FAIR - User contributions [en]

Talk:Mormonism and doctrine/Repudiated concepts/Blood atonement

2009-08-21T13:18:20Z

BettinaSiebert: Created page with 'Link of endnote No 4 does not work--~~~~'

Link of endnote No 4 does not work--[[User:BettinaSiebert|BettinaSiebert]] 13:18, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Book of Mormon/Jerusalem vs Bethlehem

2009-08-21T12:58:42Z

BettinaSiebert:

The gospel link of footnote No 1 does not work--[[User:BettinaSiebert|BettinaSiebert]] 12:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Book of Mormon/Jerusalem vs Bethlehem

2009-08-21T12:58:23Z

BettinaSiebert: Created page with 'The gospel link of footnote No 1 does not work'

The gospel link of footnote No 1 does not work

Template talk:WV0

2009-08-09T19:56:28Z

BettinaSiebert: Created page with 'The linked webpage does not exist'

The linked webpage does not exist

Template talk:JoD3 1

2009-08-09T19:44:26Z

BettinaSiebert: Created page with 'This page http://www.journalofdiscourses.org/volume-3 does not exist --~~~~'

This page http://www.journalofdiscourses.org/volume-3 does not exist --[[User:BettinaSiebert|BettinaSiebert]] 19:44, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Repudiated ideas about race

2009-08-06T13:47:34Z

BettinaSiebert:

The link of the 3rd endnote does not work
The youtubes "blacks in the bible" do not exist any longer.
----[[User:BettinaSiebert|BettinaSiebert]] 13:47, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Repudiated ideas about race

2009-08-06T07:58:47Z

BettinaSiebert: /* Blacks neutral in the "war in heaven"? */

{{RacePortal}}
==Repudiated ideas==

Although there is much we do not know about the ban, some [[Official Church doctrine and statements by Church leaders|past ideas]] have been rejected by part or current leaders of the Church. These include:

===Blacks neutral in the "war in heaven"?===

This idea was repudiated well before the priesthood bad was rescinded. President Brigham Young rejected it in an account recorded by Wilford Woodruff in 1869:

:Lorenzo Young asked if the Spirits of Negroes were Nutral in Heaven. He said someone said Joseph Smith said they were. President Young said No they were not. There was No Nutral spirits in Heaven at the time of the Rebelion. All took sides. He said if any one said that He Herd the Prophet Joseph Say that the spirits of the Blacks were Nutral in Heaven He would not Believe them for He herd Joseph Say to the Contrary. All spirits are pure that Come from the presence of God. The posterity of Cane are Black Because He Commit Murder. He killed Abel & God set a Mark upon his posterity But the spirits are pure that Enter their tabernacles & there will be a Chance for the redemption of all the Children of Adam Except the Sons of perdition.{{ref|by.1869}}

The First Presidency under Joseph F. Smith also rejected this idea:

:there is no revelation, ancient or modern, neither is there any authoritative statement by any of the authorities of the Church … [in support of the idea] that the negroes are those who were neutral in heaven at the time of the great conflict or war, which resulted in the casting out of Lucifer and those who were led by him.{{ref|jfs.1912}}

===Do we know the reasons for the ban?===

Many leaders have indicated that the Church does not know why the ban was in place:

* Gordon B. Hinckley in an interview:

:'''Q''': So in retrospect, was the Church wrong in that [not ordaining blacks]?
:'''A''' [Pres. Hinckley]: No, I don't think it was wrong. It, things, various things happened in different periods. There's a reason for them.
:'''Q''': What was the reason for that?
:'''A''': I don't know what the reason was. But I know that we've rectified whatever may have appeared to be wrong at the time.{{ref|hinckley1}}

* Elder Dallin H. Oaks:

:...It's not the pattern of the Lord to give reasons. We can put reasons to commandments. When we do we're on our own. Some people put reasons to [the ban] and they turned out to be spectacularly wrong. There is a lesson in that.... The lesson I've drawn from that, I decided a long time ago that I had faith in the command and I had no faith in the reasons that had been suggested for it.

:...I'm referring to reasons given by general authorities and reasons elaborated upon [those reasons] by others. The whole set of reasons seemed to me to be unnecessary risk taking.

:...Let's [not] make the mistake that's been made in the past, here and in other areas, trying to put reasons to revelation. The reasons turn out to be man-made to a great extent. The revelations are what we sustain as the will of the Lord and that's where safety lies.{{ref|oaks1}}

* Elder Jeffrey R. Holland:

:One clear-cut position is that the folklore must never be perpetuated. ... I have to concede to my earlier colleagues. ... They, I'm sure, in their own way, were doing the best they knew to give shape to [the policy], to give context for it, to give even history to it. All I can say is however well intended the explanations were, I think almost all of them were inadequate and/or wrong. ...

:It probably would have been advantageous to say nothing, to say we just don't know, and, [as] with many religious matters, whatever was being done was done on the basis of faith at that time. But some explanations were given and had been given for a lot of years. ... At the very least, there should be no effort to perpetuate those efforts to explain why that doctrine existed. I think, to the extent that I know anything about it, as one of the newer and younger ones to come along, ... we simply do not know why that practice, that policy, that doctrine was in place.{{ref|holland1}}

* Elder Alexander B. Morrison:

:We do not know.{{ref|morrison1}}

===Pre-mortal failure?===

Some members and leaders explained the ban as congruent with the justice of God by suggesting that those who were denied the priesthood had done something in the pre-mortal life to deny themselves the priesthood. President Kimball was reported as repudiating this idea following the 1978 revelation:

:President Kimball "flatly [stated] that Mormonism no longer holds to...a theory" that Blacks had been denied the priesthood "because they somehow failed God during their pre-existence."{{ref|time1}}

===Is interracial marriage condemned?===

This idea has been repudiated on two levels. The Supreme Court declared anti-miscegenation laws in the 16 remaining states that still had them unconstitutional in 1967. After the priesthood ban was lifted, church spokesman Don LeFevre stated:
:So there is no ban on interracial marriage. If a black partner contemplating marriage is worthy of going to the Temple, nobody's going to stop him... if he's ready to go to the Temple, obviously he may go with the blessings of the church." {{ref|lefevre}}

On the LDS Church website, Dr. Robert Millet writes:
:[T]he Church Handbook of Instructions... is the guide for all Church leaders on doctrine and practice. There is, in fact, no mention whatsoever in this handbook concerning interracial marriages. In addition, having served as a Church leader for almost 30 years, I can also certify that I have never received official verbal instructions condemning marriages between black and white members. {{ref|millet}}

===Is racial prejudice acceptable?===

* President Hinckley in priesthood session of General Conference:
:Racial strife still lifts its ugly head. I am advised that even right here among us there is some of this. I cannot understand how it can be. It seemed to me that we all rejoiced in the 1978 revelation given President Kimball. I was there in the temple at the time that that happened. There was no doubt in my mind or in the minds of my associates that what was revealed was the mind and the will of the Lord.

:Now I am told that racial slurs and denigrating remarks are sometimes heard among us. I remind you that no man who makes disparaging remarks concerning those of another race can consider himself a true disciple of Christ. Nor can he consider himself to be in harmony with the teachings of the Church of Christ. How can any man holding the Melchizedek Priesthood arrogantly assume that he is eligible for the priesthood whereas another who lives a righteous life but whose skin is of a different color is ineligible?

:Throughout my service as a member of the First Presidency, I have recognized and spoken a number of times on the diversity we see in our society. It is all about us, and we must make an effort to accommodate that diversity.

:Let us all recognize that each of us is a son or daughter of our Father in Heaven, who loves all of His children.

:Brethren, there is no basis for racial hatred among the priesthood of this Church. If any within the sound of my voice is inclined to indulge in this, then let him go before the Lord and ask for forgiveness and be no more involved in such.{{ref|hinckley2}}

==Endnotes==
#{{note|by.1869}} {{WWJ1|vol=6|start=511|date=25 December 1869}}
#{{note|jfs.1912}} First Presidency letter from Joseph F. Smith, Anthon H. Lund, and Charles W. Penrose, to M. Knudson, 13 Jan. 1912.
#{{note|hinckley1}} {{Sunstone1|author=Anonymous|article=On the Record: 'We Stand For Something' President Gordon B. Hinckley [interview in Australia]|vol=21:4|num=112|date=December 1998|start=71}}
#{{note|oaks1}}Dallin H. Oaks, Interview with Associated Press, in ''Daily Herald,'' Provo, Utah, 5 June 1988.
#{{note|holland1}} Jeffrey R. Holland, Interview, 4 March 2006. {{link|url=http://www.pbs.org/mormons/interviews/holland.html}}
#{{note|morrison1}}{{LYS-CD1|start=chapter 24, page 4}}; citing Alexander Morrison, Salt Lake City local news station KTVX, channel 4, 8 June 1998.
#{{note|time1}} Kimball, ''Lengthen Your Stride'', chapter 24, page 3; citing Richard Ostling, "Mormonism Enters a New Era," ''Time'' (7 August 1978): 55. Ostling told President Kimball's biographer and son that this was a paraphrase, but an accurate reporting of what he had been told (see footnote 13, citing interview on 10 May 2001).
#{{note|lefevre}} Don LeFevre, ''Salt Lake Tribune,'' 14 June 1978.
#{{note|millet}} Robert L. Millet, "Church Response to Jon Krakauer's ''Under the Banner of Heaven,''" 27 June 2003{{link|url=http://www.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=a1aa39628b88f010VgnVCM100000176f620aRCRD&vgnextchannel=f5f411154963d010VgnVCM1000004e94610aRCRD}}
#{{note|hinckley2}} {{Ensign | author=Gordon B. Hinckley | article=The Need for Greater Kindness|date=May 2006|start=58|end=61 }}{{link|url=http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/2006.htm/ensign%20may%202006.htm/the%20need%20for%20greater%20kindness.htm?fn=document-frameset.htm$f=templates$3.0}}

==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===
{{BlacksPriesthoodWiki}}
===FAIR web site===
{{BlacksPriesthoodFAIR}}

===Video===
{{BlackSaintsFAIRVideo}}

===External links===
{{BlacksPriesthoodLinks}}
===Printed material===
{{BlacksPriesthoodPrint}}

Talk:Repudiated ideas about race

2009-08-06T07:34:03Z

BettinaSiebert: Created page with 'The link of the 3rd endnote does not work'

The link of the 3rd endnote does not work

Social pressure and the priesthood ban

2009-08-06T06:14:37Z

BettinaSiebert: /* Printed material */

{{RacePortal}}
==Criticism==

Critics try to raise doubts about the authenticity of the 1978 revelation by claiming that it was dictated by social or governmental pressure.

