to the confession of Jesus Christ as 'true God of true God' must not cause believers to overvalue or undervalue the less developed NT confession."{{ref|mcguire1}}

Is translation important? Clearly it is. Latter-day Saints believe that only by the Spirit of God can we make these determinations. Scholarship often cannot help us answer questions concerning the effect of doctrine on translation, particularly in ancient documents where the source is not available.

==The challenges of textual criticism—an example==
Recently, a study was released entitled "''Asyndeton'' in Paul: A Text-critical and Statistical Inquiry into Pauline Style."{{ref|fn35}} The authors of the study were working with an ancient rhetorical device called ''asyndeton'', the practice of leaving conjunctions (like the word 'and') out of the text to add impact. It was generally used in oration-an indication that Paul's works were meant to be read aloud. The authors identified more than 600 instances of asyndeton in both epistles to the Corinthians and in the epistle to the Romans. They then tracked these asyndeton through the available manuscript history, and tracked how many were lost when copyists and scribes inadvertently changed the text because they did not recognize the rhetorical device.

The results were fascinating. First, it was clear that the older a manuscript was, the fewer changes could be found. Even more interesting was what they discovered within textual apparatuses available to translators. An apparatus is a combination text with variant readings, used to create the base text from which a translation is made. These include the Nestle-Aland text, the UBS text, and the ''Textus Receptus'' prepared by Erasmsus from which the King James Version was translated. What they discovered was that even the earliest manuscripts had been modified in more than thirty percent of the instances, while the latest texts had lost as much as fifty to fifty-five percent. The ''Textus Receptus'', as a majority text, had lost almost seventy percent of the instances of asyndeton. The best of the apparatus texts, that used by the UBS, was still worse than the worst of the earliest manuscripts. The authors of the study left the reader to draw their own conclusions.

What this means is that textual criticism of the Bible is still in its infancy. While it brings us closer to the original texts, there are no guarantees, and no way of telling how far we still have to go. Until then, we are in the same situation with regards to an original text as McKeever and Johnson claim of Mormons:

:However, this is an argument from silence, since the same detractors cannot produce any untainted manuscripts from which to measure the "tainted" ones.{{ref|fn36}}

If this is true, then it is also an argument from silence to speak as though we have a good replica of the original autographs, which consequently do not exist. If this isn't an argument from silence, then from what sound are McKeever and Johnson speaking, if not pure conjecture?

==Endnotes==
#{{note|26}} McKeever and Johnson, ''Mormonism 101'', 101.
#{{note|27}} ''Holy Bible New Living Translation'' (Wheaton, Illinois: Tyndale House, 1996), xvii.
#{{note|28}} Ibid., xv.
#{{note|29}} McKeever and Johnson, ''Mormonism 101'', 101.
#{{note|30}} 1 Corinthians 7:1-2 (both the KJV and NIV).
#{{note|31}} Ibid., REB and NRSV.
#{{note|mcguire1}} Benjamin McGuire, "The Bible," in "Mormonism 201," reply to chapter 7 of McKeever and Johnson, (FAIR) {{link|url=http://www.fairlds.org/Mormonism_201/m20107.html}}.
#{{note|32}} McKeever and Johnson, ''Mormonism 101'', 101.
#{{note|33}} Raymond E. Brown, ''An Introduction to New Testament Christology'' (Mahwah, New Jersey: Paulist Press, 1994), 171-195.
#{{note|34}} Ibid. See especially page 195, with footnote 20.
#{{note|35}} Eberhard W. Güting and David L. Mealand, "Asyndeton in Paul: A Text-critical and Statistical Inquiry into Pauline Style," ''Studies in the Bible and Early Christianity'', No. 39 (Mellen, 1998), xiv, 203.
#{{note|36}} McKeever and Johnson, ''Mormonism 101'', 101.

==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===
{{biblewiki}}

===FAIR web site===
*Links to articles on the FAIR web site; Topical Guide entries go first

===External links===
*{{Dialogue | author=Philip L. Barlow | article=Why the King James Version? From the Common to the Official Bible of Mormonism|vol=22|num=2|date=Summer 1989|start=19|end=42 }} {{link|url=http://content.lib.utah.edu/u?/dialogue,19574}}

===Printed material===
*Printed resources whose text is not available online

The Bible/Textual criticism

2009-01-06T00:21:36Z

BenjaminPorter: /* Conclusion */

{| style="margin: 0em 0em 0em 0em; border: 0px; align="right" cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0
|-
| {{BiblePortal}}
|-
| {{EarlyChristianityPortal}}
|}

{{question}}

==Question==

What can textual criticism tell us about the Bible? Does it have anything to say about [[Biblical_inerrancy|the Bible being without error]], as some Christians claim?

==Answer==

===What is textual criticism?===
Let's begin by defining "textual criticism":

:''Textual criticism'' or ''lower criticism'' is a branch of philology or bibliography that is concerned with the identification and removal of errors from texts and manuscripts. Ancient manuscripts often have errors or alterations made by scribes, who copied the manuscripts by hand. The textual critic seeks to determine the original text of a document or a collection of documents, which the critic believes to come as close as possible to a lost original....{{ref|wikipedia1}}

"Criticism" in this case does not mean "faultfinding." It's a technical term referring to the methods of studying texts or documents for the purpose of dating or reconstructing them, evaluating their authenticity, and analyzing their content or style.{{ref|define1}}

===Is the Bible inerrant?===
Many fundamentalist Christians believe [[Biblical inerrancy|the Bible is ''inerrant'' or ''infallible'']]. They reject the possibility that the Bible could have errors. For many inerrantists this belief only applies to the original manuscripts of the Bible as written by their authors; some, however, believe that infallibility extends to modern printed Bibles or to a specific translation of the Bible.{{ref|wikipedia2}}

Latter-day Saints reject both Biblical inerrancy and Biblical infallibility. They believe that no book of scripture is "perfect" (in any definition of the word) because, although it contains the will of God, it is communicated through the writings of fallible human beings. This includes not only the Bible, but also the Book of Mormon and other modern scriptures.{{ref|bofm1}}

Latter-day Saints also claim that the Bible has undergone many changes since it was written. Joseph Smith taught:

:I believe the Bible as it read when it came from the pen of the original writers. Ignorant translators, careless transcribers, or designing and corrupt priests have committed many errors.{{ref|tpjs1}}

The LDS Church does not take any position on which verses in the Bible are accurate and which are not. From a point of faith we use the Bible as a spiritual guide and don't try to pick it apart. Textual criticism is the realm of the scholar. The Church is an institute of faith and revelation, not scholarship.

===Examples of variant readings===
From the scholarly point of view, the differences in various Biblical manuscripts are well-documented. A few well-known variants include:

* '''{{b||John|7|53}}-{{b||John|8|1-11}}''', traditionally known as the ''pericope adulterae'', is not contained in the earliest and best manuscripts and was almost certainly not an original part of the Gospel of John. Among modern commentators and textual critics, it is a foregone conclusion that the section is not original but represents a later addition to the text of the Gospel. Critical text scholar Bruce Metzger summarizes: "The evidence for the non-Johannine origin of the pericope of the adulteress is overwhelming."{{ref|metzger1}}

* '''{{b||Mark|16|9-20}}''' does not exist in the earliest and best manuscripts. Virtually all scholars believe it was a later addition, added by scribes who felt the original ending was unsatisfactory.

* '''{{b|1|John|5|7-8}}''' — "in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth" — the infamous ''Comma Johanneum'', is accepted as a later insertion by virtually every scholar. It is most interesting that it is the only explicit reference to [[Godhead and the Trinity|the Trinity]] in the New Testament, yet it is not part of the original epistle, but dates from probably the fourth century.

* '''{{b||Matthew|5|22}}''' The phrase "without a cause" appears in some early manuscripts and some writings of early church fathers, but this phrase does not appear in the earliest manuscript (Papyrus 67 dated AD 125-150) nor in the earliest church father writing (Justin dated about 165 AD) of Matthew 5:22. Virtually all scholars believe that this phrase was added by the third century. (It is notable that this phrase is in the King James Bible but it is not in the Book of Mormon or Joseph Smith Translation of Matthew 5:22.){{ref|juddstoddard}}

* '''{{b||John|1|18}}''' is notoriously difficult because various manuscripts read either ''monogenes theos'' ("the only God") or ''ho monogenes huios'' ("the only son").

* '''{{b||Hebrews|1|3}}''' reads "reveals (''phaneron'') all things" in the Codex Vaticanus, while most manuscripts read "sustains (''pheron'') all things". This is particularly interesting because there's a scribe's marginal note in the ''CV'' that reads "Fool and knave, leave the old reading, don't change it!", indicating contention over an intentional change in the passage.

(Additional variant readings can be found on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textual_criticism#Findings Wikipedia's article on textual criticism].)

==Conclusion==
Most Latter-day Saints are not interested in searching the Bible for errors, or highlighting its flaws, though they readily admit that ''no text'' can be perfect or without error when mortals are involved in writing, transcribing, transmitting, or translating it. (See Book of Mormon—[http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bm/introduction Introduction].)

The flaws in the Biblical text present a problem to those who believe the Bible is without error, but not to Latter-day Saints. Some additions or removals might have been corrections that came from earlier unknown sources (see the example for '''{{b||Hebrews|1|3}}''' above in this page, and "Words missing in Alma 32:30" {{wikilink|url=Book_of_Mormon_textual_changes/%22Words_missing_in_Alma_32:30%22}} as an illustration), but still in a scholarly point of view, it is evident that the Bible has been changed many times and contains errors.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ehrman Bart Ehrman] was a Biblical inerrantist when he entered the study of the New Testament (he started off at the very conservative Moody Bible Institute), but ultimately lost his faith over the 200,000 to 400,000 variant New Testament readings.{{ref|fn1}} As he wrote, "There are more variations among our manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament."{{ref|fn2}}

Ehrman's slide into agnosticism illustrates the dangers of inerrantism. His inability to have complete confidence that every word of the Bible was correct led to an inability to trust ''any'' of the Bible's witness about Jesus as Lord, Son of God, and Savior.

Latter-day Saints do not rely on scripture—biblical or otherwise—for their knowledge of Christ. They rely instead upon that which provided the scripture in the first place: revelation by the Holy Ghost. They treasure the scriptural witnesses, but do not require perfection from any mortal or mortal work to have faith in the revelations of God.

==Endnotes==
#{{note|wikipedia1}}"Textual criticism," ''Wikipedia'' (accessed 11 September 2007).{{link|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Textual_criticism&oldid=156362137}}
#{{note|define1}}"criticism." Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Random House, Inc. (accessed 11 September 2007).{{link|url=http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/criticism}}
#{{note|wikipedia2}}For further reading, see the Wikipedia articles on "Biblical inerrancy"{{link|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_inerrancy}} and "Biblical infallibility"{{link|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_infallibility}}.
#{{note|bofm1}}The authors of the Book of Mormon disclaim inerrancy/infallibility at least five separate times: [http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bm/ttlpg Title Page] ("And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men"); {{s|1|Nephi|19|6}}; {{s||Mormon|8|17}}; {{s||Mormon|9|31-33}}; {{s||Ether|12|23-26}}.
#{{note|tpjs1}}{{TPJS1|start=327}}
#{{note|metzger1}}Bruce M. Metzger, ''A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament'' (United Bible Societies; 2nd Revised edition, 2005), 187.
#{{note|juddstoddard}}Daniel K. Judd and Allen W. Stoddard, "Adding and Taking Away 'Without a Cause' in Matthew 5:22," in ''How the New Testament Came to Be'', ed. Kent P. Jackson and Frank F. Judd Jr. (Provo and Salt Lake City: Religious Studies Center and Deseret Book, 2006), 157-174. ISBN 1590386272.
#{{note|fn1}} The estimate is Ehrman's; see {{MisquotingJesus1|start=89}}
#{{note|fn2}} {{MisquotingJesus1|start=90}}

==Further reading==
===FAIR wiki articles===
* "Book of Mormon textual changes" {{wikilink|url=Book_of_Mormon_textual_changes}}
{{BibleWiki}}

===FAIR web site===
{{BibleFAIR}}

===Recommended books===
The standard references for textual criticism include:

* Bruce M. Metzger and Bart D. Ehrman, ''The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration'' (Oxford University Press, USA; 4 edition, 2005), ISBN 019516122X. ISBN 978-0195161229.{{an|Metzger and Ehrman are the leaders in this field of study.}}

* Ed. Kent P. Jackson and Frank F. Judd Jr., How the New Testament Came to Be'' (Provo and Salt Lake City: Religious Studies Center and Deseret Book, 2006), ISBN 1590386272.{{an|Sperry Symposium.}}

* {{MisquotingJesus0}} {{An|This is a little more accessible to the layman.}}

* Bruce M. Metzger, ''A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament'' (United Bible Societies; 2 Revised edition, 2005), ISBN 1598561642. ISBN 978-1598561647.{{an|This a companion publication to the United Bible Societies' 4th edition Greek New Testament. The ''Textual Commentary'' lists 284 variant readings that the UBS committee felt were significant enough to warrant comment.}}

===External links===
{{BibleLinks}}

===Printed material===
{{BiblePrint}}

The Bible/Textual criticism

2009-01-06T00:18:16Z

BenjaminPorter: /* Examples of variant readings */

{| style="margin: 0em 0em 0em 0em; border: 0px; align="right" cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0
|-
| {{BiblePortal}}
|-
| {{EarlyChristianityPortal}}
|}

{{question}}

==Question==

What can textual criticism tell us about the Bible? Does it have anything to say about [[Biblical_inerrancy|the Bible being without error]], as some Christians claim?

==Answer==

===What is textual criticism?===
Let's begin by defining "textual criticism":

:''Textual criticism'' or ''lower criticism'' is a branch of philology or bibliography that is concerned with the identification and removal of errors from texts and manuscripts. Ancient manuscripts often have errors or alterations made by scribes, who copied the manuscripts by hand. The textual critic seeks to determine the original text of a document or a collection of documents, which the critic believes to come as close as possible to a lost original....{{ref|wikipedia1}}

"Criticism" in this case does not mean "faultfinding." It's a technical term referring to the methods of studying texts or documents for the purpose of dating or reconstructing them, evaluating their authenticity, and analyzing their content or style.{{ref|define1}}

===Is the Bible inerrant?===
Many fundamentalist Christians believe [[Biblical inerrancy|the Bible is ''inerrant'' or ''infallible'']]. They reject the possibility that the Bible could have errors. For many inerrantists this belief only applies to the original manuscripts of the Bible as written by their authors; some, however, believe that infallibility extends to modern printed Bibles or to a specific translation of the Bible.{{ref|wikipedia2}}

Latter-day Saints reject both Biblical inerrancy and Biblical infallibility. They believe that no book of scripture is "perfect" (in any definition of the word) because, although it contains the will of God, it is communicated through the writings of fallible human beings. This includes not only the Bible, but also the Book of Mormon and other modern scriptures.{{ref|bofm1}}

Latter-day Saints also claim that the Bible has undergone many changes since it was written. Joseph Smith taught:

:I believe the Bible as it read when it came from the pen of the original writers. Ignorant translators, careless transcribers, or designing and corrupt priests have committed many errors.{{ref|tpjs1}}

The LDS Church does not take any position on which verses in the Bible are accurate and which are not. From a point of faith we use the Bible as a spiritual guide and don't try to pick it apart. Textual criticism is the realm of the scholar. The Church is an institute of faith and revelation, not scholarship.

===Examples of variant readings===
From the scholarly point of view, the differences in various Biblical manuscripts are well-documented. A few well-known variants include:

* '''{{b||John|7|53}}-{{b||John|8|1-11}}''', traditionally known as the ''pericope adulterae'', is not contained in the earliest and best manuscripts and was almost certainly not an original part of the Gospel of John. Among modern commentators and textual critics, it is a foregone conclusion that the section is not original but represents a later addition to the text of the Gospel. Critical text scholar Bruce Metzger summarizes: "The evidence for the non-Johannine origin of the pericope of the adulteress is overwhelming."{{ref|metzger1}}

* '''{{b||Mark|16|9-20}}''' does not exist in the earliest and best manuscripts. Virtually all scholars believe it was a later addition, added by scribes who felt the original ending was unsatisfactory.

* '''{{b|1|John|5|7-8}}''' — "in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth" — the infamous ''Comma Johanneum'', is accepted as a later insertion by virtually every scholar. It is most interesting that it is the only explicit reference to [[Godhead and the Trinity|the Trinity]] in the New Testament, yet it is not part of the original epistle, but dates from probably the fourth century.

* '''{{b||Matthew|5|22}}''' The phrase "without a cause" appears in some early manuscripts and some writings of early church fathers, but this phrase does not appear in the earliest manuscript (Papyrus 67 dated AD 125-150) nor in the earliest church father writing (Justin dated about 165 AD) of Matthew 5:22. Virtually all scholars believe that this phrase was added by the third century. (It is notable that this phrase is in the King James Bible but it is not in the Book of Mormon or Joseph Smith Translation of Matthew 5:22.){{ref|juddstoddard}}

* '''{{b||John|1|18}}''' is notoriously difficult because various manuscripts read either ''monogenes theos'' ("the only God") or ''ho monogenes huios'' ("the only son").