===Source(s) of the criticism===
*{{CriticalWork:Southerton:Losing|pages=11}}

==Response==
===Social pressure?===

Social pressure was actually on the decline after the Civil Rights movement and coordinated protests at BYU athletic events ceased in 1971. The allegation that the LDS church's tax-free status was threatened was addressed by a church spokesman:

:We state categorically that the federal government made no such threat in 1978 or at any other time. The decision to extend the blessings of the priesthood to all worthy males had nothing to do with federal tax policy or any other secular law. In the absence of proof, we conclude that Ms. Erickson [a critic] is seriously mistaken.{{ref|olsen1}}

Jan Shipps, a Methodist scholar and celebrated scholar of Mormon history and culture, considers it factual that "this revelation came in the context of worldwide evangelism rather than domestic politics or American social and cultural circumstances." She wrote:

:A revelation in Mormondom rarely comes as a bolt from the blue; the process involves asking questions and getting answers. The occasion of questioning has to be considered, and it must be recalled that while questions about priesthood and the black man may have been asked, an answer was not forthcoming in the ‘60s when the church was under pressure about the matter from without, nor in the early ‘70s when liberal Latter-day Saints agitated the issue from within. The inspiration which led President Kimball and his counselors to spend many hours in the Upper Room of the Temple pleading long and earnestly for divine guidance did not stem from a messy situation with blacks picketing the church’s annual conference in Salt Lake City, but was "the expansion of the work of the Lord over the earth." {{ref|shipps1}}

==Endnotes==

#{{note|olsen1}}Bruce L. Olsen, cited in ''Salt Lake Tribune'' on 5 April 2001.
#{{note|shipps1}}Jan Shipps, "The Mormons: Looking Forward and Outward" ''Christian Century'' (Aug. 16-23, 1978), 761–766 {{link|url=http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=1808}}

==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===
{{BlacksPriesthoodWiki}}
===FAIR web site===
{{BlacksPriesthoodFAIR}}

===Video===
{{BlackSaintsFAIRVideo}}

===External links===
{{BlacksPriesthoodLinks}}
===Printed material===
{{BlacksPriesthoodPrint}}
[[de:Schwarze_und_das_Priestertum/Gesellschaftlicher/politischer_Druck_bei_der_Aufhebung_des_Verbots#Sozialer_Druck.3F]]

Lifting the priesthood ban

2009-08-04T22:50:03Z

BettinaSiebert:

{{RacePortal}}
==Criticism==
Critics claim that the Church has never produced a copy of the revelation granting Blacks the ability to receive the priesthood.

===Source(s) of the Criticism===
*{{CriticalWork:Tanner:Changing World|pages=435}}

==Lifting the ban==

===Notes on the revelatory process===

Revelation is a process which generally follows a model in which "man inquires and then God inspires." In other words, mortals must generally seek guidance ''before'' they receive inspiration. God will generally not provide answers to questions which have yet to be asked.

Furthermore, if we are unable to receive and implement an answer regarding a given issue, due to personal limitations or circumstances which would prevent obedience, God will generally refrain from communicating with us about it. This is not due to any limitation or lack of desire on his part, but due to mortal limitations.

God rarely—if ever—uses his prophets as "teletype machines" who mindlessly transmit God's will word for word—he requires his prophets to inquire ''with some thought as to potential answers'' ({{s||DC|9|7-9}}). After they seek confirmation, the Lord can gently correct or confirm. A striking Biblical example of this principle comes from King David: He announced to Nathan, the prophet, that he wished to build a temple. Nathan thought this a grand idea, and replied "Go, do all that is in thine heart; for the LORD is with thee." However, despite Nathan's sincere belief that God concurred with David's plan, he later received a revelation which contravened his initial enthusiasm. (See {{s|2|Samuel|7|2-17}}.) God corrected his prophet and enhanced his imperfect understanding of the divine will.

Viewing revelation as a process often requiring patient preparation helps us understand why the priesthood ban wasn't lifted sooner. Lester Bush points out "three principle factors," while allowing for others, that created obstacles: "...the authority of decades of vigorous and unwavering First Presidency endorsement of the policy; a preconceived and highly literalistic reading of several verses in the Pearl of Great Price; and an ambient culture which was indifferent to, if not supportive of, Mormon attitudes toward blacks."{{ref|bush4}}

===Social and cultural obstacles===

Sometimes critics from other Christian faiths excuse beliefs and behaviors in their denominations' pasts, while suggesting a much higher standard should have been met by a community led by revelation. This criticism seems to ignore dynamics manifest in Biblical times in which inspired leaders such as Moses and Paul accepted slavery as part of the cultural norm and even promoted regulations for it ({{s||Exodus|21|20-27}}; {{s||Leviticus|25|44-46}}; {{s||Deuteronomy|23|15-16}}; {{s||Ephesians|6|5-9}}; {{s||Philemon|1|8-12}}; {{s|1|Timothy|6|1}}; {{s||Titus|2|9}}). While what these leaders faced is not perfectly parallel to those in modern times, these prophets did not receive more socially progressive revelation than modern readers would have expected.{{ref|cathenc1}} It is clear that sometimes less than ideal practices were permitted and upheld because of the "hardness of [Moses's followers'] hearts [{{s||Mark|10|5}}]."

Biblical history is replete with examples of the difficulty of gaining widespread conformity even after a paradigm-shifting revelation has been received. The New Testament apostles debated over how best to transition from preaching the Gospel only to the Jews to accommodating Gentile converts ([http://scriptures.lds.org/en/acts/15 Acts 15]). Despite numerous miraculous manifestations to motivate them, the Israelites had to wander 40 years ({{s||Deuteronomy|8|2}}) to weed out idolatrous beliefs keeping them from inheriting a promised land. Mormon history also has its examples of this type, including the length of time it took the general membership to come into full compliance with the [[Word of Wisdom]] and the [[Polygamy after the Manifesto|Manifesto]]. If a revelation ending the priesthood ban had been received earlier, the Saints might not have accepted it. (Elder Marion D. Hanks is reported to have said "For me it was never that blacks [were unqualified but that] the rest of us had to be brought to a condition of spiritual maturity...to meet the moment of change with grace and goodness.{{ref|swkcd1}}")

===Circumstances which preceded the 1978 revelation===

In 1954, after visiting the struggling South African mission, David O. McKay began to consider lifting the ban. In a conversation with Sterling McMurrin, he said, "It is a practice, not a doctrine, and the practice will some day be changed."{{ref|prince1}} This was a departure from a 1949 First Presidency statement defending the ban as doctrinal, indicating a shift in his opinion. Leonard Arrington reported that President McKay formed a special committee of the Twelve that "concluded there was no sound scriptural basis for the policy but that church membership was not prepared for its reversal."{{ref|arrington1}} However, David O. McKay felt that only a revelation could end the ban. Sometime between 1968 and his death in 1970 he confided his prayerful attempts to church architect, Richard Jackson, "I’ve inquired of the Lord repeatedly. The last time I did it was late last night. I was told, with no discussion, not to bring the subject up with the Lord again; that the time will come, but it will not be my time, and to leave the subject alone."{{ref|prince2}}.

As McKay's health declined, his counselor, Hugh B. Brown, attempted to lift the ban as an administrative decision. However, it became even clearer that a century of precedent was difficult to reverse without a revelation, especially when some members and leaders—echoing George Q. Cannon—felt there might be a revelatory basis for the policy.

President McKay reportedly told Elder Marion D. Hanks that "he had pleaded and pleaded with the Lord, but had not had the answer he sought."{{ref|mckay1}}

Harold B. Lee was inclined to reconfirm the ban,{{ref|lee1}} though Church Historian Leonard Arrington

:...asserts that President Lee, shortly before his death, sought the Lord's will on the question of blacks and the priesthood during'three days and nights [of] fasting in the upper room of the temple,...but the only answer he received was "not yet." Arrington relied on an unidentified person close to President Lee, but President Lee's son-in-law and biographer found no record of such an incident and thought it doubtful.{{ref|lee3}}

Following Joseph Fielding Smith's death, President Lee did say, "For those who don't believe in modern revelation there is no adequate explanation. Those who do understand revelation stand by and wait until the Lord speaks....It's only a matter of time before the black achieves full status in the Church. We must believe in the justice of God. The black will achieve full status, we're just waiting for that time."{{ref|lee2}}

As the church expanded its missionary outreach and temple building programs, leaders continued to run into problems of black ancestry preventing the building of local leadership in certain areas, most notably Brazil. The prayerful attempts to obtain the will of God intensified. Finally in June 1978, a revelation that "every faithful, worthy man in the Church may receive the holy priesthood" was received and later canonized as [http://scriptures.lds.org/od/2 Official Declaration 2].

==The Revelation==

Many witnesses described the 1978 revelation on the priesthood. Wrote the past LDS Church Historian:

:As a historian I sought to learn the particulars and record them in my private diary. The following account is based on dozens of interviews with persons who talked with church officials after the revelation was announced. Although members of the Twelve and the First Presidency with whom I sought interviews felt they should not elaborate on what happened, I learned details from family members and friends to whom they had made comments. . . .

:Those in attendance said that as [President Kimball] began his earnest prayer, they suddenly realized that it was not Kimball's prayer, but the Lord speaking through him. A revelation was being declared. Kimball himself realized that the words were not his but the Lord's. During that prayer some of the Twelve -- at least two who have said so publicly -- were transported into a celestial atmosphere, saw a divine presence and the figures of former presidents of the church (portraits of whom were hanging on the walls around them) smiling to indicate their approval and sanction. . . .

:At the end of the heavenly manifestation Kimball, weeping for joy, confronted the church members, many of them also sobbing, and asked if they sustained this heavenly instruction. Embracing, all nodded vigorously and jubilantly their sanction. There had been a startling and commanding revelation from God -- an ineffable experience.

:Two of the apostles present described the experience as a "day of Pentecost" similar to the one in the Kirtland Temple on April 6, 1836, the day of its dedication. They saw a heavenly personage and heard heavenly music. To the temple-clothed members, the gathering, incredible and without compare, was the greatest single event of their lives. Those I talked with wept as they spoke of it. All were certain they had witnessed a revelation from God.{{ref|arrington.1}}

Elder David B. Haight said of the same experience:

:I would hope someday that our great-grandson Mark and others of our posterity would have similar spiritual experiences and that they would feel the spiritual power and influence of this gospel. I hope that Mark and others will have opportunities such as I had when I was in the temple when President Spencer W. Kimball received the revelation regarding the priesthood. I was the junior member of the Quorum of the Twelve. I was there. I was there with the outpouring of the Spirit in that room so strong that none of us could speak afterwards. We just left quietly to go back to the office. No one could say anything because of the powerful outpouring of the heavenly spiritual experience.

:But just a few hours after the announcement was made to the press, I was assigned to attend a stake conference in Detroit, Michigan. When my plane landed in Chicago, I noticed an edition of the Chicago Tribune on the newsstand. The headline in the paper said, "Mormons Give Blacks Priesthood." And the subheading said, "President Kimball Claims to Have Received a Revelation." I bought a copy of the newspaper. I stared at one word in that subheading: claims. It stood out to me just like it was in red neon. As I walked along the hallway to make my plane connection, I thought, Here I am now in Chicago walking through this busy airport, yet I was a witness to this revelation. I was there. I witnessed it. I felt that heavenly influence. I was part of it. Little did the editor of that newspaper realize the truth of that revelation when he wrote, "Claims to Have Received a Revelation." Little did he know, or the printer, or the man who put the ink on the press, or the one who delivered the newspaper -- little did any of them know that it was truly a revelation from God. Little did they know what I knew because I was a witness to it.{{ref|haight.1}}

==Endnotes==
#{{note|bush4}}{{NeitherWhiteNorBlack|start=209|end=210}}
#{{note|cathenc1}}For a pre-Civil-Rights-movement Catholic perspective on this issue see the entry on "Philemon" in ''The Catholic Encyclopedia'' (1913).{{link|url=http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11797b.htm}} and "Moral Aspect of Divine Law" {{link|url=http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09071a.htm}}
#{{note|swkcd1}}{{LYS-CD1|start=203}}
#{{note|prince1}}{{RMM|start=79|end=80}}
#{{note|arrington1}}Leonard J. Arrington, ''Adventures of a Church Historian'' (Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press 1998), 183.
#{{note|prince2}}''David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism,'' 104.
#{{note|mckay1}} {{LYS-CD1|start=chapter 20 working draft, 13}}.
#{{note|lee1}}Kimball, ''Lengthen Your Stride'', 204–205.
#{{note|lee3}}Kimball, ''Lengthen Your Stride'', working draft chapter 20, page 22, footnote 105; citing for the affirmative Arrington, ''Adventures of a Church Historian'' and Arrington to author, February 10 and June 15, 1998; for the negative, L. Brent Goates, interview by author, February 9, 1998.
#{{note|lee2}}Kimball, ''Lengthen Your Stride'', working draft chapter 20, page 22; citing Goates, ''Harold B. Lee'', 506, quoting UPI interview published November 16, 1972.
# {{note|arrington.1}} Leonard J. Arrington, ''Adventures of a Church Historian'' (Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1998), 176-177
# {{note|haight.1}} {{Ensign1|author=David B. Haight|article=This Work Is True|date=May 1996|start=22}} {{link|url=http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=d7e27cf34f40c010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1}}

==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===
{{BlacksPriesthoodWiki}}
===FAIR web site===
{{BlacksPriesthoodFAIR}}

===Video===
{{BlackSaintsFAIRVideo}}

===External links===
{{BlacksPriesthoodLinks}}
===Printed material===
{{BlacksPriesthoodPrint}}
[[de:Schwarze_und_das_Priestertum/Aufhebung_des_Verbots#Hinweise_auf_den_offenbarenden_Prozess]]

Template talk:Book:Bush Mauss:Neither White Nor Black

2009-07-24T06:24:55Z

BettinaSiebert:

This link
http://www.signaturebookslibrary.org/neither/neithertitle.html
does not work. --[[User:BettinaSiebert|BettinaSiebert]] 06:24, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Template talk:Book:Bush Mauss:Neither White Nor Black

2009-07-24T06:23:22Z

BettinaSiebert: Created page with 'This link http://www.signaturebookslibrary.org/neither/neithertitle.html for note 1 does not work'

This link
http://www.signaturebookslibrary.org/neither/neithertitle.html
for note 1 does not work

Racial issues and the Church of Jesus Christ/Blacks and the priesthood/LDS scriptures

2009-07-13T16:40:55Z

BettinaSiebert:

{{RacePortal}}
==Criticism==
*Critics claim that the LDS scriptures link a person's skin color to their behavior in the pre-existence.
*Critics charge that the Book of Mormon is racist and promotes the idea that the "white" race is superior.

===Source(s) of the criticism===
*{{CriticalWork:Southerton:Losing|pages=8–9}}

==LDS scriptures revisited==

Some contend that even though the doctrinal impact of pre-1978 statements have been greatly diminished, the LDS scriptures still retain the passages which were used for proof-texts for the ban and hence cannot be easily dismissed. A parallel can be drawn between Protestant denominations that have historically reversed their scriptural interpretations supporting slavery and a modified LDS understanding of their own scriptures that relate to the priesthood ban. Through more careful scripture reading and attention to scientific studies, many Protestants have come to differ with previous interpretations of Bible passages. A similar rethinking of passages unique to the LDS scriptures, such as {{s||Abraham|1|26-27}}, can be made if one starts by discarding erroneous preconceptions. Sociologist Armand Mauss critiqued former interpretations in a recent address:

:[W]e see that the Book of Abraham says nothing about lineages set aside in the pre-existence, but only about distinguished individuals. The Book of Abraham is the only place, furthermore, that any scriptures speak of the priesthood being withheld from any lineage, but even then it is only the specific lineage of the pharaohs of Egypt, and there is no explanation as to why that lineage could not have the priesthood, or whether the proscription was temporary or permanent, or which other lineages, if any, especially in the modern world, would be covered by that proscription. At the same time, the passages in Genesis and Moses, for their part, do not refer to any priesthood proscription, and no color change occurs in either Cain or Ham, or even in Ham's son Canaan, who, for some unexplained reason, was the one actually cursed! There is no description of the mark on Cain, except that the mark was supposed to protect him from vengeance. It's true that in the seventh chapter of Moses, we learn that descendants of Cain became black, but not until the time of Enoch, six generations after Cain, and even then only in a vision of Enoch about an unspecified future time. There is no explanation for this blackness; it is not even clear that we are to take it literally.{{ref|mauss1}}

Although critics frequently cite some Book of Mormon passages as being racist, it does not appear to have been used in a justification for the ban. They often cite Book of Mormon passages like {{s|2|Nephi|5|21-25}} and {{s||Alma|3|6-10}} while ignoring the more representative {{s|2|Nephi|26|33}}.

Richard L. Bushman, LDS author of a biography of Joseph Smith, writes:

:...[T]he fact that [the Lamanites] are Israel, the chosen of God, adds a level of complexity to the Book of Mormon that simple racism does not explain. Incongruously, the book champions the Indians' place in world history, assigning them to a more glorious future than modern American whites.... Lamanite degradation is not ingrained in their natures, ineluctably bonded to their dark skins. Their wickedness is wholly cultural and frequently reversed. During one period, "they began to be a very industrious people; yea, and they were friendly with the Nephites; therefore, they did open a correspondence with them, and the curse of God did no more follow them." ({{s||Alma|23|18}}) In the end, the Lamanites triumph. The white Nephites perish, and the dark Lamanites remain. {{ref|bushman1}}

One faithful black member, Marcus Martins—also chair of the department of religious education at BYU-Hawaii—has said:

:The [priesthood] ban itself was not racist, but, unfortunately, it gave cover to people who were.{{ref|martins1}}

==Endnotes==
#{{note|mauss1}}Armand L. Mauss, "The LDS Church and the Race Issue: A Study in Misplaced Apologetics", FAIR Conference 2003 {{fairlink|url=http://www.blacklds.org/mormon/mauss.html}}, {{fairlink|url=http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/conf/2003MauA.html #2}}
#{{note|bushman1}}{{RSR1|start=99}}
#{{note|martins1}}Marcus Martins, "A Black Man in Zion: Reflections on Race in the Restored Gospel" (2006 FAIR Conference presentation).

==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===
{{BlacksPriesthoodWiki}}
===FAIR web site===
{{BlacksPriesthoodFAIR}}

===Video===
{{BlackSaintsFAIRVideo}}

===External links===
{{BlacksPriesthoodLinks}}
===Printed material===
{{BlacksPriesthoodPrint}}
[[de:Schwarze_und_das_Priestertum/HLT-Schriften]]

Latter-day Saint Temples/Baptism for the dead

2009-07-10T07:33:39Z

BettinaSiebert:

{{TemplePortal}}
{{question}}

==Question==

# What is baptism for the dead?
# Is there any evidence baptism for the dead is an authentic ancient Christian practice?

===Source(s) of criticism===
*{{CriticalWork:Abanes:Becoming Gods|pages=273}}
*{{CriticalWork:McKeeverJohnson:Mormonism 101|pages=Chapter 15}}
*{{CriticalWork:Tanner:Changing World|pages=517}}
*{{QuestionsMormonsShouldAsk}}

==Answer==

===What is baptism for the dead?===

Explained Elder G. Todd Christopherson:

:Christian theologians have long wrestled with the question, What is the destiny of the countless billions who have lived and died with no knowledge of Jesus?{{ref|fn1}} There are several theories concerning the “unevangelized” dead, ranging from an inexplicable denial of salvation, to dreams or other divine intervention at the moment of death, to salvation for all, even without faith in Christ. A few believe that souls hear of Jesus after death. None explain how to satisfy Jesus’ requirement that a man must be born of water and spirit to enter the kingdom of God (see {{s||John|3|3–5}}). Lacking the knowledge once had in the early Church, these earnest seekers have been “forced to choose between a weak law that [allows] the unbaptized to enter heaven, and a cruel God who [damns] the innocent.”{{ref|fn1a}}

:With the Restoration of the gospel of Jesus Christ has come the understanding of how the unbaptized dead are redeemed and how God can be “a perfect, just God, and a merciful God also.” {{ref|fn2}}

:While yet in life, Jesus prophesied that He would also preach to the dead [see {{b||John|5|25}}]. Peter tells us this happened in the interval between the Savior’s Crucifixion and Resurrection [see {{b|1|Peter|3|18–19}}]...

:Some have misunderstood and suppose that deceased souls “are being baptised into the Mormon faith without their knowledge” {{ref|fn9}} or that “people who once belonged to other faiths can have the Mormon faith retroactively imposed on them.” {{ref|fn10}} They assume that we somehow have power to force a soul in matters of faith. Of course, we do not. God gave man his agency from the beginning. (See fn11) “The dead who repent will be redeemed, through obedience to the ordinances of the house of God,” {{ref|fn12}} but only if they accept those ordinances. The Church does not list them on its rolls or count them in its membership.