* '''{{b||Hebrews|1|3}}''' reads "reveals (''phaneron'') all things" in the Codex Vaticanus, while most manuscripts read "sustains (''pheron'') all things". This is particularly interesting because there's a scribe's marginal note in the ''CV'' that reads "Fool and knave, leave the old reading, don't change it!", indicating contention over an intentional change in the passage.

(Additional variant readings can be found on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textual_criticism#Findings Wikipedia's article on textual criticism].)

==Conclusion==
Most Latter-day Saints are not interested in searching the Bible for errors, or highlighting its flaws, though they readily admit that ''no text'' can be perfect or without error when mortals are involved in writing, transcribing, transmitting, or translating it. (See Book of Mormon—[http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bm/introduction Introduction].)

The flaws in the Biblical text present a problem to those who believe the Bible is without error, but not to Latter-day Saints. Some additions or removals might have been corrections that came from earlier unknown sources (see the example for '''{{b||Hebrews|1|3}}''' above in this page, and "Words missing in Alma 32:30" {{wikilink|url=Book_of_Mormon_textual_changes/%22Words_missing_in_Alma_32:30%22}} as an illustration), but still in a scholarly point of view, it is evident that the Bible has been change many times and contains errors.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ehrman Bart Ehrman] was a Biblical inerrantist when he entered the study of the New Testament (he started off at the very conservative Moody Bible Institute), but ultimately lost his faith over the 200,000 to 400,000 variant New Testament readings.{{ref|fn1}} As he wrote, "There are more variations among our manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament."{{ref|fn2}}

Ehrman's slide into agnosticism illustrates the dangers of inerrantism. His inability to have complete confidence that every word of the Bible was correct led to an inability to trust ''any'' of the Bible's witness about Jesus as Lord, Son of God, and Savior.

Latter-day Saints do not rely on scripture—biblical or otherwise—for their knowledge of Christ. They rely instead upon that which provided the scripture in the first place: revelation by the Holy Ghost. They treasure the scriptural witnesses, but do not require perfection from any mortal or mortal work to have faith in the revelations of God.

==Endnotes==
#{{note|wikipedia1}}"Textual criticism," ''Wikipedia'' (accessed 11 September 2007).{{link|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Textual_criticism&oldid=156362137}}
#{{note|define1}}"criticism." Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Random House, Inc. (accessed 11 September 2007).{{link|url=http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/criticism}}
#{{note|wikipedia2}}For further reading, see the Wikipedia articles on "Biblical inerrancy"{{link|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_inerrancy}} and "Biblical infallibility"{{link|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_infallibility}}.
#{{note|bofm1}}The authors of the Book of Mormon disclaim inerrancy/infallibility at least five separate times: [http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bm/ttlpg Title Page] ("And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men"); {{s|1|Nephi|19|6}}; {{s||Mormon|8|17}}; {{s||Mormon|9|31-33}}; {{s||Ether|12|23-26}}.
#{{note|tpjs1}}{{TPJS1|start=327}}
#{{note|metzger1}}Bruce M. Metzger, ''A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament'' (United Bible Societies; 2nd Revised edition, 2005), 187.
#{{note|juddstoddard}}Daniel K. Judd and Allen W. Stoddard, "Adding and Taking Away 'Without a Cause' in Matthew 5:22," in ''How the New Testament Came to Be'', ed. Kent P. Jackson and Frank F. Judd Jr. (Provo and Salt Lake City: Religious Studies Center and Deseret Book, 2006), 157-174. ISBN 1590386272.
#{{note|fn1}} The estimate is Ehrman's; see {{MisquotingJesus1|start=89}}
#{{note|fn2}} {{MisquotingJesus1|start=90}}

==Further reading==
===FAIR wiki articles===
* "Book of Mormon textual changes" {{wikilink|url=Book_of_Mormon_textual_changes}}
{{BibleWiki}}

===FAIR web site===
{{BibleFAIR}}

===Recommended books===
The standard references for textual criticism include:

* Bruce M. Metzger and Bart D. Ehrman, ''The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration'' (Oxford University Press, USA; 4 edition, 2005), ISBN 019516122X. ISBN 978-0195161229.{{an|Metzger and Ehrman are the leaders in this field of study.}}

* Ed. Kent P. Jackson and Frank F. Judd Jr., How the New Testament Came to Be'' (Provo and Salt Lake City: Religious Studies Center and Deseret Book, 2006), ISBN 1590386272.{{an|Sperry Symposium.}}

* {{MisquotingJesus0}} {{An|This is a little more accessible to the layman.}}

* Bruce M. Metzger, ''A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament'' (United Bible Societies; 2 Revised edition, 2005), ISBN 1598561642. ISBN 978-1598561647.{{an|This a companion publication to the United Bible Societies' 4th edition Greek New Testament. The ''Textual Commentary'' lists 284 variant readings that the UBS committee felt were significant enough to warrant comment.}}

===External links===
{{BibleLinks}}

===Printed material===
{{BiblePrint}}

Plural marriage/Early Christians on plural marriage

2009-01-04T02:58:07Z

BenjaminPorter: /* Justin Martyr */

{{PolygamyPortal}}

==Criticism==
Critics point to New Testament scriptures such as {{s|1|Timothy|3|2}}; {{s|1|Timothy|3|12}}; {{s||Titus|1|6}} to argue that the early Christian Church was opposed to any plural marriages.

===Source(s) of the criticism===
*{{QuestionsMormonsShouldAsk}}
* {{SearchForTheTruthDVD}}
* {{50Questions}}

==Response==
{{main|Polygamy not Biblical}}

The listed scriptures do indeed include Paul's instructions to some leaders to be both ''married'' and potentially monogamous.{{ref|barney1}} Latter-day Saints agree that the 'standard' instruction to all believers is monogamy—exceptions can only be commanded by God through His prophet (see {{s||Jacob|2|30}}).

However, critics go too far when they conclude that early Christians believed in an absolute prohibition on plural marriages.

===Tertullian===

:As I think, moreover, each pronouncement and arrangement is (the act) of one and the same God; who did then indeed, in the beginning, send forth a sowing of the race by an indulgent laxity granted to the reins of connubial alliances, until the world should be replenished, until the material of the new discipline should attain to forwardness: now, however, at the extreme boundaries of the times, has checked (the command) which He had sent out, and recalled the indulgence which He had granted; not without a reasonable ground for the extension (of that indulgence) in the beginning, and the limitation of it in the end.{{ref|fn1}}

Tertullian's perspective is strikingly similar to {{s||Jacob|2|30}}, in which monogamy is the norm, but God may command exceptions to "raise up seed."

===Justin Martyr===

Justin Martyr argued that David's sin was only in the matter of Uriah's wife, and echoed a common early Christian idea that marriage was a "mystery," or sacred rite of the type which Latter-day Saints associate with temple worship:

:And this one fall of David, in the matter of Uriah's wife, proves, sirs," I said, "that the patriarchs had many wives, not to commit fornication, but that a certain dispensation and all mysteries might be accomplished by them; since, if it were allowable to take any wife, or as many wives as one chooses, and how he chooses, which the men of your nation do over all the earth, wherever they sojourn, or wherever they have been sent, taking women under the name of marriage, much more would David have been permitted to do this.{{ref|justin1}}

Justin saw the patriarchs' marriages not as corruptions or something which God 'winked at,' but acts with significant ritual and religious power.

===Augustine===

Even Augustine, a towering figure in Christian theology, held that polygamy was not something that was a crime before God, but rather a matter that depended more upon cultural biases:

:Again, Jacob the son of Isaac is charged with having committed a great crime because he had four wives. But here there is no ground for a criminal accusation: for a plurality of wives was no crime when it was the custom; and it is a crime now, because it is no longer the custom. There are sins against nature, and sins against custom, and sins against the laws. In which, then, of these senses did Jacob sin in having a plurality of wives? As regards nature, he used the women not for sensual gratification, but for the procreation of children. For custom, this was the common practice at that time in those countries. And for the laws, no prohibition existed. The only reason of its being a crime now to do this, is because custom and the [secular] laws forbid it.{{ref|augustine1}}

==Conclusion==

The Latter-day Saints do not take their doctrine from ancient Christian writers, but from canonized scriptures and the living prophets. However, the perspectives of early Christians demonstrates the plural marriage was not the absolutely forbidden idea that some modern sectarians might wish it to be.

==Endnotes==
#{{note|barney1}} The Greek of the New Testament can "be read as excluding (a) the single, (b) the polygamous, (c) the divorced, [or] (d) those remarried after being widowed. The words can also convey the connotation 'devoted solely to his wife.'" See: {{NTBarney2_1|start=240a}}
#{{note|fn1}} {{Anf| author=Tertullian|article=Exhortation to Chastity|citation=6|vol=6|start=53|end=54}}
#{{note|justin1}} {{Anf1| author=Justin Martyr|article=Dialogue With Trypho|citation=141|vol=1|start=270}}
#{{note|augustine1}} {{NPNF1_1 | author=Augustine|article=Reply to Faustus 22:47|vol=4|start=288}}

==Further Reading==
===FAIR wiki articles===
{{PolygamyWiki}}

===FAIR web site===
*{{Restoringancientchurch |title=The Temple|chapter=6}}{{NB}}
{{PolygamyFAIR}}

===External links===
{{PolygamyLinks}}

===Printed material===
{{PolygamyPrint}}

Book of Mormon/Synagogues

2009-01-04T02:37:38Z

BenjaminPorter: /* Response */

==Criticism==
The Book of Mormon mentions "synagogues" twenty five times. Critics claim that "synagogues" were not present among the Jews until ''after'' the Babylonian captivity, and thus Lehi and his family cannot have known of them. The critics insist, therefore, that Book of Mormon use of synagogues is anachronistic.

===Source(s) of the Criticism===
*{{CriticalWork:Abanes:Becoming Gods|pages=58, 359 n. 50, 51}}

==Response==

The critics' claim that no synagogues were present before the Babylonian captivity is based on out-of-date information:

:[Lee] Levine, a leading scholar on the history of the synagogue, has suggested that synagogues did exist before the Babylonian captivity in the form of chambers in the city gates. Such gates have been excavated by archaeologists at such important Old Testament sites as Beersheba, Gezer, Lachish, and Megiddo. Each of these has

:#at least one chamber (which is nearly square) lined with stone benches around the interior walls (the benched chamber at Lachish has two tiers of benches),
:#a single doorway, and
:#where there is enough of the original wall left to determine it, a niche. I suggest that these niches were used for storing special ritual items, perhaps even sacred scrolls.

:Levine concludes that since later synagogues closely mirror the architecture of the gate chambers, these chambers may well have been the original synagogues. This conclusion is supported by a number of biblical passages that indicate that the city gate and its vicinity were the hub of a community's life. The gate area served as

:#the market place (see {{B|2|Kings|7|1}}),
:#the general court (see {{b||Genesis|23|10,18}}; {{b||Deuteronomy|17|5}}, {{b||Deuteronomy|21|19}} and {{b||Deuteronomy|22|24}}; {{b||Ruth|4|1–12}}; {{b||Jeremiah|38|7}}; {{b||Daniel|2|48–49}}; and {{b||Esther|5|9,13}}; {{b||Esther|6|10}}),
:#the royal court (see {{b|2|Samuel|18|4}} and {{b|2|Samuel|19|8}}; and {{b|1|Kings|22|10}}, which equals {{b|2|Chronicles|18|9}}), and
:#a place of worship (see {{b|2|Kings|23|8}} and {{b||Nehemiah|8|1}}).

:Support for Levine's conclusion is also found in the Old Testament terminology for worship service. Several Old Testament writers (see Hosea 2:11; Jeremiah in Lamentations 2:6; Ezekiel 44:24) link Sabbath worship with the Hebrew word mo‘ed which means "assembly, meeting."

:If Levine is correct, then, before the captivity, a town's or city's social activities centered around the city gate, and it seems reasonable that these social activities included Sabbath worship in a chamber of the gate that resembled later synagogues and functioned similarly.{{ref|fn1}}

For further information on the chambers in city-gates being a proto-synagogue as a result of Josiah's centralization of Temple worship in Jerusalem and the establishment of congregations meeting for non-sacrificial worship in the chambers of city-gates, see: Lee I. Levine, ''The Ancient Synagogue: The First Thousand Years'' (2d ed.; New Haven: Yale University Press, 2005). ISBN 0300106289.

==Conclusion==

Assemblies for Jewish worship were known and used prior to the Babylonian captivity. The term "synagogue" is a translation, and need not be the actual Nephites word for these structures. However, pre-captivity Jews had such sites for communal worship. In any case, nothing prevents Nephites from independently developing the idea of a building for group worship, and Joseph Smith translating such a concept as "synagogue."

==Endnotes==
# *{{JBMS-9-1-2}} (references silently omitted; see original for much more detail) 

==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===
{{Book of Mormon Anachronisms}}

===FAIR web site===

===External links===
*{{JBMS-9-1-2}}

===Printed material===
* Lee I. Levine, ''The Ancient Synagogue: The First Thousand Years'' (2d ed.; New Haven: Yale University Press, 2005). ISBN 0300106289.

Book of Mormon/Synagogues

2009-01-04T02:32:08Z

BenjaminPorter: /* Response */

==Criticism==
The Book of Mormon mentions "synagogues" twenty five times. Critics claim that "synagogues" were not present among the Jews until ''after'' the Babylonian captivity, and thus Lehi and his family cannot have known of them. The critics insist, therefore, that Book of Mormon use of synagogues is anachronistic.

===Source(s) of the Criticism===
*{{CriticalWork:Abanes:Becoming Gods|pages=58, 359 n. 50, 51}}

==Response==

The critics' claim that no synagogues were present before the Babylonian captivity is based on out-of-date information:

:[Lee] Levine, a leading scholar on the history of the synagogue, has suggested that synagogues did exist before the Babylonian captivity in the form of chambers in the city gates. Such gates have been excavated by archaeologists at such important Old Testament sites as Beersheba, Gezer, Lachish, and Megiddo. Each of these has

:#at least one chamber (which is nearly square) lined with stone benches around the interior walls (the benched chamber at Lachish has two tiers of benches),
:#a single doorway, and
:#where there is enough of the original wall left to determine it, a niche. I suggest that these niches were used for storing special ritual items, perhaps even sacred scrolls.

:Levine concludes that since later synagogues closely mirror the architecture of the gate chambers, these chambers may well have been the original synagogues. This conclusion is supported by a number of biblical passages that indicate that the city gate and its vicinity were the hub of a community's life. The gate area served as

:#the market place (see {{B|2|Kings|7|1}}),
:#the general court (see {{b||Genesis|23|10,18}}; {{b||Deuteronomy|17|5}}, {{b||Deuteronomy|21|19}} and {{b||Deuteronomy|22|24}}; {{b||Ruth|4|1–12}}; {{b||Jeremiah|38|7}}; {{b||Daniel|2|48–49}}; and {{b||Esther|5|9,13}}; {{b||Esther|6|10}}),
:#the royal court (see {{b|2|Samuel|18|4}} and {{b|2|Samuel|19|8}}; and {{b|1|Kings|22|10}}, which equals {{b|2|Chronicles|18|9}}), and
:#a place of worship (see {{b|2|Kings|23|8}} and {{b||Nehemiah|8|1}}).

:Support for Levine's conclusion is also found in the Old Testament terminology for worship service. Several Old Testament writers (see Hosea 2:11; Jeremiah in Lamentations 2:6; Ezekiel 44:24) link Sabbath worship with the Hebrew word mo‘ed which means "assembly, meeting."

:If Levine is correct, then, before the captivity, a town's or city's social activities centered around the city gate, and it seems reasonable that these social activities included Sabbath worship in a chamber of the gate that resembled later synagogues and functioned similarly.{{ref|fn1}}

For further information on the chambers in city-gates being a proto-synagogue as a result of Josiah's centralization of Temple worship in Jerusalem and the establishment of congregations meeting for non-sacrifical worship in the chambers of city-gates, see: Lee I. Levine, ''The Ancient Synagogue: The First Thousand Years'' (2d ed.; New Haven: Yale University Press, 2005). ISBN 0300106289.

==Conclusion==

Assemblies for Jewish worship were known and used prior to the Babylonian captivity. The term "synagogue" is a translation, and need not be the actual Nephites word for these structures. However, pre-captivity Jews had such sites for communal worship. In any case, nothing prevents Nephites from independently developing the idea of a building for group worship, and Joseph Smith translating such a concept as "synagogue."

==Endnotes==
# *{{JBMS-9-1-2}} (references silently omitted; see original for much more detail) 

==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===
{{Book of Mormon Anachronisms}}

===FAIR web site===

===External links===
*{{JBMS-9-1-2}}

===Printed material===
* Lee I. Levine, ''The Ancient Synagogue: The First Thousand Years'' (2d ed.; New Haven: Yale University Press, 2005). ISBN 0300106289.

Joseph Smith's First Vision/Religious revivals in 1820/Gordon B. Hinckley cited false information

2009-01-04T02:27:34Z

BenjaminPorter: /* Response */

{{FirstVisionPortal}}
==Criticism==

Critics claim that there were no religious revivals in the Palmyra, New York area in 1820, and that Gordon B. Hinckley cited false information in a book called ''Truth Restored''.