:Our anxiety to redeem the dead, and the time and resources we put behind that commitment, are, above all, an expression of our witness concerning Jesus Christ. It constitutes as powerful a statement as we can make concerning His divine character and mission. It testifies, first, of Christ’s Resurrection; second, of the infinite reach of His Atonement; third, that He is the sole source of salvation; fourth, that He has established the conditions for salvation; and, fifth, that He will come again. {{ref|gtc2}}

==Ancient roots==
There is considerable evidence that some early Christians and some Jewish groups performed proxy ordinance work for the salvation of the dead.

John A. Tvedtnes noted:

:In his epistle to the Corinthians, Paul cited the early Christian practice of proxy baptism for the dead as evidence of a future resurrection and judgment. Most non-Latter-day Saint scholars have failed to note the importance of this passage. Some pass it off as an outmoded practice of the early church, while others believe it refers to an apostate or heretical doctrine.

:But historical records are clear on the matter. Baptism for the dead was performed by the dominant church until forbidden by the sixth canon of the Council of Carthage in A.D. 397. Some of the smaller sects, however, continued the practice. Of the Marcionites of the fourth century, Epiphanius wrote:

:“In this country—I mean Asia—and even in Galatia, their school flourished eminently and a traditional fact concerning them has reached us, that when any of them had died without baptism, they used to baptize others in their name, lest in the resurrection they should suffer punishment as unbaptized.” (''Heresies'', 8:7.){{ref|tvedtnes2}}

Thus, baptism for the dead was banned about four hundred years after Christ by the church councils. Latter-day Saints would see this as an excellent example of the [[apostasy]]—church councils altering doctrine and practice that was accepted at an earlier date.

Tvedtnes continues:

:In early Judaism, too, there is an example of ordinances being performed in behalf of the dead. Following the battle of Marisa in 163 B.C., it was discovered that each of the Jewish soldiers killed in the fight had been guilty of concealing pagan idols beneath his clothing. In order to atone for their wrong, Judas Maccabaeus, the Jewish high priest and commander, collected money from the survivors to purchase sacrificial animals for their dead comrades:

:“And when he had made a gathering throughout the company to the sum of two thousand drachmas of silver, he sent it to Jerusalem to offer a sin offering, doing therein very well and honestly, in that he was mindful of the resurrection: for if he had not hoped that they that were slain should have risen again, it had been superfluous and vain to pray for the dead. And also in that he perceived that there was great favour laid up for those that died godly, it was an holy and good thought. Whereupon he made a reconciliation for the dead, that they might be delivered from sin.” (2 Maccabees 12:43–46.){{ref|tvedtnes2}}

==Conclusion==

As one Church leader noted:

:The principle of vicarious service should not seem strange to any Christian. In the baptism of a living person, the officiator acts, by proxy, in place of the Savior. And is it not the central tenet of our faith that Christ’s sacrifice atones for our sins by vicariously satisfying the demands of justice for us? As President Gordon B. Hinckley has expressed: “I think that vicarious work for the dead more nearly approaches the vicarious sacrifice of the Savior Himself than any other work of which I know. It is given with love, without hope of compensation, or repayment or anything of the kind. What a glorious principle.”{{ref|dtc1}}

==Endnotes==
#{{note|fn1}}John Sanders, introduction to ''What about Those Who Have Never Heard? Three Views on the Destiny of the Unevangelized'', by Gabriel Fackre, Ronald H. Nash, and John Sanders (1995), 9.
#{{note|fn1a}}{{Nibley4_1|start=101}}
#{{note|fn2}}{{s||Alma|42|15}}
#{{note|fn9}} See Ben Fenton, “Mormons Use Secret British War Files ‘to Save Souls,’ ” ''The Telegraph'' (London), 15 Feb. 1999.
#{{note|fn10}} Greg Stott, “Ancestral Passion,” ''Equinox'' (April/May 1998): 45.
#{{note|fn12}} {{S||DC|138|58}}.
#{{note|gtc2}} {{Ensign1|article=The Redemption of the Dead and the Testimony of Jesus|author=D. Todd Christofferson|date=November 2000|start=9}}{{link|url=http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/2000.htm/ensign%20november%202000.htm/the%20redemption%20of%20the%20dead%20and%20the%20testimony%20of%20jesus.htm?fn=document-frame.htm&f=templates&2.0}} (Footnotes have in places been integrated into the main text; citation for has been slightly modified.
#{{note|tvedtnes1}}{{Ensign1|author=John A. Tvedtnes|article=Proxy Baptism|date=February 1977|start=86}}{{link|url=http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/1977.htm/ensign%20february%201977.htm/insights.htm?fn=document-frame.htm&f=templates&2.0#LPTOC7}}
#{{note|tvedtnes2}}{{Ensign1|author=John A. Tvedtnes|article=Proxy Baptism|date=February 1977|start=86}}{{link|url=http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/1977.htm/ensign%20february%201977.htm/insights.htm?fn=document-frame.htm&f=templates&2.0#LPTOC7}}
#{{note|dtc1}} {{Ensign1|article=The Redemption of the Dead and the Testimony of Jesus|author=D. Todd Christofferson|date=November 2000|start=9}}; citing “Excerpts from Recent Addresses of President Gordon B. Hinckley,” ''Ensign'' (Jan. 1998): 73. {{link|url=http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/2000.htm/ensign%20november%202000.htm/the%20redemption%20of%20the%20dead%20and%20the%20testimony%20of%20jesus.htm?fn=document-frame.htm&f=templates&2.0}}

==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===
{{BaptismDeadWiki}}
{{TempleWiki}}

===FAIR web site===
{{BaptismDeadFAIR}}
{{TempleFAIR}}

===External links===
{{BaptismDeadLinks}}
{{TempleLinks}}

===Printed material===
{{BaptismDeadPrint}}
{{TemplePrint}}
[[de:Taufe_für_die_Toten]]

User talk:GregSmith

2009-07-09T02:13:52Z

BettinaSiebert:

Yes, the templates may be very senseful, however I am not able to create them, because I do not understand the code. To copy the code of a template here and post them into the German FairWiki makes not any sense, because only a code does not work. The template has to be created.
On the other hand to use such templated implies to have an overview about all the linked sources and references. I have not.
I do not know, what I have done wrong. I created two templates and they are ok. But the third I created, does not work.
--[[User:BettinaSiebert|BettinaSiebert]] 01:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

User talk:GregSmith

2009-07-09T01:49:06Z

BettinaSiebert:

Yes, the templates may be very senseful, however I am not able to create them, because I do not understand the code. To copy the code of a template here and post them into the German FairWiki makes not any sense, because only a code does not work. The template has to be created.
On the other hand to use such templated implies to have an overview about all the linked sources and references. I have not. --[[User:BettinaSiebert|BettinaSiebert]] 01:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Kinderhook Plates

2009-07-08T00:18:11Z

BettinaSiebert:

The Gospelink in the picture does not work,
neither the Gospelink of endnote 6
--[[User:BettinaSiebert|BettinaSiebert]] 23:59, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Kinderhook Plates

2009-07-08T00:17:46Z

BettinaSiebert:

The Gospelink in the picture does not work
neither the Gospelink of endnote 6
--[[User:BettinaSiebert|BettinaSiebert]] 23:59, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Kinderhook Plates

2009-07-07T23:59:23Z

BettinaSiebert:

The Gospelink in the picture does not work --[[User:BettinaSiebert|BettinaSiebert]] 23:59, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Kinderhook Plates

2009-07-07T23:58:36Z

BettinaSiebert: Created page with 'Teh Gospelink in the picture does not work'

Teh Gospelink in the picture does not work

Understanding pre-1978 statements about race

2009-07-03T02:47:47Z

BettinaSiebert:

{{RacePortal}}

==Criticism==
Critics claim that statements from some Church leaders or members were [[Racist statements by Church leaders|racist]], especially before 1978. How should these statements be understood?

===Source(s) of the criticism===
*{{CriticalWork:McKeeverJohnson:Mormonism 101|pages=Chapter 16}}

==Understanding pre-1978 statements==

''For further discussion see:''
* [[Racist statements by Church leaders]]
* [[Official Church doctrine and statements by Church leaders]].
* [[Blacks_and_the_priesthood/Repudiated_ideas|Repudiated ideas]]

Critics frequently parade justifications for the ban by past General Authorities that are considered racist by today's standards. While these have not been officially renounced, there is no obligation for current members to accept such sentiments as the "word of the Lord."

===Bruce R. McConkie===

Bruce R. McConkie expressed it this way:

:There are statements in our literature by the early brethren which we have interpreted to mean that the Negroes would not receive the priesthood in mortality. I have said the same things.... All I can say to that is that it is time disbelieving people repented and got in line and believed in a living, modern prophet. Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world. We get our truth and our light line upon line and precept upon precept. We have now had added a new flood of intelligence and light on this particular subject, and it erases all the darkness, and all the views and all the thoughts of the past. They don't matter any more. It doesn't make a particle of difference what anybody ever said about the Negro matter before the first day of June of this year [1978]. It is a new day and a new arrangement, and the Lord has now given the revelation that sheds light out into the world on this subject. As to any slivers of light or any particles of darkness of the past, we forget about them. We now do what meridian Israel did when the Lord said the gospel should go to the gentiles. We forget all the statements that limited the gospel to the house of Israel, and we start going to the gentiles. {{ref|brm1}}

While Elder McConkie likely was limiting his remarks to mistakes made by past leaders in regards to the timing of the lifting of the ban, application of his insights can arguably be extended to a ''forgetting'' of all harmful "folk doctrines" about which post-1978 correlated church materials are either silent or have effectively corrected.

==Avoid speculating without knowledge==

Elder Dallin H. Oaks pointed out that some leaders and members had ill-advisedly sought to provide justifications for the ban:

:...It's not the pattern of the Lord to give reasons. We can put reasons to commandments. When we do we're on our own. Some people put reasons to [the ban] and they turned out to be spectacularly wrong. There is a lesson in that.... The lesson I've drawn from that, I decided a long time ago that I had faith in the command and I had no faith in the reasons that had been suggested for it.

:...I'm referring to reasons given by general authorities and reasons elaborated upon [those reasons] by others. The whole set of reasons seemed to me to be unnecessary risk taking.

:...Let's [not] make the mistake that's been made in the past, here and in other areas, trying to put reasons to revelation. The reasons turn out to be man-made to a great extent. The revelations are what we sustain as the will of the Lord and that's where safety lies.{{ref|oaks1}}

Interviewed for a PBS special on the Church, Elder Jeffrey R. Holland said:

:One clear-cut position is that the folklore must never be perpetuated. ... I have to concede to my earlier colleagues. ... They, I'm sure, in their own way, were doing the best they knew to give shape to [the policy], to give context for it, to give even history to it. All I can say is however well intended the explanations were, I think almost all of them were inadequate and/or wrong. ...

:It probably would have been advantageous to say nothing, to say we just don't know, and, [as] with many religious matters, whatever was being done was done on the basis of faith at that time. But some explanations were given and had been given for a lot of years. ... At the very least, there should be no effort to perpetuate those efforts to explain why that doctrine existed. I think, to the extent that I know anything about it, as one of the newer and younger ones to come along, ... we simply do not know why that practice, that policy, that doctrine was in place.{{ref|holland1}}

Past leaders are not alive to apologize for statements that unwittingly contributed to difficulties for the faithful and stumbling blocks for those who might have otherwise have been more attracted to the overall goodness of Christ's gospel. Presumably they would join with another voice from the dust to plead for us to have charity towards them ({{s||Ether|12|35-36}}) despite their imperfections. Rather than condemning, we ought to "give thanks unto God...that ye may learn to be more wise than we have been" ({{s||Mormon|9|31}}).

===Tolerance and equality commanded===

In 1972, Harold B. Lee cautioned:

:We are having come into the Church now many people of various nationalities. We in the Church must remember that we have a history of persecution, discrimination against our civil rights, and our constitutional privileges being withheld from us. These who are members of the Church, regardless of their color, their national origin, are members of the church and kingdom of God. Some of them have told us that they are being shunned. There are snide remarks. We are withdrawing ourselves from them in some cases.

:Now we must extend the hand of fellowship to men everywhere, and to all who are truly converted and who wish to join the Church and partake of the many rewarding opportunities to be found therein. We ask the Church members to strive to emulate the example of our Lord and Master Jesus Christ, who gave us the new commandment that we should love one another. I wish we could remember that.{{ref|lee.384}}

==Conclusion==

Recent remarks by the current prophet, President Hinckley, demonstrate that members of the LDS church must put aside any thoughts or legacy of racial intolerance or unkindness:

:Racial strife still lifts its ugly head. I am advised that even right here among us there is some of this. I cannot understand how it can be. It seemed to me that we all rejoiced in the 1978 revelation given President Kimball. I was there in the temple at the time that that happened. There was no doubt in my mind or in the minds of my associates that what was revealed was the mind and the will of the Lord.

:Now I am told that racial slurs and denigrating remarks are sometimes heard among us. I remind you that no man who makes disparaging remarks concerning those of another race can consider himself a true disciple of Christ. Nor can he consider himself to be in harmony with the teachings of the Church of Christ. How can any man holding the Melchizedek Priesthood arrogantly assume that he is eligible for the priesthood whereas another who lives a righteous life but whose skin is of a different color is ineligible?

:Throughout my service as a member of the First Presidency, I have recognized and spoken a number of times on the diversity we see in our society. It is all about us, and we must make an effort to accommodate that diversity.

:Let us all recognize that each of us is a son or daughter of our Father in Heaven, who loves all of His children.

:Brethren, there is no basis for racial hatred among the priesthood of this Church. If any within the sound of my voice is inclined to indulge in this, then let him go before the Lord and ask for forgiveness and be no more involved in such.{{ref|hinckley1}}

''For further discussion see:''
* [[Racist statements by Church leaders]]
* [[Official Church doctrine and statements by Church leaders]].''
* [[Blacks_and_the_priesthood/Repudiated_ideas|Repudiated ideas]]

==Endnotes==
#{{note|brm1}}Bruce R. McConkie, "All Are Alike unto God," an address to a Book of Mormon Symposium for Seminary and Institute teachers, Brigham Young University, 18 August 1978.{{link|url=http://speeches.byu.edu/reader/reader.php?id=11017}}
#{{note|oaks1}}Dallin H. Oaks, Interview with Associated Press, in ''Daily Herald,'' Provo, Utah, 5 June 1988.
#{{note|holland1}} Jeffrey R. Holland, Interview, 4 March 2006. {{link|url=http://www.pbs.org/mormons/interviews/holland.html}}
#{{note|lee.384}} {{THBL1|start=384}}
#{{note|hinckley1}} {{Ensign | author=Gordon B. Hinckley | article=The Need for Greater Kindness|date=May 2006|start=58|end=61 }}{{link|url=http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/2006.htm/ensign%20may%202006.htm/the%20need%20for%20greater%20kindness.htm?fn=document-frameset.htm$f=templates$3.0}}

==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===
{{BlacksPriesthoodWiki}}
===FAIR web site===
{{BlacksPriesthoodFAIR}}

===Video===
{{BlackSaintsFAIRVideo}}

===External links===
{{BlacksPriesthoodLinks}}
===Printed material===
{{BlacksPriesthoodPrint}}
[[de:Schwarze_und_das_Priestertum/Die_Erklärungen_von_Mitgliedern_und_Führern_der_Kirche_vor_1978]]

Talk:Understanding pre-1978 statements about race

2009-07-03T02:46:09Z

BettinaSiebert:

Recent remarks by the current prophet, President Hinckley...
The current prophet is President Monson. --[[User:BettinaSiebert|BettinaSiebert]] 02:46, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Understanding pre-1978 statements about race

2009-07-03T02:44:54Z

BettinaSiebert: Created page with 'Recent remarks by the current prophet, President Hinckley... The current prophet is President Monson.'

Recent remarks by the current prophet, President Hinckley...
The current prophet is President Monson.

Mormonism and persecution/Danites

2009-07-02T09:52:20Z

BettinaSiebert:

==Criticism==
*Critics claim that Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon supported the formation of a vigilante band called the “Danites.”
*Critics claim that the Danites were pledged to “plunder, lie, and even kill if deemed necessary."

===Source(s) of the Criticism===
*{{CriticalWork:Abanes:One Nation|pages=151-154}}
*{{CriticalWork:Beck:Leaving|pages=}}
*{{CriticalWork:Brodie:No Man Knows|pages=422, 480}}
*{{CriticalWork:Denton:American Massacre|pages=16|source=Quinn}}
*{{CriticalWork:Ostling:Mormon America|pages=34}}

==Response==
{{main|Danites/Danites in anti-Mormon polemic}}

===Background===
The Danites were a brotherhood of church members that formed in Far West, Missouri in mid-1838. By this point in time, the Saints had experienced serious persecution, having been driven out of Kirtland by apostates, and driven out of Jackson County by mobs. Sidney Rigdon was publicly preaching that the Saints would not tolerate any more persecution, and that both apostates and mobs would be put on notice. The Danite organization took root within this highly charged and defensive environment.

The Danites are sometimes confused with the “Armies of Israel,” which was the official defensive organization that was tasked with defending the Saints. This is complicated by the fact that members of the Danite organization also served in the “Armies of Israel.”

===Purpose===
The Danites were led by Dr. Sampson Avard, and the group appears to have been formally formed about the time that Sidney Rigdon gave his “Salt Sermon” in Far West, in which he gave apostates an ultimatum to get out or suffer consequences.{{ref|gentry.4}} According to Avard, the original purpose of the band was to “drive from the county of Caldwell all that dissented from the Mormon church.”{{ref|document.25}} Once the dissenters had left the country, the Danites turned their attention to defending the Saints from mobs. Avard, however, took this purpose one step further by including retaliation against those who persecuted the Saints. Thus, the Danites began operating as a vigilante group outside the law. This, unfortunately, included stealing and plundering from those who stole and plundered from the Saints.{{ref|gentry.5}} The Danites believed that if they consecrated plundered goods to the Church, that they would be protected in battle.{{ref|gentry.9}} The group held secret meetings, with special signs used to identify themselves to one another.

===Trial===
Much of the information that we have about the Danite organization comes from the document describing the criminal court of inquiry held against church leaders in Richmond, Missouri on November 12, 1838. When the group’s activities were exposed and church leaders brought to trial, Avard became a primary witness for the prosecution, and laid the blame for the Danites at the feet of Joseph Smith. Avard claimed that he had been acting under the direction of the First Presidency.{{ref|gentry.7}}

Several witnesses indicated that Avard indicated that he would lie in order to incriminate the Church, and it is apparent that he testified in order to save himself.{{ref|document.40}}{{ref|HC.3:209-210}} Avard even produced a “Danite Constitution” for the court, despite the fact that nobody else in the organization had ever heard of it or seen it until that time.{{ref|gentry.11-12}}

Joseph Smith referred to the Danites as a “secret combination.” {{ref|HC.3:179}} Referring to Avard’s testimony before the judge, B.H. Roberts states,

:This lecture of the doctor's revealed for the first time the true intent of his designs, and the brethren he had duped suddenly had their eyes opened, and they at once revolted and manfully rejected his teachings. Avard saw that he had played and lost, so he said they had better let the matter drop where it was. As soon as Avard's villainy was brought to the knowledge of the president of The Church he was promptly excommunicated, and was afterwards found making an effort to become friends with the mob, and conspiring against The Church. This is the history of the Danite band, "which", says the Prophet Joseph, "died almost before it had an existence."{{ref|roberts.220}}

===Legends===
Legends of “Danites” persisted for many years as the Saints moved to Nauvoo and later to Utah. The mysterious “Danites” have served as villains in fictional stories such as the first Sherlock Holmes novel, ''A Study in Scarlet''. Danites are sometimes associated with the [[Mountain Meadows Massacre]], since one of the principal protagonists of that unfortunate event, John D. Lee, was himself once a member of the Danites in Missouri. With the help of imaginative writers, the mysterious “Danites” took on the status of an “urban legend” as a shadowy, mysterious vigilante group which enforced the will of church leaders by practicing [[Blood atonement|blood atonement]] on those who opposed them. Brigham Young gave his opinion of such rumors during a conference talk on April 7, 1867 when he said:

:Is there war in our religion? No; neither war nor bloodshed. Yet our enemies cry out "bloodshed," and "oh, what dreadful men these Mormons are, and those Danites! how they slay and kill!" Such is all nonsense and folly in the extreme. The wicked slay the wicked, and they will lay it on the Saints.{{ref|JoD.12:30}}

==Conclusion==

Regardless of their original motives, the Danites ultimately were led astray by their leader, Sampson Avard. Avard attempted to blame Joseph Smith in order to save himself. Joseph, however, clearly refuted both the organization and Avard.