===Source(s) of the criticism===
*{{CriticalWork:Abanes:Becoming Gods|pages=40,348n123}} (Abanes cites pp. 1-2 for his claim.)

==Response==

{{main|Religious revivals in 1820}}
The material found in ''Truth Restored'' was written in 1947 under the title ''What of the Mormons?'' It was written as an introduction to the Church for non-members when Gordon B. Hinckley was a 37-year-old employee of the Church.

Several chapters were later reprinted as ''Truth Restored''. The relevant material reads as follows:

:This condition among the people of the frontier areas of America became a matter of serious concern to religious leaders. A crusade was begun to "convert the unconverted." It was carried over a vast area from the New England states to Kentucky. In 1820 it reached western New York. The ministers of the various denominations united in their efforts, and many conversions were made among the scattered settlers. One week a Rochester paper noted: "More than two hundred souls have become hopeful subjects of divine grace in Palmyra, Macedon, Manchester, Lyons, and Ontario since the late revival commenced." The week following it was able to report "that in Palmyra and Macedon . . . more than four hundred souls have already confessed that the Lord is good."{{ref|hinckley.1}}

The source for this claim is Preston Nibley, ''Joseph Smith the Prophet'' (Salt Lake City: Deseret News Press, 1946), pp. 21-22. Nibley, in turn is quoting from Willard Bean, ''A. B. C. History of Palmyra and the Beginning of "Mormonism'' (1938).{{ref|walters.1}} Bean writes:

:In the year 1819 a sort of religious awakening... spread... After reaching New York it spread to the rural districts upstate, reaching Palmyra and vicinity in the Spring of 1820.... The revival started the latter part of April [1820]... which gave the farmers a chance to attend the meetings... By the first of May, the revival was well under way with scores of people confessing religion... The revival had been even more successful than the ministers had anticipated. I quote from the ''Religious Advocate'' of Rochester: 'More than 200 souls have become hopeful subjects of divine grace in Palmyra, Macedon, Manchester, Lyons and Ontario since the late revival commenced. This is a powerful work. It is among young as well as old people.... A week later [also from the 'Religious Advocate' of Rochester]... 'It may be added that in Palmyra and Macedon, including Methodist, Presbyterian and Baptist churches, more than 400 have already confessed that the Lord is good. The work is still progressing. In neighboring towns, the number is great and still increasing. Glory be to God on high; and on earth peace and good will to all men.'"{{ref|bean.1}}

Yet, as the Reverend Wesley Walters pointed out in his article which attempted to dispute the existence of a revival, this is almost certainly a miscitation, since the quoted newspaper did not begin publication until 1825.{{ref|walters.2}}

Thus, Gordon Hinckley (1947) quoted a line from Nibley (1946), who was quoting from Bean (1938) that was in error. It is important to remember, however, that then-Bro. Hinckley's book was not intended to be a scholarly treatise, but was an introduction to the basics of Church history. The material from 1947 was later reprinted as ''Truth Restored''.

==Conclusion==

Despite the claims of Walters and other critics, modern research has demonstrated that there ''were'' [[Religious revivals in 1820|religious revivals in 1820]]. The cited newspaper article did not apply to the 1820 revival, but other reports are known today which would make the same point.

The evidence does not suggest that this was an attempt to deceive, but simply an error that was perpetuated between multiple authors.

Anti-Mormon authors should be well aware of this phenomenon—anti-Mormon arguments are constantly recycled and requoted by their successors, with little heed given to LDS responses or the primary sources. In this respect, the Church has done better than the critics—the current brief introduction to Church history, ''Our Heritage'', quotes no newspapers about the 1820 revival.{{ref|heritage.1}}

One wonders when Richard Abanes and others will be so zealous in correcting the errors and miscitations in their own works, and that of their fellow anti-Mormons?

==Endnotes==
#{{note|hinckley.1}} ''Truth Restored'' (Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1979), 1–2.
#{{note|walters.1}}{{Dialogue1|author=Rev. Wesley P. Walters|start=67, 67 n. 48|vol=4|num=1|date=Spring 1969|article=New Light on Mormon Origins From the Palmyra Revival}}
#{{note|bean.1}}Cited in Dale Broadhurst, "Uncle Dale's Readings in Early Mormon History: Misc. New York Newspapers," note 2. {{link|url=http://sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/NY/miscNYSg.htm}}
#{{note|walters.2}} {{Dialogue1|author=Rev. Wesley P. Walters|start=67, 67 n. 48|vol=4|num=1|date=Spring 1969|article=New Light on Mormon Origins From the Palmyra Revival}}
#{{note|heritage.1}} See {{OurHeritage|pages=1–4|url=http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=32c41b08f338c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=75e2c106dac20110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&hideNav=1&contentLocale=0}}
===FAIR wiki links===
{{FirstVisionWiki}}

===FAIR web site===
{{FirstVisionFAIR}}

===Printed material===
{{FirstVisionPrint}}

Holy Ghost/Divinity without a body

2009-01-04T02:16:19Z

BenjaminPorter: /* Criticism */

{{HolyGhostPortal}}

==Criticism==

Critics charge that since LDS doctrine teaches that a body is required for exaltation, the Holy Ghost cannot be fully God, because he does not have a physical body.

===Source(s) of the criticism===
*{{CriticalWork:Abanes:Becoming Gods|pages=241}}
*{{QuestionsMormonsShouldAsk}} {{wikilink|url=Questions_All_Mormons_Should_Ask_Themselves#1._If_Gods_are_individuals_who_have_passed_through_mortality_and_have_progressed_to_Godhood.2C_how_has_one_person_of_the_Trinity_.28the_Holy_Spirit.29_attained_Godhood_without_getting_a_body.3F}}

==Response==

{{main|Holy Ghost/Will he receive a body}}

Having a body is necessary for a fullness of joy ({{s||DC|93|33}}). It will be necessary for the Holy Spirit to receive a body at some point, but the timeframe in which He does so is not particularly important. (To travel overseas to another country, one needs both a passport and an airplane ticket. It doesn't matter in which order one gets the passport or the ticket, but one must eventually have both in order to reach one's destination.)

If correct sequence is an imperative, critics must explain how Christ's atonement could be efficacious to those who were born, lived, and died prior to His crucifixion. The fact that it was effective should blunt any feigned requirement for sequence concerning the Holy Ghost's receipt of a physical body, a matter about which the Church has no [[Holy Ghost/Will he receive a body|official doctrine]].

==Endnotes==
''None''

==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===
{{HolyGhostwiki}}

===FAIR web site===
{{HolyGhostFAIR}}
===External links===
{{HolyGhostLinks}}

===Printed material===
{{HolyGhostPrint}}

Joseph Smith/Alleged false prophecies/Government to be overthrown and wasted

2009-01-04T01:55:42Z

BenjaminPorter: /* 3a: Missouri */

{{JosephSmithPortal}}
{{draft}}

==Criticism==

On 6 May 1843, Joseph Smith said:

:'I prophecy in the name of the Lord God of Israel, unless the United States redress the wrongs committed upon the Saints in the state of Missouri and punish the crimes committed by her officers that in a few years the government will be utterly overthrown and wasted, and there will not be so much as a potsherd left for their wickedness in permitting the murder of men, women and children, and the wholesale plunder and extermination of thousands of her citizens to go unpunished, thereby perpetrating a foul and corroding blot upon the fair fame of this great republic, the very thought of which would have caused the high-minded and patriotic framers of the Constitution of the United States to hide their faces with shame. Judge [Stephen A. Douglas], you will aspire to the Presidency of the United States; and if you ever turn your hand against me or the Latter-day Saints, you will feel the weight of the hand of the Almighty upon you; and you will live to see and know that I have testified the truth to you; for the conversation of this day will stick to you through life.{{ref|hc.1}}

Since it is more than 150 years since this prophecy was uttered, and because the US government still exists, critics claim that this is a false prophecy.

===Source(s) of the criticism===
* Marvin W. Cowan, "Prophets in Mormonism—Part 5," Ankerberg Theological Research Institute (2007), 2–3.
* {{CriticalWork:Decker Hunt:The God Makers|pages=225, lines 26-33}}
* Edmond C. Gruss, Lane A. Thuet, ''What Every Mormon (and Non-Mormon) Should Know'' (Xulon Press, 2006), 203. 
* "Mormons in Transition," ''Institute for Religious Research'' 
*Walter Martin's "Religious Infonet," (accessed 3 January 2009), 
* ''Mormonwiki.org'' (accessed 3 January 2009). 

==Response==

This prophecy has been fulfilled in one, or more, of three ways:
# the prophecy's fulfillment is yet in the future
# the prophecy was fulfilled and the government spared because sufficient redress was provided
# the prophecy was fulfilled by the events of the Civil War and in particular the effects of the war on Missouri

We will consider each below.

===#1: Timeframe?===

The prophecy's fulfillment may yet be in the future. Critics have no grounds to declare how long it must take for this prophecy's fulfillment. Bible-believing critics may be guilty of a double standard if they await Biblical prophecies of more than 2000 years' standing, while insisting that the "few years" in Joseph's prophecy has expired.

===#2: Redress provided?===

Another school of thought holds that the United States ''did'' provide some redress to the Saints: "Though persecution and troubles continued to follow the Saints on account of their dealings with the government, eventually they were able to find a home in Utah, and were allowed to thrive as a community."{{ref|ferguson.1}} As one author noted:

:The prophecy as worded is obviously a conditional one. The United States did redress the Latter-day Saints to some extent for wrongs committed against them and thus the harshness of the fate of Missouri (or the United States) was reduced. The United States inviting the Saints to volunteer five hundred men to help in the 1846 war with Mexico might be considered partial redress because it provided desperately needed funds for the Latter-day Saints to finance the pioneer trek to Utah. President Polk at this time also promised Latter-day Saints safety as they travelled through Indian lands to the west. When the personal papers of James K. Polk, the U.S. president who asked Latter-day Saints to form a Mormon Battalion, were recently opened, it was found that he considered his action to help the Latter-day Saints. The granting of territorial status to the Mormons might also be considered a partial redress for wrongs.{{ref|scharffs.1}}

===#3: The Civil War===

Others believe that insufficient redress was provided, and that this prophecy has been fulfilled by the Civil War and its attendant events.

====3a: Missouri====

Missouri suffered greatly during the Civil War. Over 1,200 distinct battles or skirmishes were fought on Missouri soil; only Tennessee and Virginia saw more action on their soil.

Between 1862 and 1864, the western parts of Missouri endured guerrilla warfare. Although guerrilla warfare occurred throughout much of the state, most of the incidents occurred in northern Missouri and were characterized by ambushes of individuals or families in rural areas. These incidents were particularly nefarious because their vigilante nature was outside the command and control of either side and often pitted neighbor against neighbor.

Among the more notorious incidents of guerrilla warfare were the Sacking of Osceola, burning of Platte City and the Centralia Massacre.

In 1863 following the Lawrence Massacre in Kansas, Union General Thomas Ewing, Jr. accused farmers in rural Missouri of either instigating the attack or supporting it. He issued General Order No. 11 which forced the evacuation of all residents of rural areas of the four counties ('''Jackson''', Cass, Bates and Vernon) south of the Missouri River on the Kansas border to leave their property, which was then burned. The order applied to farmers regardless of loyalty, although those who could prove their loyalty to the Union could stay in designated towns and those who could not were exiled entirely.{{ref|pedia.1}}

LDS readers will recognize that Jackson county was notorious for its treatment of the Saints, and it was among those counties from which inhabitants were evacuated and a "scorched earth" policy implemented. The commanding general ordered his men not to engage in looting or other depredations, but he proved unable to effectively control his soldiers, who were mostly Kansans eager to exact any revenge possible upon their Missouri neighbors. Animals and other property were stolen or destroyed, and houses, barns and outbuildings burnt to the ground. The area affected quickly became a devastated "no-man's-land", with only charred chimneys and burnt stubble remaining where once-fertile farms had stood.{{ref|pedia.2}}

If one read's Joseph's prophecy as referring at least partly to the government of Missouri, then it was fulfilled dramatically. Nothing remained in many areas, and government in some areas broke down almost completely as various factions struggled for control.

====3b: United States====

In 1840, William Henry Harrison was elected as president on the Whig ticket. He was to die within a month of taking office, succeeded by Vice-President John Tyler who was in office when Joseph made his prophecy in May 1843. The Whig party was to fracture along pro- and anti-slavery lines, and by 1854 the northern Whigs left the party to join the new Republican party. Others were later to join the Constitutional Union party, dedicated to the avoidance of civil war. Following the Civil War, the Whigs in the south tried to regroup, but were soon absorbed into the Democratic party.{{ref|pedia.3}}

Thus, in the US government of Joseph's day, the Whigs had won the presidency and controlled the Senate. The Whigs were to be destroyed as a political power, never to recover. The United States government was to be destroyed, since the secession of the South arguably remade the American political order. Eleven states formed their own government as the Confederate States of America, and two states (Missouri and Kentucky) were split between pro-Union and pro-Confederate factions. Even following the war, the Reconstruction era undertook the abolishment of the Confederacy, the reestablishment of Southern representation in the Congress, and a revamping of the United States constitution to change the relationship of the states to the federal government.

Chief among the constitutional changes was the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution Fourteenth Amendment], which made all citizens of the states citizens of the United States. Thus:

:No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

This was a fundamental alteration of the government of the United States, and would have helped resolve many of the Saints' difficulties, had it been in place before the Civil War. Joseph Smith would complain:

:I am the greatest advocate of the Constitution of the United States there is on the earth. In my feelings I am always ready to die for the protection of the weak and oppressed in their just rights. The only fault I find with the Constitution is, it is not broad enough to cover the whole ground.

:Although it provides that all men shall enjoy religious freedom, yet it does not provide the manner by which that freedom can be preserved, nor for the punishment of Government officers who refuse to protect the people in their religious rights, or punish those mobs, states, or communities who interfere with the rights of the people on account of their religion. Its sentiments are good, but it provides no means of enforcing them. It has but this one fault. Under its provision, a man or a people who are able to protect themselves can get along well enough; but those who have the misfortune to be weak or unpopular are left to the merciless rage of popular fury.{{ref|js.2}}

The fourteenth amendment gave the federal government the power to enforce defense if the states failed to do so. As George A. Smith noted:

:That is the situation we were in in Missouri when Governor Dunklin declared that the constitution and laws of Missouri could not be enforced so as to protect this people. It was virtually declaring us independent of that State, and acknowledging our right to protect ourselves in that capacity.{{ref|gas.1}}

G.A. Smith notes that Missouri could refuse to protect the Saints, and the federal government could not intervene. The 14th amendment altered this state of affairs. Elias Higbee's words to Congress would likewise insist that "I told them first, that I represented a suffering people, who had been deprived, together with myself, of their rights in Missouri; who numbered something like fifteen thousand souls; and not only they, but many others were deprived of the rights guaranteed to them by the Constitution of the United States."{{ref|js.1}}

On this view, the United States government ''was'' remade following the Civil War. The old order was gone.

===LDS members' views===

During the Civil War, members of the Church clearly saw the conflict as a fulfillment of Joseph's prophecy. As one federal governor wrote in 1862, "Brigham Young and other preachers are constantly inculcating in the minds of the crowded audiences who sit beneath their teachings every Sabbath that the United States is of no consequence, that it lies in ruins, and that the prophecy of Joseph Smith is being fulfilled to the letter."{{ref|by.1}} Thus, the secession of the South and the start of the Civil War was regarded as fulfillment of prophecy. As one author noted:

:Mormon leaders consistently expressed their feelings that the war had been brought on by the wickedness of the United States, which had rejected Mormonism and permitted the death of the prophet of God and his servants. Because no effort had been made to punish the guilty or to prevent recurrences, the Mormons saw no reason to wonder at secession and dismemberment of such a union. Although the waste of lives was lamentable, a war between the states would avenge the death of Joseph Smith.

:The Saints seemed especially gratified that Jackson County was a war zone and that Missouri would suffer the penalty of its cruelties to the Mormons.{{ref|campbell.1}}

After the war, B.H. Roberts linked Joseph's prophecy to the Civil War, since it also forms part of the prophecy given to Stephen Douglas. Noted Roberts:

:It would be mere conjecture, of course, to say what the result would have been had Stephen A. Douglas been true to the Saints--the people of his friend Joseph Smith. But certainly had he been elected in 1860 the Southern States would have had no such excuse for their great movement of secession as they at least persuaded themselves they had in the election of Abraham Lincoln. And had Mr. Douglas in the event of his election followed the counsel given to the government and people of the United States by Joseph Smith in respect to the question of slavery, that evil might have been abolished without the effusion of blood, and no place found in the history of the United States for that horrible conflict known as the American civil war.{{ref|roberts.1}}

Thus, Roberts too saw the Civil War and its surrounding events as fulfillment of Joseph's prophecy.

==Conclusion==

Joseph Smith's prophecy may yet have a future fulfillment. However, the prophecy has already been amply fulfilled by events in Missouri and the United States soon after Joseph's death.

==Endnotes==

#{{note|fn.1}} {{HoC1|vol=5|start=394}}
#{{note|ferguson.1}} David Ferguson, "Miraculous Events in Early Church History," {{fairlink|url=http://www.fairlds.org/Misc/Miraculous_Events_in_Early_Church_History.html}}
#{{note|scharffs.1}} {{TruthGodmakers1 | start=chapter 15}} {{link|url=http://www.fairlds.org/The_God_Makers/tagm31.html}}
#{{note|pedia.1}} "Missouri in the American Civil War," ''wikipedia'' (accessed 3 January 2009) {{link|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missouri_in_the_American_Civil_War}}.
#{{note|pedia.2}} "General Order No. 11," ''wikipedia'' (accessed 3 January 2009) {{link|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Order_%E2%84%96_11_(1863)}}.
#{{note|pedia.3}} "Whig Party (United States)," ''wikipedia'' (accessed 3 January 2009) {{link|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whig_Party_(United_States)}}
#{{note|gas.1}} {{JoD9_1|start=110|author=George A. Smith|title=Difficulties With Which the Church Has Had to Contend in Its Establishment in Utah|date=10 September 1861}}
#{{note|js.2}} {{HoC|vol=6|start=56|end=57}}
#{{note|js.1}} {{HoC1|vol=4|start=81}}
#{{note|by.1}} Stephen S. Harding; cited in Eugene. E. Campbell, ''Establishing Zion: The Mormon Church in the American West, 1847-1869'' (Salt Lake City, Utah: Signature Books, 1988), 291.
#{{note|campbell.1}}Eugene. E. Campbell, ''Establishing Zion: The Mormon Church in the American West, 1847-1869'' (Salt Lake City, Utah: Signature Books, 1988), 291.
#{{note|roberts.1}} {{NewWitnessesForGod1 | article=The Evidence Of Prophecy|vol=1|start=311}}
==Further reading==
===FAIR wiki articles===
{{ProphecyWiki}}
===FAIR web site===
*{{TruthGodmakers1 | start=chapter 15}} {{link|url=http://www.fairlds.org/The_God_Makers/tagm31.html}}
{{ProphecyFAIR}}
===External links===
{{ProphecyLinks}}
===Printed material===
{{ProphecyPrint}}
[http://www.example.com link title]

Moroni's visit/Joseph reported "a spirit" visiting in him in 1827

2009-01-03T01:00:00Z

BenjaminPorter: /* Other early accounts{{ref|morris.1}} */

{{FirstVisionPortal}}
{{draft}}
==Criticism==

Critics are anxious to paint Joseph's early experiences as linked to [[Joseph Smith and the occult|"magick"]] or [[Joseph Smith and money digging|treasure seeking]]. They thus argue that Joseph Smith described his first angelic visitor as "a dream" in which "a spirit" visited him three times in one night.

===Source(s) of the Criticism===

* {{CriticalWork:Abanes:Becoming Gods|pages=35, 342n79-80}}
* {{CriticalWork:Vogel:Making of a Prophet|pages=45}}

Critics cite such works as the following:
* From the ''Palmyra Freeman'': Golden Bible, Niagra Courier, Aug. 27, 1829, vol. 2, no. 18.
* "The Gold Bible," ''Rochester Advertiser and Telegraph'', Aug. 31, 1829.
* "Golden Bible," ''Rochester (NY) Gem'' 1 (5 September 1829): 70.

==Response==

===Hostile sources===

Critics generally gloss over the fact that these newspapers were unremittingly hostile to Joseph and his claims. They were not disinterested, neutral reporters of "both sides of the story." They tended to polemics and sensationalism. Thus, the ''Palmyra Freeman'' would write a few weeks earlier that the Book of Mormon was "the greatest piece of superstition that has ever come within our knowledge," and "It is certainly a "''new thing''" in the history of superstition, bigotry, inconsistency, and foolishness. -- It should, and it doubtless will, be treated with the neglect it merits."{{ref|freeman.1}} It was, continued the ''Freeman'' (reprinted in the ''Rochester Advertiser and Telegraph'') "almost invariably treated as it should have been—with ''contempt''".{{ref|freeman.2}}

Other papers followed in this vein, describing the Book of Mormon as "an evidence of fraud, blasphemy and credulity," cooked up by Joseph Smith, "who, by some hocus pocus, acquired such an influence over a wealthy farmer of Wayne county, that the latter mortgaged his farm for $3000, which he paid for printing and binding 5000 copies of the blasphemous work."{{ref|rochester.1}}

==="Spirit"?===

Critics wish to invoke the term "spirit" to associate the Book of Mormon predominantly with treasure magic. However, a consideration of the complete statements makes it clear that the evidence does not support this interpretation—the religious elements predominate.

For example, a second-hand account from Martin Harris reads, in part:

:In the autumn of 1827...Joseph Smith...said that he had been visited ''by the spirit of the Almighty'' in a dream...[regarding a hill] containing an ancient record ''of divine origin''....He states that after a third visit from the same spirit in a dream, he proceeded to the spot, removed earth, and there found the bible, together with a large pair of spectacles....{{ref|emd.1}}

The author obviously does not believe Joseph's story, and so characterizes his experience as "a dream," rather than a vision. But, we note that even at this very early date (1827, reported in 1829), the visit is divine: "the spirit of the Almighty," and Joseph is directed to a "bible" that is "of divine origin."

===Other early accounts{{ref|morris.1}}===

The ''Palmyra'' (NY) ''Wayne Sentinel'' (26 June 1829):

:...much speculation has existed, concerning a pretended discovery, through ''superhuman means'', of an ancient record, ''of a religious and a divine nature and origin'', written in ancient characters, impossible to be interpreted by any to whom the special gift has not been ''imparted by inspiration''. It is generally known and spoken of as the "Golden Bible."{{ea}}

Here again, the ''religious'' character of the Book of Mormon is emphasized (even labeled a ''Bible''), with the need for divine ''inspiration''.

A letter from a skeptical member of Joseph's extended family shows a similar pattern—Jesse Smith to Hyrum Smith, 17 June 1829:

:Once as I thot my promising Nephew, You wrote to my Father long ago, that after struggling thro various scenes of adversity, you and your family, you had at last taught the very solutary lesson that the God that made the heavens and the earth w[o]uld at onc[e] give success to your endeavours, this if true, is very well, exactly as it should be—but alas what is man when left to his own way, he makes his own gods, if a golden calf, he falls down and worships before it, and says this is my god which brought me out of the land of Vermont—if it be a gold book discovered by the necromancy of infidelity, & dug from the mines of atheism, ''he writes that the angel of the Lord has revealed'' to him the hidden treasures of ''wisdom & knowledge'', even ''divine revelation'', which has lain in the bowels of the earth for thousands of years [and] is at last made known to him, he says he has eyes to see things that art not, and then has the audacity to say they are; and the ''angel of the Lord'' (Devil it should be) has put me in possession of great wealth, gold & silver and precious stones so that I shall have the dominion in all the land of Palmyra.{{ea}}

Here, Jesse Smith is obviously scornful of the claims being made by Joseph. But, he clearly sees the Book of Mormon in making religious claims: even in hostility, it sees it springing from atheism and infidelity. Treasures are mentioned, but they are "hidden treasures of wisdom & knowledge." Moroni is clearly seen as an "angel of the Lord," and that the finding of the plates was "revealed" by "divine revelation."

==Conclusion==

This pattern recurs repeatedly—the earliest letters and newspapers accounts describe Joseph's claims in religious terms. Gradually, over time, hostile versions of Joseph's claims appear, which introduce "magic" or treasure-seeking elements to the tale.{{ref|additions.1}} Modern critics have simply followed where Joseph's early critics led them—while ignoring the earliest documents and witness of both friendly ''and'' hostile sources.

==Endnotes==

#{{note|freeman.1}} [J. A. Hadley], ''Palmyra Freeman'', August 11, 1829 {{link|url=http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/NY/wayn1830.htm#081129}}; cited in part on p. 6 of {{JBMS-16-1-4}}
#{{note|freeman.2}} ''Rochester Daily Advertiser and Telegraph'', 31 August 1829, quoting the ''Palmyra Freeman'' (Kirkham, New Witness, 2:31).
#{{note|rochester.1}} ''Rochester Daily Advertiser and Telegraph'', April 2, 1830
#{{note|emd.1}} "Golden Bible," ''Rochester'' (NY) ''Gem'' 1 (5 September 1829): 70; cited in {{EarlyMormonDocs1|vol=2|start=272}}
#{{note|morris.1}} From Appendix A and B of {{FR-17-1-4}} 
#{{note|additions1.}} For an analysis of all these early accounts in tabular form, see {{FR-17-1-4}} . See also {{FR-18-1-5}} 

==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===
{{FirstVisionWiki}}

===FAIR web site===
{{FirstVisionFAIR}}

===External links===
{{FirstVisionLinks}}

===Printed material===
{{FirstVisionPrint}}

Moroni's visit/Joseph reported "a spirit" visiting in him in 1827

2009-01-03T00:55:53Z

BenjaminPorter: /* "Spirit"? */

{{FirstVisionPortal}}
{{draft}}
==Criticism==

Critics are anxious to paint Joseph's early experiences as linked to [[Joseph Smith and the occult|"magick"]] or [[Joseph Smith and money digging|treasure seeking]]. They thus argue that Joseph Smith described his first angelic visitor as "a dream" in which "a spirit" visited him three times in one night.

===Source(s) of the Criticism===

* {{CriticalWork:Abanes:Becoming Gods|pages=35, 342n79-80}}
* {{CriticalWork:Vogel:Making of a Prophet|pages=45}}

Critics cite such works as the following:
* From the ''Palmyra Freeman'': Golden Bible, Niagra Courier, Aug. 27, 1829, vol. 2, no. 18.
* "The Gold Bible," ''Rochester Advertiser and Telegraph'', Aug. 31, 1829.
* "Golden Bible," ''Rochester (NY) Gem'' 1 (5 September 1829): 70.

==Response==

===Hostile sources===

Critics generally gloss over the fact that these newspapers were unremittingly hostile to Joseph and his claims. They were not disinterested, neutral reporters of "both sides of the story." They tended to polemics and sensationalism. Thus, the ''Palmyra Freeman'' would write a few weeks earlier that the Book of Mormon was "the greatest piece of superstition that has ever come within our knowledge," and "It is certainly a "''new thing''" in the history of superstition, bigotry, inconsistency, and foolishness. -- It should, and it doubtless will, be treated with the neglect it merits."{{ref|freeman.1}} It was, continued the ''Freeman'' (reprinted in the ''Rochester Advertiser and Telegraph'') "almost invariably treated as it should have been—with ''contempt''".{{ref|freeman.2}}

Other papers followed in this vein, describing the Book of Mormon as "an evidence of fraud, blasphemy and credulity," cooked up by Joseph Smith, "who, by some hocus pocus, acquired such an influence over a wealthy farmer of Wayne county, that the latter mortgaged his farm for $3000, which he paid for printing and binding 5000 copies of the blasphemous work."{{ref|rochester.1}}

==="Spirit"?===

Critics wish to invoke the term "spirit" to associate the Book of Mormon predominantly with treasure magic. However, a consideration of the complete statements makes it clear that the evidence does not support this interpretation—the religious elements predominate.

For example, a second-hand account from Martin Harris reads, in part:

:In the autumn of 1827...Joseph Smith...said that he had been visited ''by the spirit of the Almighty'' in a dream...[regarding a hill] containing an ancient record ''of divine origin''....He states that after a third visit from the same spirit in a dream, he proceeded to the spot, removed earth, and there found the bible, together with a large pair of spectacles....{{ref|emd.1}}

The author obviously does not believe Joseph's story, and so characterizes his experience as "a dream," rather than a vision. But, we note that even at this very early date (1827, reported in 1829), the visit is divine: "the spirit of the Almighty," and Joseph is directed to a "bible" that is "of divine origin."

===Other early accounts{{ref|morris.1}}===

The ''Palmyra'' (NY) ''Wayne Sentinel'' (26 June 1829):

:...much speculation has existed, concerning a pretended discovery, through ''superhuman means'', of an ancient record, ''of a religious and a divine nature and origin'', written in ancient characters, impossible to be interpreted by any to whom the special gift has not been ''imparted by inspiration''. It is generally known and spoken of as the "Golden Bible."{{ea}}

Here again, the ''religious' character of the Book of Mormon is emphasized (even labeled a ''Bible''), with the need for divine ''inspiration''.

A letter from a skeptical member of Joseph's extended family shows a similar pattern—Jesse Smith to Hyrum Smith, 17 June 1829:

:Once as I thot my promising Nephew, You wrote to my Father long ago, that after struggling thro various scenes of adversity, you and your family, you had at last taught the very solutary lesson that the God that made the heavens and the earth w[o]uld at onc[e] give success to your endeavours, this if true, is very well, exactly as it should be—but alas what is man when left to his own way, he makes his own gods, if a golden calf, he falls down and worships before it, and says this is my god which brought me out of the land of Vermont—if it be a gold book discovered by the necromancy of infidelity, & dug from the mines of atheism, ''he writes that the angel of the Lord has revealed'' to him the hidden treasures of ''wisdom & knowledge'', even ''divine revelation'', which has lain in the bowels of the earth for thousands of years [and] is at last made known to him, he says he has eyes to see things that art not, and then has the audacity to say they are; and the ''angel of the Lord'' (Devil it should be) has put me in possession of great wealth, gold & silver and precious stones so that I shall have the dominion in all the land of Palmyra.{{ea}}

Here, Jesse Smith is obviously scornful of the claims being made by Joseph. But, he clearly sees the Book of Mormon in making religious claims: even in hostility, it sees it springing from atheism and infidelity. Treasures are mentioned, but they are "hidden treasures of wisdom & knowledge." Moroni is clearly seen as an "angel of the Lord," and that the finding of the plates was "revealed" by "divine revelation."

==Conclusion==

This pattern recurs repeatedly—the earliest letters and newspapers accounts describe Joseph's claims in religious terms. Gradually, over time, hostile versions of Joseph's claims appear, which introduce "magic" or treasure-seeking elements to the tale.{{ref|additions.1}} Modern critics have simply followed where Joseph's early critics led them—while ignoring the earliest documents and witness of both friendly ''and'' hostile sources.

==Endnotes==

#{{note|freeman.1}} [J. A. Hadley], ''Palmyra Freeman'', August 11, 1829 {{link|url=http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/NY/wayn1830.htm#081129}}; cited in part on p. 6 of {{JBMS-16-1-4}}
#{{note|freeman.2}} ''Rochester Daily Advertiser and Telegraph'', 31 August 1829, quoting the ''Palmyra Freeman'' (Kirkham, New Witness, 2:31).
#{{note|rochester.1}} ''Rochester Daily Advertiser and Telegraph'', April 2, 1830
#{{note|emd.1}} "Golden Bible," ''Rochester'' (NY) ''Gem'' 1 (5 September 1829): 70; cited in {{EarlyMormonDocs1|vol=2|start=272}}
#{{note|morris.1}} From Appendix A and B of {{FR-17-1-4}} 
#{{note|additions1.}} For an analysis of all these early accounts in tabular form, see {{FR-17-1-4}} . See also {{FR-18-1-5}} 

==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===
{{FirstVisionWiki}}

===FAIR web site===
{{FirstVisionFAIR}}

===External links===
{{FirstVisionLinks}}

===Printed material===
{{FirstVisionPrint}}

Moroni's visit/Joseph reported "a spirit" visiting in him in 1827

2009-01-03T00:54:07Z

BenjaminPorter: /* Hostile sources */

{{FirstVisionPortal}}
{{draft}}
==Criticism==

Critics are anxious to paint Joseph's early experiences as linked to [[Joseph Smith and the occult|"magick"]] or [[Joseph Smith and money digging|treasure seeking]]. They thus argue that Joseph Smith described his first angelic visitor as "a dream" in which "a spirit" visited him three times in one night.

===Source(s) of the Criticism===

* {{CriticalWork:Abanes:Becoming Gods|pages=35, 342n79-80}}
* {{CriticalWork:Vogel:Making of a Prophet|pages=45}}

Critics cite such works as the following:
* From the ''Palmyra Freeman'': Golden Bible, Niagra Courier, Aug. 27, 1829, vol. 2, no. 18.
* "The Gold Bible," ''Rochester Advertiser and Telegraph'', Aug. 31, 1829.
* "Golden Bible," ''Rochester (NY) Gem'' 1 (5 September 1829): 70.