==Notes==
#{{note|gentry.4}} Leland H. Gentry, [http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/cdm4/document.php?CISOROOT=/byustudies&CISOPTR=460&REC=6 "The Danite Band of 1838"], ''BYU Studies'' Vol. 14, No. 4. 1974, p. 4.
#{{note|document.25}}''Document Containing the Correspondence, Orders &c. in Relation to the Disturbances with the Mormons; And the Evidence Given Before the Hon. Austin A. King, Judge of the Fifth Judicial Circuit of the State of Missouri, at the Court-House in Richmond, in a Criminal Court of Inquiry, Begun November 12, 1838, on the Trial of Joseph Smith, Jr., and Others, for High Treason and Other Crimes Against the State.'', (1841) U.S. Government Printing Office.
#{{note|gentry.5}}Gentry, p. 5.
#{{note|gentry.9}}Gentry, p. 9.
#{{note|gentry.7}}Gentry, p. 7.
#{{note|HC.3:179}}{{HoC1 | vol=3|start=179}}
#{{note|document.40}}''Document'', p. 40.
#{{note|HC.3:209-210}}{{HoC | vol=3| start=209| end=210}}
#{{note|gentry.11-12}}Gentry, p. 11-12.
#{{note|Roberts.220}} B.H. Roberts, [http://books.google.com/books?id=TcfYO8JFElcC&printsec=frontcover&dq=%22the+missouri+persecutions%22+roberts&source=gbs_book_other_versions_r&cad=1_1 ''The Missouri Persecutions''], 1900, p. 220
#{{note|JoD.12:30}}{{JD1 | author=Brigham Young|vol=12 |start=30}}

==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===
*[[Blood atonement]]

===FAIR web site===
*{{Tg|url=http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai047.html|topic=Danites}}

===External links===
*{{BYUS|start=421|end=450|vol=14|num=?|date=Summer 1974|article=The Danite Band of 1838|author=Leland H. Gentry}}{{link|url=http://byustudies.byu.edu/Products/MoreInfoPage/MoreInfo.aspx?Type=7&ProdID=672}}
*{{BYUS1|author=Dean C. Jessee and David J. Whittaker|article=The Last Months of Mormonism in Missouri: The Albert Perry Rockwood Journal|vol=28|num=1|date=1988|start=11—15}} {{NeedCite}}
* {{studyandfaith |author=David J. Whittaker|article=The Book of Daniel in Early Mormon Thought|vol=1|start=155|end=201 }}

===Printed material===
*Alex Baugh, "A Call To Arms: The 1838 Mormon Defense of Northern Missouri" (Ph.D. diss., Brigham Young University, 1996), 68–102.{{link|url=http://byustudies.byu.edu/Products/MoreInfoPage/MoreInfo.aspx?Type=4&ProdID=1230}}
* {{EoM|author=David J. Whittaker|article=Danites|start=356|end=357|vol=1}}{{link1|url=http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/cgi-bin/showfile.exe?CISOROOT=/EoM&CISOPTR=3597&filename=3598.pdf}}
[[de:Daniten]]

Joseph Smith's First Vision/Brigham Young's references to the First Vision

2009-07-02T09:48:38Z

BettinaSiebert:

{{FirstVisionPortal}}

==Criticism==

"Brigham Young never once mentioned the First Vision of God the Father and his Son in his 30 years of preaching as President of the Church."

===Source(s) of the criticism===

*Christian Research and Counsel, "Documented History of Joseph Smith's First Vision," full-color pamphlet, 10 pages. [There is a notation within this pamphlet indicating that research and portions of text were garnered from Utah Lighthouse Ministry]

'''''Note that the same critics'' also ''claim that Brigham Young taught only that an angel came: a strange claim to make while insisting that Brigham never spoke of the First Vision at all.''
{{SeeAlso|Brigham Young said the Lord didn't appear}}

==Response==

This charge is not historically accurate. It can be plainly seen in the information provided below that Brigham Young was aware of the First Vision story during his tenure as President of the Church and not only shared it with non-Mormons in written form but also spoke to the Saints about it over the pulpit.

'''1835–36'''
:Around 9 August 1835 Joseph Young (Brigham Young’s brother) was serving as a missionary with Burr Riggs and they were teaching the First Vision story.{{ref|fn1}} In the Summer of 1836 Joseph Young and Brigham Young were serving together as missionaries.{{ref|fn2}}

'''1850'''
:On 1 November 1850 Lorenzo Snow wrote a letter to Brigham Young and informed him that he had produced a tract called ''The Voice of Joseph'' which included information on “visions of Joseph Smith.” This tract talks about the Prophet’s First Vision experience. {{ref|fn3}}

'''1854'''
:The Lucy Mack Smith autobiography called ''Biographical Sketches'' became available in Utah. Since Brigham Young protested vigorously against some of this book’s content he was more than likely aware of the 1838 Church history First Vision material printed within it. {{ref|fn4}}

'''1857'''
:On 13 August 1857 Brigham Young, Heber C. Kimball, Daniel H. Wells, John Taylor, Willard Richards, and Wilford Woodruff placed several publications in the southeast cornerstone of the Salt Lake Temple that contained First Vision accounts. They were:
:*''The Pearl of Great Price''
:*Lorenzo Snow, ''The Voice of Joseph''
:*Orson Pratt, (various tracts)
:*Franklin D. Richards, ''Compendium''
:*John Jaques, ''Catechism for Children''
:*''Millennial Star'', vol. 14 supplement
:*''Millennial Star'', vol. 3{{ref|fn5}}

'''1858'''
:On 20 January 1858 apostles Wilford Woodruff and George A. Smith appended a statement to the published Church history stating that “since the death of the Prophet Joseph, the history has been carefully revised under the strict inspection of President Brigham Young, and approved of by him.” This history contains the 1838 First Vision account. {{ref|fn6}}

'''1859'''
:In the Tabernacle in Salt Lake City on 1 September 1859 Brigham Young referred to Joseph Smith’s published 1838 First Vision account. He asked, “[H]ave I yet lived to the state of perfection that I can commune in person with the Father and the Son at my will and pleasure? No . . . . [three sentences later] Joseph Smith in his youth had revelations from God. He saw and understood for himself. Are you acquainted with his life? '''You can read the history of it'''. I was acquainted with him during many years. He had heavenly visions; angels administered to him” {{ref|fn7}}

'''1861'''
:In the Tabernacle in Salt Lake City on 3 March 1861 Brigham Young said: “The Lord chose Joseph Smith, called upon him at fourteen years of age, gave him visions, and led him along, guided and directed him in his obscurity until he brought forth the plates and translated them."{{ref|fn8}}

'''1864'''
:On 1 September 1864 Brigham Young signed and dated a copy of the ''Pearl of Great Price'' and donated it to Harvard university. This volume contains Joseph Smith’s 1838 First Vision account.{{ref|fn9}}

'''1867'''
:In the Bowery in Salt Lake City on 23 June 1867 Brigham Young said: “When the Lord called upon Joseph he was but a boy—a child, only about fourteen years of age. He was not filled with traditions; his mind was not made up to this, that, or the other. I very well recollect the reformation which took place in the country among the various denominations of Christians—the Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, and others—when Joseph was a boy. Joseph’s mother, one of his brothers, and one, if not two, of his sisters were members of the Presbyterian Church, and on this account the Presbyterians hung to the family with great tenacity. And in the midst of these revivals among the religious bodies, the invitation, ‘Come and join our church,’ was often extended to Joseph, but more particularly from the Presbyterians. Joseph was naturally inclined to be religious, and being young, and surrounded with this excitement, no wonder that he became seriously impressed with the necessity of serving the Lord. But as the cry on every hand was, ‘Lo, here is Christ,’ and ‘Lo, there!’ Said he, ‘Lord, teach me, that I may know for myself, who among these are right.’ And what was the answer? ‘They are all out of the way; they have gone astray, and there is none that doeth good, no not one’” {{ref|fn10}}

==Conclusion==

It cannot be denied that Brigham Young was aware of the official version of the First Vision as published by Joseph Smith in Nauvoo, Illinois. And it is almost beyond comprehension to believe that President Young was not aware of numerous First Vision story recitals (both in print and over the pulpit) by high Church authorities such as Orson Pratt, Lorenzo Snow, John E. Page, George Q. Cannon, Orson Hyde, John Taylor, Franklin D. Richards, and George A. Smith.

==Endnotes==

#{{note|fn1}} (See {{YWJ|vol=18|num=12|date=December 1907|start=537|end=539}}; Samuel W. Richards, Journal Book 2 of Travels To Nauvoo, BYU Special Collections, Writings of Early Latter-day Saints, 26; {{LDSBioEncy1|vol=1|start=187}})
#{{note|fn2}} {{LDSBioEncy1|vol=1|start=115}}
#{{note|fn3}} Lorenzo Snow, ''The Italian Mission'' (London: W. Aubrey, 1851), 13; also in {{BioLS|start=127|end=128}}
#{{note|fn4}} {{Biosketch1|start=75}}; {{LucyMackSmith-Proctor1| start=editor's introduction }}
#{{note|fn5}} Brigham Young Journal, 13 August 1857, LDS Church Archives, Salt Lake City, Utah; Scott G. Kenney, ed., ''Wilford Woodruff's Journals'' (Salt lake City: Signature Books, 1983), 5:76–77.
#{{note|fn6}} ''Deseret News'', vol. 7, no. 46, 20 January 1858, 363.
#{{note|fn7}}{{JD|author=Brigham Young|vol=7|start=243|end=244; emphasis added}}
#{{note|fn8}}{{JD1|author=Brigham Young|vol=8|start=354}}
#{{note|fn9}} {{RegionalStudiesBritishIsles1| author= Rodney Turner |article= Franklin D. Richards and the Pearl of Great Price |start=184}}
#{{note|fn10}} {{JD|author=Brigham Young|vol= 12|start=68|end=69}}
==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===
{{FirstVisionWiki}}

===FAIR web site===
{{FirstVisionFAIR}}

===External links===
{{FirstVisionLinks}}

===Printed material===
{{FirstVisionPrint}}
[[Category:First Vision]]
[[Category:Brigham Young]]
[[de:Brigham_Young_erwähnte_die_Erste_Vision_nie]]

The Book of Mormon as the most correct book

2009-07-02T09:46:42Z

BettinaSiebert:

{{BoMPortal}}

==Criticism==
In the ''History of the Church'', the following entry is recorded as having been made by Joseph Smith on November 28, 1841.{{ref|fn1}}

:Sunday, 28.--I spent the day in the council with the Twelve Apostles at the house of President Young, conversing with them upon a variety of subjects. Brother Joseph Fielding was present, having been absent four years on a mission to England. I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book.

Critics of the Church assert that the phrase "the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth" means that the Prophet Joseph Smith was declaring the Book of Mormon to be without error of any kind. Since each edition of the printed Book of Mormon since 1829 (including editions published during the life of Joseph Smith) has included changes of wording, spelling, or punctuation, critics declare Joseph Smith's statement to have been demonstrably false, thus proving that he was a false prophet.

===Source(s) of the Criticism===
*{{CriticalWork:Abanes:One Nation|pages=74}}
*{{CriticalWork:Martin:Kingdom of the Cults|pages=182}}
*{{CriticalWork:Southerton:Losing|pages=xiv}}

==Response==

===Meaning of "most correct"===
Critics of the Book of Mormon have mistakenly interpreted "correct" to be synonymous with "perfect," and therefore expect the Book of Mormon to be without any errors in grammar, spelling, punctuation, clarity of phrasing, and other such ways.