==Response==

===Hostile sources===

Critics generally gloss over the fact that these newspapers were unremittingly hostile to Joseph and his claims. They were not disinterested, neutral reporters of "both sides of the story." They tended to polemics and sensationalism. Thus, the ''Palmyra Freeman'' would write a few weeks earlier that the Book of Mormon was "the greatest piece of superstition that has ever come within our knowledge," and "It is certainly a "''new thing''" in the history of superstition, bigotry, inconsistency, and foolishness. -- It should, and it doubtless will, be treated with the neglect it merits."{{ref|freeman.1}} It was, continued the ''Freeman'' (reprinted in the ''Rochester Advertiser and Telegraph'') "almost invariably treated as it should have been—with ''contempt''".{{ref|freeman.2}}

Other papers followed in this vein, describing the Book of Mormon as "an evidence of fraud, blasphemy and credulity," cooked up by Joseph Smith, "who, by some hocus pocus, acquired such an influence over a wealthy farmer of Wayne county, that the latter mortgaged his farm for $3000, which he paid for printing and binding 5000 copies of the blasphemous work."{{ref|rochester.1}}

==="Spirit"?===

Critics wish to invoke the term "spirit" to associate the Book of Mormon predominantly with treasure magic. However, a consideration of the complete statements makes it clear that the evidence does not support this interpretation—the religious elements predominate

For example, a second-hand account from Martin Harris reads, in part:

:In the autumn of 1827...Joseph Smith...said that he had been visited ''by the spirit of the Almighty'' in a dream...[regarding a hill] containing an ancient record ''of divine origin''....He states that after a third visit from the same spirit in a dream, he proceeded to the spot, removed earth, and there found the bible, together with a large pair of spectacles....{{ref|emd.1}}

The author obviously does not believe Joseph's story, and so characterizes his experience as "a dream," rather than a vision. But, we note that even at this very early date (1827, reported in 1829), the visit is divine: "the spirit of the Almighty," and Joseph is directed to a "bible" that is "of divine origin."

===Other early accounts{{ref|morris.1}}===

The ''Palmyra'' (NY) ''Wayne Sentinel'' (26 June 1829):

:...much speculation has existed, concerning a pretended discovery, through ''superhuman means'', of an ancient record, ''of a religious and a divine nature and origin'', written in ancient characters, impossible to be interpreted by any to whom the special gift has not been ''imparted by inspiration''. It is generally known and spoken of as the "Golden Bible."{{ea}}

Here again, the ''religious' character of the Book of Mormon is emphasized (even labeled a ''Bible''), with the need for divine ''inspiration''.

A letter from a skeptical member of Joseph's extended family shows a similar pattern—Jesse Smith to Hyrum Smith, 17 June 1829:

:Once as I thot my promising Nephew, You wrote to my Father long ago, that after struggling thro various scenes of adversity, you and your family, you had at last taught the very solutary lesson that the God that made the heavens and the earth w[o]uld at onc[e] give success to your endeavours, this if true, is very well, exactly as it should be—but alas what is man when left to his own way, he makes his own gods, if a golden calf, he falls down and worships before it, and says this is my god which brought me out of the land of Vermont—if it be a gold book discovered by the necromancy of infidelity, & dug from the mines of atheism, ''he writes that the angel of the Lord has revealed'' to him the hidden treasures of ''wisdom & knowledge'', even ''divine revelation'', which has lain in the bowels of the earth for thousands of years [and] is at last made known to him, he says he has eyes to see things that art not, and then has the audacity to say they are; and the ''angel of the Lord'' (Devil it should be) has put me in possession of great wealth, gold & silver and precious stones so that I shall have the dominion in all the land of Palmyra.{{ea}}

Here, Jesse Smith is obviously scornful of the claims being made by Joseph. But, he clearly sees the Book of Mormon in making religious claims: even in hostility, it sees it springing from atheism and infidelity. Treasures are mentioned, but they are "hidden treasures of wisdom & knowledge." Moroni is clearly seen as an "angel of the Lord," and that the finding of the plates was "revealed" by "divine revelation."

==Conclusion==

This pattern recurs repeatedly—the earliest letters and newspapers accounts describe Joseph's claims in religious terms. Gradually, over time, hostile versions of Joseph's claims appear, which introduce "magic" or treasure-seeking elements to the tale.{{ref|additions.1}} Modern critics have simply followed where Joseph's early critics led them—while ignoring the earliest documents and witness of both friendly ''and'' hostile sources.

==Endnotes==

#{{note|freeman.1}} [J. A. Hadley], ''Palmyra Freeman'', August 11, 1829 {{link|url=http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/NY/wayn1830.htm#081129}}; cited in part on p. 6 of {{JBMS-16-1-4}}
#{{note|freeman.2}} ''Rochester Daily Advertiser and Telegraph'', 31 August 1829, quoting the ''Palmyra Freeman'' (Kirkham, New Witness, 2:31).
#{{note|rochester.1}} ''Rochester Daily Advertiser and Telegraph'', April 2, 1830
#{{note|emd.1}} "Golden Bible," ''Rochester'' (NY) ''Gem'' 1 (5 September 1829): 70; cited in {{EarlyMormonDocs1|vol=2|start=272}}
#{{note|morris.1}} From Appendix A and B of {{FR-17-1-4}} 
#{{note|additions1.}} For an analysis of all these early accounts in tabular form, see {{FR-17-1-4}} . See also {{FR-18-1-5}} 

==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===
{{FirstVisionWiki}}

===FAIR web site===
{{FirstVisionFAIR}}

===External links===
{{FirstVisionLinks}}

===Printed material===
{{FirstVisionPrint}}

Plural marriage as a requirement for exaltation

2009-01-02T02:43:27Z

BenjaminPorter: /* Response */

{{PolygamyPortal}}
==Criticism==
Critics claim that some Church leaders taught that plural marriage was a requirement for those wishing to enter the highest degree of the celestial kingdom. Because the Church does not currently practice plural marriage, critics claim this means that either the leaders were wrong, or that current members are not destined for exaltation.

{{main|The only men who become gods are those that practice polygamy?}}
===Source(s) of the Criticism===
*{{CriticalWork:Abanes:Becoming Gods|pages=233, 422 n.47}}
*{{CriticalWork:Abanes:One Nation|pages=301 (PB)}}
*{{CriticalWork:Smith:Nauvoo Polygamy|pages=xiv, 6, 55, , 356}}
*{{CriticalWork:Tanner:Changing World|pages=29}}
*Various on-line anti-Mormon ministries

==Response==

Critics ignore that the purpose of modern prophets is to give the Saints the will of God in their particular circumstances. Wrote Joseph Smith specifically of the issue of plural marriage:

:This is the principle on which the government of heaven is conducted—by revelation adapted to the circumstances in which the children of the kingdom are placed...in obedience there is joy and peace unspotted, unalloyed; and as God has designed our happiness—and the happiness of all His creatures, he never has—He never will institute an ordinance or give a commandment to His people that is not calculated in its nature to promote that happiness which He has designed, and which will not end in the greatest amount of good and glory to those who become the recipients of his law and ordinances.{{ref|js1}}

LDS doctrine also holds that the prophet, when speaking in an official capacity, speaks on behalf of the Lord:

:whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same. ({{s||DC|1|38}}

Critics of the Church often come out of an inerrantist background, or draw on arguments first formulated by religious inerrantists or fundamentalists. In an inerrantist religion, God's instructions cannot change with circumstances—if they did, then the Biblical record would not be sufficient, on its own, to guide us. Since inerrantists require, above all, that the Bible be the sole authority, they must assume that God's requirements are always the same.

However, even the Bible gives many examples of God giving new instructions because of new circumstances, or contravening previous instructions:
* Noah (but no other prophet) was to build an Ark ({{s||Genesis|6|14}})
* Moses implemented the Passover, which was hitherto unknown ({{s||Exodus|3|12-28}})
* Jesus revoked the celebration of Passover, and modified the ordinance and its performance at the Last Supper ({{s||Matthew|26|26}}, {{s||Mark|14|22}}, {{s||Luke|22|19}})
* Hosea was commanded to marry a prostitute as a sign to Israel {{s||Hosea|1|1-3}}
* Jesus told his disciples only to preach to Israelites ({{s||Matthew|10|5-6}}, {{s||Matthew|15|24}})
* The Lord later told the prophet (Peter) to preach to all people ({{s||Acts|10|14-28}})

In each case, failure to obey carried significant penalties. Yet, when proper authority altered or rescinded a command, spiritual disaster followed those who did not obey the new instructions.

Said President John Taylor:

:Where did this commandment come from in relation to polygamy? It also came from God. It was a revelation given unto Joseph Smith from God, and was made binding upon His servants. When this system was first introduced among this people, it was one of the greatest crosses that ever was taken up by any set of men since the world stood. Joseph Smith told others; he told me, and I can bear witness of it, "that if this principle was not introduced, this Church and kingdom could not proceed." When this commandment was given, it was so far religious, and so far binding upon the Elders of this Church that it was told them if they were not prepared to enter into it, and to stem the torrent of opposition that would come in consequence of it, the keys of the kingdom would be taken from them. When I see any of our people, men or women, opposing a principle of this kind, I have years ago set them down as on the high road to apostacy, and I do to-day; I consider them apostates, and not interested in this Church and kingdom.{{ref|taylor1}}

In response to a letter "received at the office of the First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" in 1912, Charles W. Penrose of the First Presidency wrote:

:Question 4: Is plural or celestial marriage essential to a fulness of glory in the world to come?

:Answer: Celestial marriage is essential to a fulness of glory in the world to come, as explained in the revelation concerning it; but it is not stated that plural marriage is thus essential. . . . These questions are answered, so that it may not be truthfully claimed that we avoid them. . . . {{ref|penrose1}}

==Conclusion==

To obey the Lord's commands in all things is necessary for exaltation. (Our inevitable failure to live perfectly requires the grace of Christ's atonement.) Members of the Church in, say, 1860 who refused to follow the counsel of prophets and apostles put their spiritual standing in jeopardy. Likewise, members who refuse to obey present counsel are at risk.

This does not mean that present members of the Church believe that the principle of plural marriage is false—rather, they believe that it is a principle only to be practiced when the Lord commands it for His purposes.(See {{s||Jacob|2|27-30}}.)

==Endnotes==
#{{note|js1}} {{HoC1|vol=5|start=135}}
#{{note|taylor1}} {{JoD11_1|author=John Taylor|title=Our Religion Is From God|date=7 April 1866|start=221}}
#{{note|penrose1}}Charles W. Penrose, ''Improvement Era'', vol. 15, no. 11, September 1912, 1042.

==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===
{{PolygamyWiki}}

===FAIR web site===
{{PolygamyFAIR}}

===External links===
{{PolygamyLinks}}

===Printed material===
{{PolygamyPrint}}

Latter-day Saint Temples/Endowment/Adam-God and the "Lecture at the Veil"

2008-12-31T23:09:20Z

BenjaminPorter: /* Answer */

{| style="margin: 0em 0em 0em 0em; border: 0px; align="right" cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0
|-
| {{CreationPortal}}
|-
|{{AdamPortal}}
|-
| {{TemplePortal}}
|}
{{question}} 
{{templedisclaimer}}

==Question==
Was "Adam-God" ever taught as part of the temple endowment ceremony? I've read about something called "the lecture at the veil" that was supposedly in the endowment at one time.

==Answer==
{{Main|Adam-God|temple endowment changes}}

Two points need to be made prior to any discussion of this subject:
#The full meaning of Brigham Young's teachings on Adam-God is not well understood. What he taught appears to have been a failed attempt to establish a new doctrinal belief. He did not live to reconcile it with LDS scripture, and later prophets did not continue his teaching. (See the main article on [[Adam-God]].)
#The endowment ceremony was not written down until the late nineteenth century. Before and since that time, it was and has been modified occasionally by Church leaders to clarify and refine the presentation. (See the main article on [[temple endowment changes]].)

The following{{ref|buerger1}} is probably the best description of how the temple endowment came to be written, and what part Adam-God played in it:

:Shortly after the dedication of the lower portion of the temple, Young decided it was necessary to commit the endowment ceremony to written form. On 14 January 1877 he "requested Brigham jr & W Woodruff to write out the Ceremony of the Endowments from Beginning to End," assisted by John D. T. McAllister and L. John Nuttall. Daily drafts were submitted for Young's review and approval. The project took approximately two months to complete. On 21 March 1877 Woodruff recorded in his journal: "President Young has been laboring all winter to get up a perfect form of Endowments as far as possible. They having been perfected I read them to the Company today."

:The St. George endowment included a revised thirty-minute "lecture at the veil" first delivered by Young. This summarized important theological concepts taught in the endowment and contained references to Young's Adam-God doctrine. In 1892 L. John Nuttall, one of those who transcribed Young's lecture, recalled how it came about:

::In January 1877, shortly after the lower portion of the St. George Temple was dedicated, President Young, in following up in the Endowments, became convinced that it was necessary to have the formula of the Endowments written, and he gave directions to have the same put in writing.

::Shortly afterwards he explained what the Lecture at the Veil should portray, and for this purpose appointed a day when he would personally deliver the Lecture at the Veil. Elders J. D. T. McAllister and L. John Nuttall prepared writing materials, and as the President spoke they took down his words. Elder Nuttall put the same into form and the writing was submitted to President Young on the same evening at his office in residence at St. George. He there made such changes as he deemed proper, and when he finally passed upon it [he] said: This is the Lecture at the Veil to be observed in the Temple.

::A copy of the Lecture is kept at the St. George Temple, in which President Young refers to Adam in his creation and etc.

:On 1 February 1877, when Young's lecture was first given, Woodruff wrote in his journal: "W Woodruff Presided and Officiated as El[ohim]. I dressed in pure white Doe skin from head to foot to officiate in the Priest Office, white pants vest & C[oat?] the first Example in any Temple of the Lord in this last dispensation. Sister Lucy B Young also dressed in white in officiating as Eve. Pr[e]sident [Young] was present and deliverd a lecture at the veil some 30 Minuts." The copy of the veil lecture which Nuttall describes is not presently available. But on 7 February Nuttall summarized in his diary additions to the lecture which Young made at his residence in Nuttall's presence:

::In the creation the Gods entered into an agreement about forming this earth, and putting Michael or Adam upon it. These things of which I have been speaking are what are termed the mysteries of godliness but they will enable you to understand the expression of Jesus, made while in jerusalem, "This is life eternal that they might know thee, the ony true God and jesus Christ whom thou hast sent." We were once acquainted with the Gods and lived with them, but we had the privilege of taking upon us flesh that the spirit might have a house to dwell in. We did so and forgot all, and came into the world not recollecting anything of which we had previously learned. We have heard a great deal about Adam and Eve, how they were formed and etc. Some think he was made like an adobe and the Lord breathed into him the breath of life, for we read "from dust thou art and unto dust shalt thou return." Well he was made of the dust of the earth but not of this earth. He was made just the same way you and I are made but on another earth. Adam was an immortal being when he came on this earth; He had lived on an earth similar to ours; he had received the Priesthood and the keys thereof, and had been faithful in all things and gained his resurrection and his exaltation, and was crowned with glory, immortality and eternal lives, and was numbered with the Gods for such he became through his faithfulness, and had begotten all the spirit that was to come to this earth. And Eve our common mother who is the mother of all living bore those spirits in the celestial world. And when this earth was organized by Elohim, Jehovah and Michael, who is Adam our common father, Adam and Eve had the privilege to continue the work of progression, consequently came to this earth and commenced the great work of forming tabernacles for those spirits to dwell in, and when Adam and those that assisted him had completed this kingdom our earth[,] he came to it, and slept and forgot all and became like an infant child. It is said by Moses the historian that the Lord caused a deep sleep to come upon Adam and took from his side a rib and formed the woman that Adam called Eve—This should be interpreted that the Man Adam like all other men had the seed within him to propagate his species, but not the Woman; she conceives the seed but she does not produce it; consequently she was taken from the side or bowels of her father. This explains the mystery of Moses' dark sayings in regard to Adam and Eve. Adam and Eve when they were placed on this earth were immortal beings with flesh, bones and sinews. But upon partaking of the fruits of the earth while in the garden and cultivating the ground their bodies became changed from immortal to mortal beings with the blood coursing through their veins as the action of life—Adam was not under transgression until after he partook of the forbidden fruit; this was necessary that they might be together, that man might be. The woman was found in transgression not the man—Now in the law of Sacrifice we have the promise of a Savior and Man had the privilege and showed forth his obedience by offering of the first fruits of the earth and the firstlings of the flocks; this as a showing that Jesus would come and shed his blood.... Father Adam's oldest son (Jesus the Saviour) who is the heir of the family, is father Adam's first begotten in the spirit world, who according to the flesh is the only begotten as it is written. (In his divinity he having gone back into the spirit world, and came in the spirit to Mary and she conceived, for when Adam and Eve got through with their work in this earth, they did not lay their bodies down in the dust, but returned to the spirit world from whence they came.)

Brigham Young died August 29, 1877, shortly after introducing this version of the veil lecture. The evidence is indeterminate as to whether the St. George lecture with its Adam-God teaching was included in all temples or that it continued to the turn of the twentieth century. Buerger{{ref|buerger2}} writes:

:It is not clear, in fact, what did become of the lecture. The apparent ignorance of the subject matter implied by Abraham Cannon's [1888] account—despite his having been a General Authority for six years—suggest it was not routinely presented in the temple. Similar ignorance among some missionaries [in 1897] and their president ... who also presumably had been through the temple prior to their missions supports this conclusion. Although exposes of the temple ceremonies published about this time do not include any reference to this lecture, "fundamentalist" authors have asserted without serious attempt at documentation that Brigham's lecture was an integral part of the temple ceremony until about 1902-1905. In support of this has been placed the testimony of one individual who in 1959 distinctly remembered hearing during his endowment in the temple in 1902 that "Adam was our God." On returning from his mission in 1904 he noted that these teachings had been removed. While one would expect more extensive evidence than this were it true that the lecture was regularly given for twenty-five years, it ... should also be recalled that other "discredited" notions were still being promulgated in some temples by a few individuals during the early years of the twentieth century—such as the continued legitimacy of plural marriage, also a cherished fundamentalist tradition.

==Conclusion==
The endowment was and is a ceremony that can be adapted to the needs of its audience. Brigham Young attempted to introduce the concept of Adam-God into the endowment, as far as it had been revealed to him and he was able to interpret it. He was not able to fully resolve the teaching and integrate it into LDS doctrine. After his death, Adam-God was not continued by his successors in the Presidency, and the idea was dropped from the endowment ceremony and from LDS doctrine.

==Endnotes==

#{{note|buerger1}}David John Buerger, ''The Mysteries of Godliness'' (Smith Research Associates, 1994), pp. 110–13.
#{{note|buerger2}}{{Dialogue | author=David John Buerger | article=The Adam-God Doctrine|vol=15|num=1|date=Spring 82|start=14|end=58 }}

==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===
{{AdamWiki}}
{{TempleWiki}}

===FAIR web site===
{{AdamFAIR}}
{{TempleFAIR}}

===External links===
{{AdamLinks}}
{{TempleLinks}}

===Printed material===
{{AdamPrint}}
{{TemplePrint}}

Latter-day Saint Temples/Endowment/Oath of vengeance

2008-12-31T22:21:34Z

BenjaminPorter: /* Utah and The Smoot Hearings */

{{TemplePortal}}
{{templedisclaimer}} 

==Criticism==
Critics claim that a former version of the temple endowment contained an oath taken by participants that they would exact vengeance upon the government or citizens of the United States.


==Response==
In nearly every anti-Mormon discussion of the temple, critics raise the issue of the "oath of vengeance" that existed during the 19th century and very early 20th century. These critics often misstate the nature of the oath and try to use its presence in the early temple endowment as evidence that the LDS temple ceremonies are ungodly, violent, and immoral.

The leaders of the Church have [[Temple endowment changes|modified the endowment]] from time to time. Prior to changes made in 1927, there was an oath to pray for the Lord's vengeance on those who murdered the prophets. In their sworn testimonies and temple exposes, apostates gave conflicting accounts on who was to do the actual avenging: the Lord or the Saints themselves.{{ref|vanhale1}} Surveying Mormon history for teachings about of vengeance can add perspective and help evaluate which possibility is more likely.

===The Missouri Conflict===

In 1833, the Mormons were driven out of Jackson County, Missouri, in part due to anti-slavery sentiments that differed from the more established settlers. Through revelation, the Saints were instructed to petition for governmental redress for the outrages they suffered. The Saints were expected to be pacifists, but only up to a point in
{{scripture||D&C|98|23-31}}:

:Now, I speak unto you concerning your families—if men will smite you, or your families, once, and ye bear it patiently and revile not against them, neither seek revenge, ye shall be rewarded; But if ye bear it not patiently, it shall be accounted unto you as being meted out as a just measure unto you. And again, if your enemy shall smite you the second time, and you revile not against your enemy, and bear it patiently, your reward shall be an hundredfold. And again, if he shall smite you the third time, and ye bear it patiently, your reward shall be doubled unto you four-fold; And these three testimonies shall stand against your enemy if he repent not, and shall not be blotted out. And now, verily I say unto you, if that enemy shall escape my vengeance, that he be not brought into judgment before me, then ye shall see to it that ye warn him in my name, that he come no more upon you, neither upon your family, even your children’s children unto the third and fourth generation. And then, if he shall come upon you or your children, or your children’s children unto the third and fourth generation, I have delivered thine enemy into thine hands; And then if thou wilt spare him, thou shalt be rewarded for thy righteousness; and also thy children and thy children’s children unto the third and fourth generation. Nevertheless, thine enemy is in thine hands; and if thou rewardest him according to his works thou art justified; if he has sought thy life, and thy life is endangered by him, thine enemy is in thine hands and thou art justified.

The use of violence was condoned only in cases of self-defense or after the Lord had delivered up a previously warned enemy in the Saints hands. Even then mercy towards enemies was encouraged and indications are that the Lord can fight his own battles (see v. 37) to extract his vengeance on the wicked. Note the repeated references to third and fourth generations of children that is added for rhetorical effect despite the impracticality of a single enemy being a menace for the encompassing time span.

The earliest known oath of vengeance in a Mormon temple appears to have been introduced by Joseph Smith spontaneously at the Kirtland dedication on March 30, 1836 {{ref|Hitchcock}}:

:The seventies are at liberty to go to Zion if they please or go wheresoever they will and preach the gospel and let the redemption of Zion be our object, and strive to affect it by sending up all the strength of the Lords house whereever we find them, and I want to enter into the following covenant, that if any more of our brethren are slain or driven from their lands in Missouri by the mob that we will give ourselves no rest until we are avenged of our enimies to the uttermost, this covenant was sealed unanimously by a hosanna and Amen.

The Mormons used military force to defend themselves in Missouri, but eventually they were driven out after an exterminating order was issued against them by governor Boggs. Further petitions for redress in Missouri were met with rejection. Martin van Buren remarked "Your cause is just, but I can do nothing for you." Enemies in Missouri, including the next governor, conspired to kidnap Joseph in Illinois and bring him to Missouri to face trumped up charges.

===Nauvoo Developments===

Perhaps anticipating his death, Joseph met often with apostles and other close associates to restore the temple endowment prior to the completion of the Nauvoo temple. Wilford Woodruff, later situated the temple instruction in praying for the Lord's biblical vengeance of blood of the prophets as follows:{{ref|Woodruff89}}

:I have already said that there is nothing [antagonistic to the government in the Mormon endowments] of that kind in any part or phase of Mormonism. I ought to know about that as I am one of the oldest members of the church. A good deal is being made of a form of prayer based upon two verses in the sixth chapter of the revelations of St. John as contained in the New Testament. It relates to praying that God might avenge the blood of the prophets. An attempt has, I see, been made to connect this with avenging the death of Joseph and Hyrum Smith and to have reference to this nation. It can have no such application as the endowments were given long before the death of Joseph and Hyrum and have not been changed. This nation and government has never been charged by the Mormon people with the assassination of Joseph and Hyrum Smith. As it is well known the murder was the act of the local mob disguised.

Recent generations of Latter-day Saints, who haven't experienced mob violence, kidnapping attempts, and death threats, may be surprised at or uncomfortable with the feelings of many earlier saints who were praying for justice instead of praying for their enemies. But we live in kinder, gentler times; and nineteenth-century Mormons—especially those who came out of Nauvoo—saw the hand of God whenever their persecutors suffered misfortune, a feeling common to most powerless, persecuted minority groups.

After Joseph Smith's death, his closest friends continued to meet after his death.{{ref|quinn1}} This group met to test revelation ("try all things"), pray for the healing of sick members, pray for the success of church projects, and pray for deliverance from their enemies. Heber C. Kimball recalled that after Joseph's death the prayer circle met and prayed for God's vengeance.{{ref|kimball1}}

Summarizing Willard Richards' activities immediately after the martyrdom, historian Claire Noall wrote:

:True, in this [1850] speech Richards finally denounced the actual murderers; but when notifying the Church of Joseph Smith's death at Carthage jail, he wrote to Nauvoo that the people of Carthage expected the Mormons to rise, but he had "promised them no." The next day from the steps of the Prophet's home, he reminded his people that he had pledged his word and his honor for their peaceful conduct. And when writing the news of Smith's death to Brigham Young then near Boston, Willard Richards said the blood of martyrs does not cry from the ground for vengeance; vengeance is the Lord's.{{ref|noall1}}

Temple work in general and, more specifically, prayers that God, rather than Mormon members, would avenge Joseph Smith is what was the salvation of the church in Nauvoo. Instead of giving vent to passionate desires for revenge using the impressively-sized Nauvoo Legion, the brethren were able to get members to channel their frustration and anger into petitions to the Almighty for justice. Their actual energy was concentrated on the things of heaven through temple building and service. Temple prayer became a way of ritually memorializing Joseph Smith's martyrdom.

===Utah and The Smoot Hearings===

This is the background of ''the oath to pray for God's vengeance'' (a much more accurate phrase than ''oath of vengeance''). Most accounts of the temple oath stressed that God, rather than man, would do the actual punishing. For example, August Lundstrom, an apostate Mormon, testified at the Reed Smoot hearings in December 1904:

:Mr. [Robert W.] Tayler [counsel for the protestants]: Can you give us the obligation of retribution?
:Mr. Lundstrom: I can.
:Mr. Tayler: You may give that.
:Mr. Lundstrom: "We and each of us solemnly covenant and promise that '''''we shall ask God''''' to avenge the blood of Joseph Smith upon this nation." There is something more added, but that is all I can remember verbatim. That is the essential part.
:Mr. Tayler: What was there left of it? What else?
:Mr. Lundstrom: It was in regard to teaching our children and children's children to the last generation to the same effect.{{ref|lundstrom1}}

One could object that Lundstrom, as an apostate, fabricated the existence of such an oath or, intentionally or unintentionally, distorted its wording. However, others who spoke publicly on the subject had similar recollections. Here is David H. Cannon's late reminiscence about the practices at the Endowment House:

:To pray the Father to avenge the blood of the prophets and righteous men that has been shed, etc. In the endowment house this was given but as persons went there only once, it was not so strongly impressed upon their minds, but in the setting in order [of] the endowments for the dead it was given as it is written in 9 Chapter of Revelations [''sic''] and in that language we importune our Father, not that we may, but that He, our Father, will avenge the blood of martyrs shed for the testimony of Jesus.{{ref|buerger1}}

Although the religious stress was on letting God perform the actual vengeance, individuals sometimes imagined they might be called upon to take a more active role. This surfaced in the apocalyptic language of some patriarchal blessings. Others would make comments about not resting until God carried out vengeance. From the pulpit, many Church leaders held the United States as a nation responsible for letting mobocracy get out of control. However, the oaths of members should have taught them to channel their righteous indignation into petitioning God and for them to work at constructively building up Zion.

==== Biblical Perspective ====

The Oath of Vengeance is a vivid reminder that the Saints understood the writings of the Apostle Paul -- that justice is a responsibility reserved for God.

{{scripture||Romans|12|19}}
: 19 Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.

==== Biblical Parallel ====

Christians who take comfort in the Book of Psalms find additional biblical precedent for turning their vengeance over to the Lord. The imprecatory or “cursing” psalms provide a parallel, although the graphic explicitness of them is not present in the Oath of Vengeance. The cursing psalms are nothing less than prayers for extreme forms of Divine vengeance. Examples include:

{{scripture||Psalms|109|8-19}} prays:
: 8 Let his days be few; and let another take his office.
: 9 Let his children be fatherless, and his wife a widow.
: 10 Let his children be continually vagabonds, and beg: let them seek their bread also out of their desolate places.
: 11 Let the extortioner catch all that he hath; and let the strangers spoil his labour.
: 12 Let there be none to extend mercy unto him: neither let there be any to favour his fatherless children.
: 13 Let his posterity be cut off; and in the generation following let their name be blotted out.
: 14 Let the iniquity of his fathers be remembered with the LORD; and let not the sin of his mother be blotted out.
: 15 Let them be before the LORD continually, that he may cut off the memory of them from the earth.
: 16 Because that he remembered not to shew mercy, but persecuted the poor and needy man, that he might even slay the broken in heart.
: 17 As he loved cursing, so let it come unto him: as he delighted not in blessing, so let it be far from him.
: 18 As he clothed himself with cursing like as with his garment, so let it come into his bowels like water, and like oil into his bones.
: 19 Let it be unto him as the garment which covereth him, and for a girdle wherewith he is girded continually.

{{scripture||Psalms|69|22-25}} prays:
: 22 Let their table become a snare before them: and that which should have been for their welfare, let it become a trap.
: 23 Let their eyes be darkened, that they see not; and make their loins continually to shake.
: 24 Pour out thine indignation upon them, and let thy wrathful anger take hold of them.
: 25 Let their habitation be desolate; and let none dwell in their tents.

{{scripture||Psalms|58|6-8}} prays:
: 6 Break their teeth, O God, in their mouth: break out the great teeth of the young lions, O LORD.
: 7 Let them melt away as waters which run continually: when he bendeth his bow to shoot his arrows, let them be as cut in pieces.
: 8 As a snail which melteth, let every one of them pass away: like the untimely birth of a woman, that they may not see the sun.

{{scripture||Psalms|83|13-17}} prays:
: 13 O my God, make them like a wheel; as the stubble before the wind.
: 14 As the fire burneth a wood, and as the flame setteth the mountains on fire;
: 15 So persecute them with thy tempest, and make them afraid with thy storm.
: 16 Fill their faces with shame; that they may seek thy name, O LORD.
: 17 Let them be confounded and troubled for ever; yea, let them be put to shame, and perish:

Questions are begged concerning whether such wishes/prayers are appropriate from us today considering that we live under a New Testament ''forgiveness'' paradigm. Note that Psalm 69 was invoked by both Peter and Paul in the New Testament ({{scripture||Acts|1|15-20}}, {{scripture||Romans|11|9-10}}). The scriptures also provide examples of the Lord's vengeance subsequent to the atonement of Christ ({{scripture||Luke|11|49-51}}, {{scripture||Revelation|16|4-7}}). Examples are also present in the Book of Mormon ({{scripture|3|Nephi|9|5-11}}). Philip Yancey, author of "The Bible Jesus Read" explores the paradox and concludes that the seemingly diabolical language uttered in the cursing psalms is a form of "spiritual therapy", still appropriate for us to observe/practice today. He reasons:

: If a person wrongs me unjustly, I have several options. I can seek personal revenge, a response condemned by the Bible. I can deny or suppress my feelings of hurt and anger. Or I can take those feelings to God, entrusting God with the task of ‘retributive justice’. The cursing psalms are vivid examples of that last option. ‘It is mine to avenge: I will repay,’ says the Lord – prayers like the cursing psalms place vengeance in the proper hands. Significantly, the cursing psalms express their outrage to God, not to the enemy.

Yancey continues:

: What is a vengeful curse when spoken about someone is a plea of helpless dependence when spoken directly to God.

He adds:

: Sometimes I find that in the process of expression, I grow in compassion. God’s Spirit speaks to me of my own selfishness, my judgmental spirit, my own flaws that others have treated with grace and forgiveness, my pridefully limited viewpoint.

He concludes that in praying so emotively:

: I may well find that my vindictive feelings need God’s correction—but only by taking those feelings to God will I have the opportunity for correction and healing.{{ref|Yancey1}}

==Conclusion==
Until 1927 the temple endowment very likely contained such an oath. The exact wording is not entirely clear, but it appears that it did ''not'' call on the Saints themselves to take vengeance on the United States, but that they would continue to pray that God himself might avenge the blood the prophets.

Although the Oath of Vengeance contains no curses like those in the imprecatory psalms, like the psalmists, the Saints apparently had the wisdom to take directly to God their strong feelings in response to the injustices they had been dealt. By doing so, they turned over to Him the responsibility for both justice and healing.

==Endnotes==
#{{note|vanhale1}}Van Hale, "The Alleged Oath of Vengeance," recorded 1 July 2007 during the ''Mormon Miscellaneous Worldwide Talk Show,''{{link|url=http://mormonmisc.podbean.com/2007/07/07/the-alleged-oath-of-vengeance/}}
#{{note|Hitchcock}}See 30 March 1836 Jesse Hitchcock record in "MS Joseph Smith Journal, 1835-36," 193 pp., ''Joseph Smith Collection,'' LDS Church Archives cited in Dean C. Jessee, ed., ''The Personal Writings of Joseph Smith'' (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1984) {{link|url=http://www.deseretbook.com/personalwritings/}}
#{{note|Woodruff89}} Wilford Woodruff interview, ''Deseret News'' 22 November 1889
#{{note|quinn1}}For a history of prayer circles, see {{BYUS | author=D. Michael Quinn | article=Latter-day Saint Prayer Circles|vol=19|num=1|date=Fall 1978|start=79|end=105}}{{pdflink|url=http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/u?/byustudies,712}}
#{{note|kimball1}}See his 21 December 1845 diary entry in ''The Nauvoo Endowment Companies, 1845–1846: A Documentary History,'' Richard Van Wagoner, Devery Scott Anderson, and Gary James Bergera, eds. (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2005).
#{{note|noall1}}Claire Noall, "The Plains of Warsaw," ''Utah Historical Quarterly'' 25:1 (January 1957), pp. 47–51.
#{{note|lundstrom1}}Testimony of August W. Lundstrom, ''Proceedings before the Committee on Privileges and Elections of the United States Senate in the Matter of the Protests Against the Right of Hon. Reed Smoot, a Senator from the State of Utah, to Hold His Seat'' (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1906), 2:153.{{pdflink|url=http://nboman.people.wm.edu/Smoot_2.pdf}}
#{{note|buerger1}}{{Dialogue1 | author=David John Buerger | article=The Development of the Mormon Temple Endowment Ceremony|vol=34|num=1|date=Spring/Summer 2001|start=103}}{{pdflink|url=http://content.lib.utah.edu/u?/dialogue,27430}}
#{{note|Yancey1}}Philip Yancey, "The Bible Jesus Read," (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Zondervan, 1999) pp. 133–139.