But when Joseph Smith said the Book of Mormon was the "most correct of any book," he was referring to more than just wording, a fact made clear by the remainder of his statement: He said "a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book." When read in context, the Prophet's statement refers to the correctness of ''the principles it teaches.''

===No book of scripture is "perfect"===
Latter-day Saints do not subscribe to the conservative Protestant belief in [[Biblical inerrancy|scriptural inerrancy]]. We do not believe that ''any'' book of scripture is perfect or infallible. Brigham Young explained:

:When God speaks to the people, he does it in a manner to suit their circumstances and capacities.... Should the Lord Almighty send an angel to re-write the Bible, it would in many places be very different from what it now is. And I will even venture to say that if the Book of Mormon were now to be re-written, in many instances it would materially differ from the present translation. According as people are willing to receive the things of God, so the heavens send forth their blessings.{{ref|brigham1}}

So while the Book of Mormon has come down to us with fewer doctrinal errors and corruptions than the Bible, even it could be improved if we were ready to receive further light and knowledge.

===Perfectly Translated===
Another perfection of the book is its translation. Edward Stevenson related Martin Harris' description of the necessity for the translation to be perfect before the Lord would allow progression to the next character:
:By aid of the seer stone, sentences would appear and were read by the Prophet and written by Martin, and when finished he would say, “Written,” and if correctly written, that sentence would disappear, and another appear in its place, but if not written correctly, it remained until corrected, so that the translation was just as it was engraved on the plates, precisely in the language then used.{{ref|stevenson1}}

==Conclusion==
The Book of Mormon is the "most correct of any book" in that it contains [[Book of Mormon and the fulness of the gospel|the fulness of the gospel]] and presents it in a manner that is "plain and precious" ({{scripture|1|Nephi|13|35,40}}).

==Endnotes==
#{{note|fn1}} {{HoC1|vol=4|start=461}}
#{{note|brigham1}} {{JD1|author=Brigham Young|vol=9|start=311}}
#{{note|stevenson1}} {{MS | author=Martin Harris | article=Statement to Edward Stevenson|date=6 February 1882|start=86|end=87|vol=44|num=6|}} {{link|url=http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/cdm4/document.php?CISOROOT=/MStar&CISOPTR=5774&REC=4}}

==Further reading==

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

===FAIR web site===
{{BoMFAIR}}

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

===Printed material===
{{BoMPrint}}
[[es:El_Libro_de_Morm%C3%B3n_como_el_libro_m%C3%A1s_correcto]]
[[de:Buch_Mormon_als_das_richtigste_aller_Bücher]]

Creative fiction theories of Book of Mormon authorship

2009-07-02T09:44:53Z

BettinaSiebert:

==Criticism==
Critics attempt to explain the complexity of the Book of Mormon through appeals to "automatic writing" or "spirit writing."

===Source(s) of the Criticism===
* Scott C. Dunn, “Automaticity and the Dictation of the Book of Mormon,” in Dan Vogel and Brent Lee Metcalfe eds., ''American Apocrypha'' (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2002), 33.
* Scott C. Dunn, "Spirit Writing: Another Look at the Book of Mormon," ''Sunstone'' 10 (June 1985): 17-26.

==Response==
The person who proposes this idea, Scott Dunn, gives us the following definition of automatic writing:

:“The ability to dictate or write material in a relatively rapid, seemingly effortless and fluent manner. Moreover, the practitioner of automatic writing does not consciously compose the material. Indeed, except for sometimes knowing a word or two moments in advance of writing or speaking, the individual is typically unaware of what the content of the writing will be.”

Mr. Dunn gives multiple examples of documented automatic writing experiences and correlates them with various facts surrounding the origins of the Book of Mormon. Some people write with just a pencil while others use objects such as stones or crystals to receive the text that is to be written. This information could lead one to draw the conclusion that the Book of Mormon’s origins are something other than divine.

Critics have come up empty handed after many attempts to refute the divinity of the Book of Mormon. The historical documentation and modern-day evaluations disprove the possibility that Joseph Smith wrote the book himself. Mr. Dunn explains this in his own paper: “Virtually all available historical evidence militates against the possibility of calculated fraud.” Without a logical explanation of its source, some critics have turned to supernatural explanations that do not involve the divine as Joseph testified. As people have tried to attribute the writing/translation of the Book of Mormon to something other than divine the accusations have been proven incorrect. This has lead to an increase in the complexity of the claims. Similarly, more complex research has been conducted to thwart the negative claims. The only claims left are those of supernatural origin, either the book is of God or the devil.

If one believes that Joseph Smith produced the Book of Mormon by way of divinely inspired automatic writing, Mr. Dunn gives us the following explanation:

:“It may be, for example, that automatic writing is God's true means of giving revelations and translations (in the case of Joseph Smith) which has been counterfeited by Satan (in the cases of Jane Roberts, Pearl Curran, and others).”

One may ask why these other cases exist. In general, there are many examples of the adversary mimicking the ways of the Lord to deceive mankind. He knew that the Book of Mormon would be a great work in the hands of the Lord to bring about the salvation of many souls and to be the foundation for His restored church. It is not hard to believe that Satan would try to create similar stories to that of Joseph’s in an effort to discredit the work of the Lord.

==Conclusion==

We do not fully understand the method that the Lord used to give the gift of translation to Brother Joseph. Whether Joseph Smith received the translation of the Book of Mormon through automatic writing or not, the essential point is to know if that translation is from God, and therefore another testament of Jesus Christ.

==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===
*{{BoMAuthorshipWiki}}

===FAIR web site===
{{BoMAuthorshipFAIR}}

===External links===
*{{Dialogue1|author=Blake Ostler|article=The Book of Mormon as a Modern Expansion of an Ancient Source|vol=20|num=1|date=Spring 1987|start=66|end=123}}{{link|url=http://content.lib.utah.edu/cdm4/document.php?CISOROOT=/dialogue&CISOPTR=16228&CISOSHOW=16115&REC=1}}
*{{JBMS-15-1-5}}
*{{FR-19-1-5}}
*{{BoMAuthorshipLinks}}

===Printed material===
* Richard L. Anderson, “Imitation Gospels and Christ’s Book of Mormon Ministry,” in ''Apocryphal Writings and the Latter Day Saints'', ed. C. Wilfred Griggs (Provo, UT: BYU Religious Studies Center, 1986), 53–107. ISBN 088494574X. ISBN 978-0884945741. ISBN 1589580893. ISBN 978-1589580893.
*{{BoMAuthorshipPrint}}
[[de:Buch_Mormon_Autorschaft:_Automatisches_Schreiben]]

Question: Do the Latter-day Saint "Three Degrees of Glory" have a basis in the Bible?

2009-07-02T09:41:27Z

BettinaSiebert:

{{BiblePortal}}

==Criticism==
Critics claim that the doctrine of three heavens has no basis in the Bible.

===Source(s) of the criticism===
*{{CriticalWork:Abanes:Becoming Gods|pages=201}}
* Floyd C. McElveen, ''The Mormon Illusion'' (Ventura: Reagal Books, 1977), 121.

==Response{{ref|source.1}}==

The Bible makes clear that all mankind will be "judged. . . according to their works." ({{b||Revelation|20|12}}) And if so, won't everyone's rewards be different one from another? Jesus insisted that in His "Father's house are many mansions" ({{b||John|14|2}}), and Paul wrote that in the judgment a person's works might be added to his reward or burned up, but either way he might still be saved: "If any man's work abide which he hath built [upon the foundation of Jesus Christ], he shall receive a reward. If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire." ({{b|1|Corinthians|3|14-15}}) Paul also indicated that he had seen a vision of "the third heaven." ({{b|2|Corinthians|12|2}}) Therefore, one might logically conclude from these passages that recipients of salvation will be allotted varying rewards within at least three different "heavens" or "degrees of glory." However, it must be admitted that this fact is not really made explicit in the Bible, so it is understandable that the Christian world has for many centuries been content with the doctrine of one heaven and one hell.

==The LDS Doctrine of Degrees of Glory==

While pondering the significance of certain of the aforementioned passages in the Bible, Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon were given a most striking vision of the fate of mankind after the general resurrection and judgment, which included a description of the three principal kingdoms of glory. (D&C 76) They found that the first kingdom, called the Celestial, will be inhabited by those who have overcome by faith in Jesus Christ (D&C 76:50-70, 92-96), including children who have died and those who would have accepted the gospel in this life, but were not given the chance until they reached the spirit world. ({{s||DC|137|1-10}}) The second kingdom, called the Terrestrial, will be inhabited by good people who were just and kind, but were not valiant in their testimony of Jesus. Those who rejected the gospel in this life, but afterwards received it will be given a reward in this kingdom, as well. ({{s||DC|76|71-80,91,97}}){{ref|fn199}} The third, or Telestial, kingdom will be given to the generally wicked masses of the earth who spent their entire residence in the Spirit World in Hell, and so were not worthy of any higher glory. ({{S||DC|76|81-90,98-112}})

Another distinction between these kingdoms is that those who receive Celestial glory will reside in the presence of the Father Himself, while those in the Terrestrial kingdom will receive the presence of the Son, and those in the Telestial will have the Holy Ghost to minister to them. ({{s||DC|76|62,77,86}})

==Sun, Moon, and Stars as Types of the Degrees of Glory==

What marvelous light this vision has thrown upon obscure Bible passages! For example, what good does it do to know that there are three heavens if one does not know anything about them? Another example of a passage illuminated by this revelation is Paul's description of the glory of the resurrected body:

:There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another. There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory. So also is the resurrection of the dead. ({{b|1|Corinthians|15|40-42}})

In the vision of the kingdoms of glory, the Lord revealed that this passage is not just a comparison of earthly bodies with heavenly, but also a reference to the fact that there are three different major levels of glory to which a body can be resurrected:

:And the glory of the celestial is one, even as the glory of the sun is one. And the glory of the terrestrial is one, even as the glory of the moon is one. And the glory of the telestial is one, even as the glory of the stars is one; for as one star differeth from another star in glory, even so differs one from another in glory in the telestial world. ({{s||DC|76|96-98}})

Origen, in the early third century, revealed that the early Church interpreted this passage in essentially the same way:

:Our understanding of the passage indeed is, that the Apostle, wishing to describe the great difference among those who rise again in glory, i.e., of the saints, borrowed a comparison from the heavenly bodies, saying, "One is the glory of the sun, another the glory of the moon, another the glory of the stars."{{ref|fn200}}

He further explained that the highest of the three degrees is associated with the Father, and the second degree with the Son:

:And some men are connected with the Father, being part of Him, and next to these, those whom our argument now brings into clearer light, those who have come to the Saviour and take their stand entirely in Him. And third are those of whom we spoke before, who reckon the sun and the moon and the stars to be gods, and take their stand by them. And in the fourth and last place those who submit to soulless and dead idols.{{ref|fn201}}

We shall see that Origen's doctrine of a fourth degree for the very wicked is fairly consistent with LDS belief, as well.