==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===
{{TempleWiki}}

===FAIR web site===
{{TempleFAIR}}

===External links===
{{TempleLinks}}

===Printed material===
{{TemplePrint}}
[[de:Racheeid]]

Latter-day Saint Temples/Endowment/Oath of vengeance

2008-12-31T22:15:13Z

BenjaminPorter: /* Response */

{{TemplePortal}}
{{templedisclaimer}} 

==Criticism==
Critics claim that a former version of the temple endowment contained an oath taken by participants that they would exact vengeance upon the government or citizens of the United States.


==Response==
In nearly every anti-Mormon discussion of the temple, critics raise the issue of the "oath of vengeance" that existed during the 19th century and very early 20th century. These critics often misstate the nature of the oath and try to use its presence in the early temple endowment as evidence that the LDS temple ceremonies are ungodly, violent, and immoral.

The leaders of the Church have [[Temple endowment changes|modified the endowment]] from time to time. Prior to changes made in 1927, there was an oath to pray for the Lord's vengeance on those who murdered the prophets. In their sworn testimonies and temple exposes, apostates gave conflicting accounts on who was to do the actual avenging: the Lord or the Saints themselves.{{ref|vanhale1}} Surveying Mormon history for teachings about of vengeance can add perspective and help evaluate which possibility is more likely.

===The Missouri Conflict===

In 1833, the Mormons were driven out of Jackson County, Missouri, in part due to anti-slavery sentiments that differed from the more established settlers. Through revelation, the Saints were instructed to petition for governmental redress for the outrages they suffered. The Saints were expected to be pacifists, but only up to a point in
{{scripture||D&C|98|23-31}}:

:Now, I speak unto you concerning your families—if men will smite you, or your families, once, and ye bear it patiently and revile not against them, neither seek revenge, ye shall be rewarded; But if ye bear it not patiently, it shall be accounted unto you as being meted out as a just measure unto you. And again, if your enemy shall smite you the second time, and you revile not against your enemy, and bear it patiently, your reward shall be an hundredfold. And again, if he shall smite you the third time, and ye bear it patiently, your reward shall be doubled unto you four-fold; And these three testimonies shall stand against your enemy if he repent not, and shall not be blotted out. And now, verily I say unto you, if that enemy shall escape my vengeance, that he be not brought into judgment before me, then ye shall see to it that ye warn him in my name, that he come no more upon you, neither upon your family, even your children’s children unto the third and fourth generation. And then, if he shall come upon you or your children, or your children’s children unto the third and fourth generation, I have delivered thine enemy into thine hands; And then if thou wilt spare him, thou shalt be rewarded for thy righteousness; and also thy children and thy children’s children unto the third and fourth generation. Nevertheless, thine enemy is in thine hands; and if thou rewardest him according to his works thou art justified; if he has sought thy life, and thy life is endangered by him, thine enemy is in thine hands and thou art justified.

The use of violence was condoned only in cases of self-defense or after the Lord had delivered up a previously warned enemy in the Saints hands. Even then mercy towards enemies was encouraged and indications are that the Lord can fight his own battles (see v. 37) to extract his vengeance on the wicked. Note the repeated references to third and fourth generations of children that is added for rhetorical effect despite the impracticality of a single enemy being a menace for the encompassing time span.

The earliest known oath of vengeance in a Mormon temple appears to have been introduced by Joseph Smith spontaneously at the Kirtland dedication on March 30, 1836 {{ref|Hitchcock}}:

:The seventies are at liberty to go to Zion if they please or go wheresoever they will and preach the gospel and let the redemption of Zion be our object, and strive to affect it by sending up all the strength of the Lords house whereever we find them, and I want to enter into the following covenant, that if any more of our brethren are slain or driven from their lands in Missouri by the mob that we will give ourselves no rest until we are avenged of our enimies to the uttermost, this covenant was sealed unanimously by a hosanna and Amen.

The Mormons used military force to defend themselves in Missouri, but eventually they were driven out after an exterminating order was issued against them by governor Boggs. Further petitions for redress in Missouri were met with rejection. Martin van Buren remarked "Your cause is just, but I can do nothing for you." Enemies in Missouri, including the next governor, conspired to kidnap Joseph in Illinois and bring him to Missouri to face trumped up charges.

===Nauvoo Developments===

Perhaps anticipating his death, Joseph met often with apostles and other close associates to restore the temple endowment prior to the completion of the Nauvoo temple. Wilford Woodruff, later situated the temple instruction in praying for the Lord's biblical vengeance of blood of the prophets as follows:{{ref|Woodruff89}}

:I have already said that there is nothing [antagonistic to the government in the Mormon endowments] of that kind in any part or phase of Mormonism. I ought to know about that as I am one of the oldest members of the church. A good deal is being made of a form of prayer based upon two verses in the sixth chapter of the revelations of St. John as contained in the New Testament. It relates to praying that God might avenge the blood of the prophets. An attempt has, I see, been made to connect this with avenging the death of Joseph and Hyrum Smith and to have reference to this nation. It can have no such application as the endowments were given long before the death of Joseph and Hyrum and have not been changed. This nation and government has never been charged by the Mormon people with the assassination of Joseph and Hyrum Smith. As it is well known the murder was the act of the local mob disguised.

Recent generations of Latter-day Saints, who haven't experienced mob violence, kidnapping attempts, and death threats, may be surprised at or uncomfortable with the feelings of many earlier saints who were praying for justice instead of praying for their enemies. But we live in kinder, gentler times; and nineteenth-century Mormons—especially those who came out of Nauvoo—saw the hand of God whenever their persecutors suffered misfortune, a feeling common to most powerless, persecuted minority groups.

After Joseph Smith's death, his closest friends continued to meet after his death.{{ref|quinn1}} This group met to test revelation ("try all things"), pray for the healing of sick members, pray for the success of church projects, and pray for deliverance from their enemies. Heber C. Kimball recalled that after Joseph's death the prayer circle met and prayed for God's vengeance.{{ref|kimball1}}

Summarizing Willard Richards' activities immediately after the martyrdom, historian Claire Noall wrote:

:True, in this [1850] speech Richards finally denounced the actual murderers; but when notifying the Church of Joseph Smith's death at Carthage jail, he wrote to Nauvoo that the people of Carthage expected the Mormons to rise, but he had "promised them no." The next day from the steps of the Prophet's home, he reminded his people that he had pledged his word and his honor for their peaceful conduct. And when writing the news of Smith's death to Brigham Young then near Boston, Willard Richards said the blood of martyrs does not cry from the ground for vengeance; vengeance is the Lord's.{{ref|noall1}}

Temple work in general and, more specifically, prayers that God, rather than Mormon members, would avenge Joseph Smith is what was the salvation of the church in Nauvoo. Instead of giving vent to passionate desires for revenge using the impressively-sized Nauvoo Legion, the brethren were able to get members to channel their frustration and anger into petitions to the Almighty for justice. Their actual energy was concentrated on the things of heaven through temple building and service. Temple prayer became a way of ritually memorializing Joseph Smith's martyrdom.

===Utah and The Smoot Hearings===

This is the background of ''the oath to pray for God's vengeance'' (a much more adequate phrase than ''oath of vengeance''). Most accounts of the temple oath stressed that God, rather than man, would do the actual punishing. For example, August Lundstrom, an apostate Mormon, testified at the Reed Smoot hearings in December 1904:

:Mr. [Robert W.] Tayler [counsel for the protestants]: Can you give us the obligation of retribution?
:Mr. Lundstrom: I can.
:Mr. Tayler: You may give that.
:Mr. Lundstrom: "We and each of us solemnly covenant and promise that '''''we shall ask God''''' to avenge the blood of Joseph Smith upon this nation." There is something more added, but that is all I can remember verbatim. That is the essential part.
:Mr. Tayler: What was there left of it? What else?
:Mr. Lundstrom: It was in regard to teaching our children and children's children to the last generation to the same effect.{{ref|lundstrom1}}

One could object that Lundstrom, as an apostate, fabricated the existence of such an oath or, intentionally or unintentionally, distorted its wording. However, others who spoke publicly on the subject had similar recollections. Here is David H. Cannon's late reminiscence about the practices at the Endowment House:

:To pray the Father to avenge the blood of the prophets and righteous men that has been shed, etc. In the endowment house this was given but as persons went there only once, it was not so strongly impressed upon their minds, but in the setting in order [of] the endowments for the dead it was given as it is written in 9 Chapter of Revelations [''sic''] and in that language we importune our Father, not that we may, but that He, our Father, will avenge the blood of martyrs shed for the testimony of Jesus.{{ref|buerger1}}

Although the religious stress was on letting God perform the actual vengeance, individuals sometimes imagined they might be called upon to take a more active role. This surfaced in the apocalyptic language of some patriarchal blessings. Others would make comments about not resting until God carried out vengeance. From the pulpit, many Church leaders held the United States as a nation responsible for letting mobocracy get out of control. However, the oaths of members should have taught them to channel their righteous indignation into petitioning God and for them to work at constructively building up Zion.

==== Biblical Perspective ====

The Oath of Vengeance is a vivid reminder that the Saints understood the writings of the Apostle Paul -- that justice is a responsibility reserved for God.

{{scripture||Romans|12|19}}
: 19 Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.

==== Biblical Parallel ====

Christians who take comfort in the Book of Psalms find additional biblical precedent for turning their vengeance over to the Lord. The imprecatory or “cursing” psalms provide a parallel, although the graphic explicitness of them is not present in the Oath of Vengeance. The cursing psalms are nothing less than prayers for extreme forms of Divine vengeance. Examples include:

{{scripture||Psalms|109|8-19}} prays:
: 8 Let his days be few; and let another take his office.
: 9 Let his children be fatherless, and his wife a widow.
: 10 Let his children be continually vagabonds, and beg: let them seek their bread also out of their desolate places.
: 11 Let the extortioner catch all that he hath; and let the strangers spoil his labour.
: 12 Let there be none to extend mercy unto him: neither let there be any to favour his fatherless children.
: 13 Let his posterity be cut off; and in the generation following let their name be blotted out.
: 14 Let the iniquity of his fathers be remembered with the LORD; and let not the sin of his mother be blotted out.
: 15 Let them be before the LORD continually, that he may cut off the memory of them from the earth.
: 16 Because that he remembered not to shew mercy, but persecuted the poor and needy man, that he might even slay the broken in heart.
: 17 As he loved cursing, so let it come unto him: as he delighted not in blessing, so let it be far from him.
: 18 As he clothed himself with cursing like as with his garment, so let it come into his bowels like water, and like oil into his bones.
: 19 Let it be unto him as the garment which covereth him, and for a girdle wherewith he is girded continually.

{{scripture||Psalms|69|22-25}} prays:
: 22 Let their table become a snare before them: and that which should have been for their welfare, let it become a trap.
: 23 Let their eyes be darkened, that they see not; and make their loins continually to shake.
: 24 Pour out thine indignation upon them, and let thy wrathful anger take hold of them.
: 25 Let their habitation be desolate; and let none dwell in their tents.

{{scripture||Psalms|58|6-8}} prays:
: 6 Break their teeth, O God, in their mouth: break out the great teeth of the young lions, O LORD.
: 7 Let them melt away as waters which run continually: when he bendeth his bow to shoot his arrows, let them be as cut in pieces.
: 8 As a snail which melteth, let every one of them pass away: like the untimely birth of a woman, that they may not see the sun.

{{scripture||Psalms|83|13-17}} prays:
: 13 O my God, make them like a wheel; as the stubble before the wind.
: 14 As the fire burneth a wood, and as the flame setteth the mountains on fire;
: 15 So persecute them with thy tempest, and make them afraid with thy storm.
: 16 Fill their faces with shame; that they may seek thy name, O LORD.
: 17 Let them be confounded and troubled for ever; yea, let them be put to shame, and perish:

Questions are begged concerning whether such wishes/prayers are appropriate from us today considering that we live under a New Testament ''forgiveness'' paradigm. Note that Psalm 69 was invoked by both Peter and Paul in the New Testament ({{scripture||Acts|1|15-20}}, {{scripture||Romans|11|9-10}}). The scriptures also provide examples of the Lord's vengeance subsequent to the atonement of Christ ({{scripture||Luke|11|49-51}}, {{scripture||Revelation|16|4-7}}). Examples are also present in the Book of Mormon ({{scripture|3|Nephi|9|5-11}}). Philip Yancey, author of "The Bible Jesus Read" explores the paradox and concludes that the seemingly diabolical language uttered in the cursing psalms is a form of "spiritual therapy", still appropriate for us to observe/practice today. He reasons:

: If a person wrongs me unjustly, I have several options. I can seek personal revenge, a response condemned by the Bible. I can deny or suppress my feelings of hurt and anger. Or I can take those feelings to God, entrusting God with the task of ‘retributive justice’. The cursing psalms are vivid examples of that last option. ‘It is mine to avenge: I will repay,’ says the Lord – prayers like the cursing psalms place vengeance in the proper hands. Significantly, the cursing psalms express their outrage to God, not to the enemy.

Yancey continues:

: What is a vengeful curse when spoken about someone is a plea of helpless dependence when spoken directly to God.

He adds:

: Sometimes I find that in the process of expression, I grow in compassion. God’s Spirit speaks to me of my own selfishness, my judgmental spirit, my own flaws that others have treated with grace and forgiveness, my pridefully limited viewpoint.

He concludes that in praying so emotively:

: I may well find that my vindictive feelings need God’s correction—but only by taking those feelings to God will I have the opportunity for correction and healing.{{ref|Yancey1}}

==Conclusion==
Until 1927 the temple endowment very likely contained such an oath. The exact wording is not entirely clear, but it appears that it did ''not'' call on the Saints themselves to take vengeance on the United States, but that they would continue to pray that God himself might avenge the blood the prophets.

Although the Oath of Vengeance contains no curses like those in the imprecatory psalms, like the psalmists, the Saints apparently had the wisdom to take directly to God their strong feelings in response to the injustices they had been dealt. By doing so, they turned over to Him the responsibility for both justice and healing.

==Endnotes==
#{{note|vanhale1}}Van Hale, "The Alleged Oath of Vengeance," recorded 1 July 2007 during the ''Mormon Miscellaneous Worldwide Talk Show,''{{link|url=http://mormonmisc.podbean.com/2007/07/07/the-alleged-oath-of-vengeance/}}
#{{note|Hitchcock}}See 30 March 1836 Jesse Hitchcock record in "MS Joseph Smith Journal, 1835-36," 193 pp., ''Joseph Smith Collection,'' LDS Church Archives cited in Dean C. Jessee, ed., ''The Personal Writings of Joseph Smith'' (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1984) {{link|url=http://www.deseretbook.com/personalwritings/}}
#{{note|Woodruff89}} Wilford Woodruff interview, ''Deseret News'' 22 November 1889
#{{note|quinn1}}For a history of prayer circles, see {{BYUS | author=D. Michael Quinn | article=Latter-day Saint Prayer Circles|vol=19|num=1|date=Fall 1978|start=79|end=105}}{{pdflink|url=http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/u?/byustudies,712}}
#{{note|kimball1}}See his 21 December 1845 diary entry in ''The Nauvoo Endowment Companies, 1845–1846: A Documentary History,'' Richard Van Wagoner, Devery Scott Anderson, and Gary James Bergera, eds. (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2005).
#{{note|noall1}}Claire Noall, "The Plains of Warsaw," ''Utah Historical Quarterly'' 25:1 (January 1957), pp. 47–51.
#{{note|lundstrom1}}Testimony of August W. Lundstrom, ''Proceedings before the Committee on Privileges and Elections of the United States Senate in the Matter of the Protests Against the Right of Hon. Reed Smoot, a Senator from the State of Utah, to Hold His Seat'' (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1906), 2:153.{{pdflink|url=http://nboman.people.wm.edu/Smoot_2.pdf}}
#{{note|buerger1}}{{Dialogue1 | author=David John Buerger | article=The Development of the Mormon Temple Endowment Ceremony|vol=34|num=1|date=Spring/Summer 2001|start=103}}{{pdflink|url=http://content.lib.utah.edu/u?/dialogue,27430}}
#{{note|Yancey1}}Philip Yancey, "The Bible Jesus Read," (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Zondervan, 1999) pp. 133–139.

==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===
{{TempleWiki}}

===FAIR web site===
{{TempleFAIR}}

===External links===
{{TempleLinks}}

===Printed material===
{{TemplePrint}}
[[de:Racheeid]]

Question: What can I do to "undo" proxy baptisms and temple work?

2008-12-31T20:12:08Z

BenjaminPorter: /* Answer */

{{TemplePortal}}
{{question}}

==Question==

I don't want proxy baptisms or other LDS temple work performed for my deceased family. What can I do to "undo" such baptisms and temple work?

==Answer==

In the case of individuals who have recently died, members are encouraged to be considerate of the feelings of the closest living relatives:

:If the person was born within the last ninety-five years, obtain permission for the ordinances from the person’s closest living relative. This relative often wishes to receive the ordinances in behalf of the deceased or designate someone to receive them. In some instances, the relative may wish to postpone the performance of the ordinances. Also, be aware that acting in conflict with the wishes of the closest living relative can result in bad feelings toward you and the Church.{{ref|churchpolicy1}}

There is no ceremony for "undoing" a proxy baptism for the dead.

In Mormon ritual and practice, such a baptism does not in and of itself have any efficacy unless and until it is accepted by the person
on whose behalf the ordinance is performed. We believe in complete freedom of the will even in the hereafter. Therefore, if the person for whom the
ordinance is performed does not choose to accept it, the ordinance is meaningless. Baptisms for the dead are not understood in the same sense as convert
baptisms for the living.

Thus, vicarious baptism is completely meaningless unless a deceased person accepts that baptism. An unaccepted baptism no more makes a deceased person a "Mormon" than a rejected invitation to join the Church does.

Non-members who do not believe that the Church is true have nothing to fear. If the Church is false, then members are simply wasting their time, and have no influence whatsoever on the state of the dead. If the Church ''is'' true, such baptisms may ''still'' have no affect on the dead, if the dead choose not to accept them. LDS do not believe that performing a baptism for the dead automatically makes them Mormon.

==Endnotes==
#{{note|churchpolicy1}} The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, “Step 2: Find Out Which Ancestors Need Temple Ordinances,” ''A Member’s Guide to Temple and Family History Work: Ordinances and Covenants'' (Salt Lake City, Utah: Intellectual Reserve, Inc., 1993), 13. {{link|url=http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=e1fa5f74db46c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=72d58c8fd6c20110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&hideNav=1&contentLocale=0}}

==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===
{{BaptismDeadWiki}}
{{TempleWiki}}

===FAIR web site===
{{BaptismDeadFAIR}}
{{TempleFAIR}}

===External links===
{{BaptismDeadLinks}}
{{TempleLinks}}

===Printed material===
{{BaptismDeadPrint}}
{{TemplePrint}}

Utah/Crime and violence/Castration in the 1800's

2008-12-31T19:40:17Z

BenjaminPorter: /* Answer */

{{question}} 
{{draft}}

==Criticism==

*I have read about a group of men (LDS) that went around castrating immoral men (who were also LDS) with the express permission of local church leaders. These events supposedly happened during the Brigham Young's administration. It is claimed that Brigham was aware of and approved of this and may have given the order. What can you tell me about this?
*I read that missionaries who selected plural wives from female converts before allowing church leaders to select from them first were castrated.

====Source(s) of criticism====
*{{CriticalWork:Abanes:One Nation|pages=297, 581n90}} (Quoting Quinn)
*{{CriticalWork:Quinn:Mormon Hierarchy|pages=250-251}}

==Answer==

Critics (often relying on D. Michael's Quinn's treatment) have over-simplified and sensationalized this event. Critics claim that Bishop Warren S. Snow forcibly castrated twenty-four-year-old Thomas Lewis, whose “crime” was wanting to marry a young woman that was desired by an older man as a plural wife. Critics also claim that Brigham Young wrote in a letter his approval after the fact in 1857.

The full story gives a somewhat different picture of these events. Warren Snow's biographer explains the matter thusly:

# These events occurred during the Mormon Reformation, when inflammatory rhetoric called for harsh punishment for sin and crime. For Brigham the time for the actual implementation of such punishment was not yet, and partly hyperbole designed to stir a sinful population to improvement. Some listeners like Snow got confused and took things literally. [''See FAIR wiki article'':[[Blood atonement]]]
#The rumor that Lewis was being punished for competing against an older polygamist is likely false. Kathryn Daynes gives another example where Brigham Young advised a young woman to marry a single, young man against her parents wishes that she marry a older polygamist. {{nc}}
#Even if there is an element of truth in point #2, Lewis was being transported to the penitentiary for a sexual crime. He was not an innocent who was attacked simply for desiring a marriage.
#While being transported at night, Snow and his gang secretly intercepted Lewis and carried out the castration.
#Joseph Young (Brigham's brother) of the Presidents of the Seventy later learned about the incident and was incensed and “entirely disapproved” of it.
#When Brigham Young heard about Lewis' sex crime and the punishment, he reiterated his stance that the time for such measures was still in the future, and not to be implemented in the here-and-now.
#Brigham did not think Warren Snow did what was right, but felt Warren was “trying to do right” and that he should be sustained in his calling as Bishop.
#Warren wanted Brigham to write a letter to members in Sanpete county to explain Warren’s action. Brigham declined to do, indicating that that would make matters worse. “Just let the matter drop, and say no more about it and it will soon die away amongst the people,” Brigham counseled.
#Snow's life and experience had given him a "violent and vengeful world view," which helps in understanding his decision to attack and maim Lewis.
#Federal marshals and judges were aware of the Lewis incident, and sought Snow's capture. However, they were eventually instructed by political leaders in Washington to let the matter drop. It was a Gentile political decision not to prosecute Snow for his actions.{{ref|bio1}}

===A second such event?===

One other event from journals in 1859 reports an unnamed bishop supposedly castrating someone because they wanted to marry their girlfriend. Snow is named by one source in the 1859 account; given Brigham's reaction to the first event, it seems unlikely that Snow would do the same thing again.

His inclusion in an account of the second event may well be due to conflation, which may demonstrate how unusual such events were. It may be that rumor and frontier "urban legend" confused the Snow story with the passage of time.

As a presiding Bishop, Snow became increasingly unpopular with members in his area, and by 1860 was accused of malfeasance with tithing funds. Snow admitted to mismanagement, but denied any attempt to willfully defraud the Church. (The same patience for Snow's weaknesses was also manifested in this case; he was forgiven by his congregation and the general authorities, even while they still insisted that he bore responsibility for his mismanagement.)

The Lewis affair was much talked about among Snow's critics in 1860; it may be that the rumor mill was already in motion by 1859.{{ref|bio2}}

There are no names given for the 1859 "event," and it is not known if this was just rumor, or who the participant(s) and victim were.

==Conclusion==

The castrated male was guilty of sexual assault, not merely competing for a woman's affections.

Despite the sexual assault, Brigham and other Church leaders did not approve the action taken by the local members.

Critics try to use this as an example of a "tip of the iceberg," problem, implying that many such extra-legal castrations occurred in Utah, and that the Church or its doctrines or leaders are somehow to blame. Such a characterization is unfair.

Given that in the 19th century there was a common tendency among non-Mormons for "frontier justice" to be carried out extra-legally, especially in the case of sexual crimes, its occurrence in areas far from central Church control on one or two occasions is not particularly surprising.

==Endnotes==

#{{note|bio1}} John A. Peterson, "Warren Stone Snow, a man in between : the biography of a Mormon defender," Master's Thesis, BYU (1985) 112–122. {{link|url=http://patriot.lib.byu.edu/cdm4/document.php?CISOROOT=/MTNZ&CISOPTR=10570&REC=1}}
#{{note|bio2}} Peterson, 126–133.

==Further reading==
===FAIR wiki articles===

===FAIR web site===

===External links===
===Printed material===

Utah/Crime and violence/Castration in the 1800's

2008-12-31T19:17:25Z

BenjaminPorter: /* Answer */

{{question}} 
{{draft}}

==Criticism==

*I have read about a group of men (LDS) that went around castrating immoral men (who were also LDS) with the express permission of local church leaders. These events supposedly happened during the Brigham Young's administration. It is claimed that Brigham was aware of and approved of this and may have given the order. What can you tell me about this?
*I read that missionaries who selected plural wives from female converts before allowing church leaders to select from them first were castrated.

====Source(s) of criticism====
*{{CriticalWork:Abanes:One Nation|pages=297, 581n90}} (Quoting Quinn)
*{{CriticalWork:Quinn:Mormon Hierarchy|pages=250-251}}

==Answer==

Critics (often relying on D. Michael's Quinn's treatment) have over-simplified and sensationalized this event. Critics claim that Bishop Warren S. Snow forcibly castrated twenty-four-year-old Thomas Lewis, whose “crime” was wanting to marry a young woman that was desired by an older man as a plural wife. Critics also claim that Brigham Young wrote in a letter his approval after the fact in 1857.

The full story gives a somewhat different picture of these events. Warren Snow's biographer explains the matter thusly:

# These events occurred during the Mormon Reformation, when inflammatory rhetoric called for harsh punishment for sin and crime. For Brigham the time for the actual implementation of such punishment was not yet, and partly hyperbole designed to stir a sinful population to improvement. Some listeners like Snow got confused and took things literally. [''See FAIR wiki article'':[[Blood atonement]]]
#The rumor that Lewis was being punished for competing against an older polygamist is likely false. Kathryn Daynes gives another example where Brigham Young advised a young woman to marry a single, young man against her parents wishes that she marry a older polygamist. {{nc}}
#Even if there is an element of truth in point #2, Lewis was being transported to the penitentiary for a sexual crime. He was not an innocent who was attacked simply for desiring a marriage.
#While being transported at night, Snow and his gang secretly intercepted Lewis and carried out the castration.
#Joseph Young (Brigham's brother) of the Presidents of the Seventy later learned about the incident and was incensed and “entirely disapproved” of it.
#When Brigham Young heard about Lewis' sex crime and the punishment, he reiterated his stance that the time for such measures was still in the future, and not to be implemented in the here-and-now.
#Brigham did not think Warren Snow did what was right, but felt Warren was “trying to do right” and that he should be sustained in his calling as Bishop.
#Warren wanted Brigham to write a letter to members in Sanpete county to explain Warren’s action. Brigham declined to do, indicating that that would make matters worse. “Just let the matter drop, and say no more about it and it will soon die away amongst the people,” Brigham counseled.
#Snow's life and experience had given him a "violent and vengeful world view," which makes his decision to attack and maim Lewis more understandable.
#Federal marshals and judges were aware of the Lewis incident, and sought Snow's capture. However, they were eventually instructed by political leaders in Washington to let the matter drop. It was a Gentile political decision not to prosecute Snow for his actions.{{ref|bio1}}

===A second such event?===

One other event from journals in 1859 reports an unnamed bishop supposedly castrating someone because they wanted to marry their girlfriend. Snow is named by one source in the 1859 account; given Brigham's reaction to the first event, it seems unlikely that Snow would do the same thing again.

His inclusion in an account of the second event may well be due to conflation, which may demonstrate how unusual such events were. It may be that rumor and frontier "urban legend" confused the Snow story with the passage of time.

As a presiding Bishop, Snow became increasingly unpopular with members in his area, and by 1860 was accused of malfeasance with tithing funds. Snow admitted to mismanagement, but denied any attempt to willfully defraud the Church. (The same patience for Snow's weaknesses was also manifested in this case; he was forgiven by his congregation and the general authorities, even while they still insisted that he bore responsibility for his mismanagement.)

The Lewis affair was much talked about among Snow's critics in 1860; it may be that the rumor mill was already in motion by 1859.{{ref|bio2}}

There are no names given for the 1859 "event," and it is not known if this was just rumor, or who the participant(s) and victim were.

==Conclusion==

The castrated male was guilty of sexual assault, not merely competing for a woman's affections.

Despite the sexual assault, Brigham and other Church leaders did not approve the action taken by the local members.

Critics try to use this as an example of a "tip of the iceberg," problem, implying that many such extra-legal castrations occurred in Utah, and that the Church or its doctrines or leaders are somehow to blame. Such a characterization is unfair.

Given that in the 19th century there was a common tendency among non-Mormons for "frontier justice" to be carried out extra-legally, especially in the case of sexual crimes, its occurrence in areas far from central Church control on one or two occasions is not particularly surprising.

==Endnotes==

#{{note|bio1}} John A. Peterson, "Warren Stone Snow, a man in between : the biography of a Mormon defender," Master's Thesis, BYU (1985) 112–122. {{link|url=http://patriot.lib.byu.edu/cdm4/document.php?CISOROOT=/MTNZ&CISOPTR=10570&REC=1}}
#{{note|bio2}} Peterson, 126–133.

==Further reading==
===FAIR wiki articles===

===FAIR web site===

===External links===
===Printed material===

Utah/Crime and violence/Castration in the 1800's

2008-12-31T19:11:46Z

BenjaminPorter: /* Answer */

{{question}} 
{{draft}}

==Criticism==

*I have read about a group of men (LDS) that went around castrating immoral men (who were also LDS) with the express permission of local church leaders. These events supposedly happened during the Brigham Young's administration. It is claimed that Brigham was aware of and approved of this and may have given the order. What can you tell me about this?
*I read that missionaries who selected plural wives from female converts before allowing church leaders to select from them first were castrated.

====Source(s) of criticism====
*{{CriticalWork:Abanes:One Nation|pages=297, 581n90}} (Quoting Quinn)
*{{CriticalWork:Quinn:Mormon Hierarchy|pages=250-251}}

==Answer==

Critics (often relying on D. Michael's Quinn's treatment) have over-simplified and sensationalized this event. Critics claim that Bishop Warren S. Snow forcibly castrated twenty-four-year-old Thomas Lewis, whose “crime” was wanting to marry a young woman that was desired by an older man as a plural wife. Critics also claim that Brigham Young wrote in a letter his approval after the fact in 1857.

The full story gives a somewhat different picture of these events. Warren Snow's biographer explains the matter thusly:

# These events occurred during the Mormon Reformation, when inflammatory rhetoric called for harsh punishment for sin and crime. For Brigham the time for the actual implementation of such punishment was not yet, and partly hyperbole designed to stir a sinful population to improvement. Some listeners like Snow got confused and took things literally. [''See FAIR wiki article'':[[Blood atonement]]]
#The rumor that Lewis was being punished for competing against an older polygamist is likely false. Kathryn Daynes gives another example where Brigham Young advised a young woman to marry a single, young man against her parents wishes that she marry a older polygamist. {{nc}}
#Even if there is an element of truth in point #2, Lewis was being transported to the penitentiary for a sexual crime. He was not an innocent who was attacked simply for desiring a marriage.
#While being transported at night, Snow and his gang secretly intercepted Lewis and carried out the castration.
#Joseph Young (Brigham's brother) of the Presidents of the Seventy later learned about the incident and was incensed and “entirely disapproved” of it.
#When Brigham Young heard about Lewis' sex crime and the punishment, he reiterated his stance that the time for such measures was still in the future, and not to be implemented in the here-and-now.
#Brigham did not think Warren Snow did what was right, but felt Warren was “trying to do right” and that he should be sustained in his calling as Bishop.
#Warren wanted Brigham to write a letter to members in Sanpete county to explain Warren’s action. Brigham declined to do, indicating that that would make matters worse. “Just let the matter drop, and say no more about it and it will soon die away amongst the people,” Brigham counseled.
#Snow's life and experience had given him a "violent and vengeful world view," which makes his decision to attack and maim Lewis more understandable.
#Federal marshals and judges were aware of the Lewis incident, and sought Snow's capture. They were eventually instructed, however, by political leaders in Washington, to let the matter drop. Thus, it was a Gentile political decision not to prosecute Snow for his actions.{{ref|bio1}}

===A second such event?===

One other event from journals in 1859 reports an unnamed bishop supposedly castrating someone because they wanted to marry their girlfriend. Snow is named by one source in the 1859 account; given Brigham's reaction to the first event, it seems unlikely that Snow would do the same thing again.

His inclusion in an account of the second event may well be due to conflation, which may demonstrate how unusual such events were. It may be that rumor and frontier "urban legend" confused the Snow story with the passage of time.

As a presiding Bishop, Snow became increasingly unpopular with members in his area, and by 1860 was accused of malfeasance with tithing funds. Snow admitted to mismanagement, but denied any attempt to willfully defraud the Church. (The same patience for Snow's weaknesses was also manifested in this case; he was forgiven by his congregation and the general authorities, even while they still insisted that he bore responsibility for his mismanagement.)

The Lewis affair was much talked about among Snow's critics in 1860; it may be that the rumor mill was already in motion by 1859.{{ref|bio2}}

There are no names given for the 1859 "event," and it is not known if this was just rumor, or who the participant(s) and victim were.

==Conclusion==

The castrated male was guilty of sexual assault, not merely competing for a woman's affections.

Despite the sexual assault, Brigham and other Church leaders did not approve the action taken by the local members.

Critics try to use this as an example of a "tip of the iceberg," problem, implying that many such extra-legal castrations occurred in Utah, and that the Church or its doctrines or leaders are somehow to blame. Such a characterization is unfair.

Given that in the 19th century there was a common tendency among non-Mormons for "frontier justice" to be carried out extra-legally, especially in the case of sexual crimes, its occurrence in areas far from central Church control on one or two occasions is not particularly surprising.

==Endnotes==

#{{note|bio1}} John A. Peterson, "Warren Stone Snow, a man in between : the biography of a Mormon defender," Master's Thesis, BYU (1985) 112–122. {{link|url=http://patriot.lib.byu.edu/cdm4/document.php?CISOROOT=/MTNZ&CISOPTR=10570&REC=1}}
#{{note|bio2}} Peterson, 126–133.

==Further reading==
===FAIR wiki articles===

===FAIR web site===

===External links===
===Printed material===