John Chrysostom was another witness to the fact that the early Church considered this passage to be a reference to degrees of reward in the afterlife:

:And having said this, he ascends again to the heaven, saying, "There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon." For as in the earthly bodies there is a difference, so also in the heavenly; and that difference no ordinary one, but reaching even to the uttermost: there being not only a difference between sun and moon, and stars, but also between stars and stars. For what though they be all in the heaven? yet some have a larger, others a less share of glory. What do we learn from hence? That although they be all in God's kingdom, all shall not enjoy the same reward; and though all sinners be in hell, all shall not endure the same punishment.{{ref|fn202}}

==More Ancient Witnesses to the Three Degrees of Glory==

This doctrine goes back much further than Origen and Chrysostom, however. Irenaeus preserved the same tradition which had supposedly come from the elders who knew the Apostles. Many think he received it from Papias:

:And as the presbyters say, Then those who are deemed worthy of an abode in heaven shall go there, others shall enjoy the delights of paradise, and others shall possess the splendour of the city; for everywhere the Saviour shall be seen according as they who see Him shall be worthy. [They say, moreover], that there is this distinction between the habitation of those who produce an hundred-fold, and that of those who produce sixty-fold, and that of those who produce thirty-fold: for the first will be taken up into the heavens, the second will dwell in paradise, the last will inhabit the city; and that was on this account the Lord declared, "In My Father's house are many mansions." For all things belong to God, who supplies all with a suitable dwelling-place; even as His Word says, that a share is allotted to all by the Father, according as each person is or shall be worthy. And this is the couch on which the guests shall recline, having been invited to the wedding. The presbyters, the disciples of the Apostles, affirm that this is the gradation and arrangement of those who are saved, and that they advance through steps of this nature; also that they ascend through the Spirit to the Son, and through the Son to the Father, and that in due time the Son will yield up His work to the Father, even as it is said by the Apostle, "For He must reign till He hath put all enemies under His feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death."{{ref|fn203}}

Clement of Alexandria also expressed belief in the three degrees, and echoed the Lord's revelation to Joseph Smith that those in the highest degree "are gods, even the sons of God." ({{s||DC|76|58}})

:Conformably, therefore, there are various abodes, according to the worth of those who have believed . . . . These chosen abodes, which are three, are indicated by the numbers in the Gospel--the thirty, the sixty, the hundred. And the perfect inheritance belongs to those who attain to "a perfect man," according to the image of the Lord . . . . To the likeness of God, then, he that is introduced into adoption and the friendship of God, to the just inheritance of the lords and gods is brought; if he be perfected, according to the Gospel, as the Lord Himself taught.{{ref|fn204}}

Clement also preached that the three gradations of glory are procured by virtue of three types of actions:

:[Clement of Alexandria] reckons three kinds of actions, the first of which is . . . right or perfect action, which is characteristic of the perfect man and Gnostic alone, and raises him to the height of glory. The second is the class of . . . medium, or intermediate actions, which are done by less perfect believers, and procure a lower grade of glory. In the third place he reckons sinful actions, which are done by those who fall away from salvation.{{ref|fn205}}

==Other Systems of Multiple Heavens==

Actually, there were several schemes for the structure of the heavens, with different numbers of heavens which varied also in their contents.{{ref|fn206}} But even where three degrees were not specifically mentioned, it was maintained that various gradations of the elect exist. For example, Similitude 8 in the Pastor of Hermas discusses various types of elect. The editors of one collection of early Christian documents preface the chapter with this summary: "That there are many kinds of elect, and of repenting sinners: and how all of them shall receive a reward proportionable to the measure of their repentance and good works."{{ref|fn207}}

Jesus, in the Epistle of the Apostles, made a distinction between the "elect" and "most elect."{{ref|fn208}} And consistent with this, the Jewish Christian Clementine Recognitions reduced the number of heavens to two.{{ref|fn209}}

One of the most popular schemes was that of seven heavens. Daniélou asserts that the idea of seven heavens was first introduced by certain Jewish Christian groups and "derives from oriental, Irano-Babylonian influences," while the older Jewish apocalyptic tradition and many other early Christian groups held to the three heavens scheme.{{ref|fn210}} However, it appears that the seven heavens may originally have been consistent with the three heavens doctrine. For example, we have seen that Irenaeus preserved Papias's doctrine of three heavens, but in another passage he asserted that "the earth is encompassed by seven heavens, in which dwell Powers and Angels and Archangels, giving homage to the Almighty God who created all things . . . ."{{ref|fn211}} As Daniélou points out, since the seven heavens were the dwelling places of angels, they probably were thought to have been gradations within the second of the three principal heavens.{{ref|fn212}}

==Outer Darkness==

As we noted in the discussion of the nature of the spirit world, both the Latter-day Saints and the early Christians have taught that the "hell" associated with the spirit world will have an end. It should be noted here, however, that there will be an everlasting hell after the resurrection, and the promise of eternal punishment is very real for those who in this life and the next not only reject Christ and His Kingdom, but who consciously fight against it once they have received a witness of its truth. The Lord revealed to the Prophet that those who deny the Holy Ghost, and thus committing the unpardonable sin, will be given a kingdom of totally without glory called "outer darkness":

:Thus saith the Lord concerning all those who know my power, and have been made partakers thereof, and suffered themselves through the power of the devil to be overcome, and to deny the truth and defy my power--They are they who are the sons of perdition, of whom I say that it had been better for them never to have been born; For they are vessels of wrath, doomed to suffer the wrath of God, with the devil and his angels in eternity; Concerning whom I have said there is no forgiveness in this world nor in the world to come--Having denied the Holy Spirit after having received it, and having denied the Only Begotten Son of the Father, having crucified him unto themselves and put him to an open shame. ({{s||DC|76|31-35}})

Similarly, both the gnostic Christian Gospel of Philip and the Pastor of Hermas describe the denizens of "outer darkness" as those who have made a conscious and specific choice to rebel against God:

:An Apostolic man in a vision saw some people shut up in a house of fire and bound with fiery chains, lying in flaming ointment . . . . And he said to them, "[Why are they not able] to be saved? [They answered], "They did not desire it. They received [this place as] punishment, what is called 'the [outer] darkness,' because he is [thrown] out (into it)."{{ref|fn213}}

:From the first mountain, which was black, they that believed are the following: apostates and blasphemers against the Lord, and betrayers of the servants of God. To these repentance is not open; but death lies before them, and on this account also are they black, for their race is a lawless one.{{ref|fn214}}

Origen taught that the wicked in outer darkness would be devoid of intelligence, and possessed of bodies stripped of all glory.

:But the outer darkness, in my judgment, is to be understood not so much of some dark atmosphere without any light, as of those persons who, being plunged in the darkness of profound ignorance, have been placed beyond the reach of any light of the understanding . . . . The wicked also, who in this life have loved the darkness of error and the night of ignorance, may be clothed with dark and black bodies after the resurrection . . . .{{ref|fn215}}

Finally, the Lord told Joseph Smith that He never fully reveals to men the punishments of outer darkness, but only brief visions thereof. Consider the wording of this revelation as compared to that used by Jesus in the apocryphal Gospel of Bartholomew:

:And the end thereof, neither the place thereof, nor their torment, no man knows; Neither was it revealed, neither is, neither will be revealed unto man, except to them who are made partakers thereof; Nevertheless, I, the Lord, show it by vision unto many, but straightway shut it up again; Wherefore, the end, the width, the height, the depth, and the misery thereof, they understand not, neither any man except those who are ordained unto this condemnation. ({[s||DC|76|45-48}})

:And the earth was rolled up like a volume of a book and the deep [hell] was revealed unto them. And when the Apostles saw it, they fell on their faces upon the earth. But Jesus raised them up, saying: Said I not unto you, "It is not good for you to see the deep." And again he beckoned unto the angels, and the deep was covered up.{{ref|fn216}}

==The Loss of the Doctrine of Degrees of Glory==

We have seen that the doctrine of degrees of glory was soon confused so that a number of schemes, notably that of seven heavens, were adopted, but it was always clear to everyone that there were different degrees of glory in the heavens. So how was this enlightening doctrine lost? Its fate is not completely clear, but the example of Jovinian, a monk from Milan who preached around the turn of the fifth century, may be instructive. Clark describes Jovinian's teaching, and Jerome's reaction to it: "Jovinian's view, that there are only two categories, the saved and the damned, is assessed by Jerome as more akin to the philosophy of the Old Stoics than that of Christians."{{ref|fn217}} Therefore, once again an older Christian doctrine was replaced by the speculations of a Greek philosophical school.

==Conclusion==

It is clear that Joseph Smith went far beyond the information found in the Bible concerning the degrees of glory in the resurrection. However, it is equally clear that many of those extra details he included are corroborated by the testimony of the early Christian writers—and this to such an extent that it is hard to explain the phenomenon as mere coincidence.

==Endnotes==
#{{note|source.1}} This response is originally from {{Restoringancientchurch |title=Salvation History and Requirements|chapter=4}} It may have been added to or modified since, by nature of a wiki project.
#{{note|fn199}}Note also that the paradise of Adam and Eve was in a Terrestrial state, and translated beings dwell in this sphere awaiting the resurrection, as well. See Chapter Note 2.
#{{note|fn200}}Origen, ''De Principiis'' 2:10:2, in ANF 4:294.
#{{note|fn201}}Origen, ''Commentary on John 2:3'', in ANF 10:324-325.
#{{note|fn202}}John Chrysostom, ''Homilies on 1 Corinthians 41:4'', in NPNF Series 1, 12:251.
#{{note|fn203}}Irenaeus, ''Against Heresies'' 5:36:1-2, in ANF 1:567, brackets in original.
#{{note|fn204}}Clement of Alexandria, ''Stromata'' 6:14, in ANF 2:506.
#{{note|fn205}}ANF 2:506.
#{{note|fn206}}Daniélou, ''The Theology of Jewish Christianity'', 179.
#{{note|fn207}}''The Lost Books of the Bible'' (New York: Bell Publishing Company, 1979), 240.
#{{note|fn208}}''Epistula Apostolorum'', in NTA 1:210.
#{{note|fn209}}Daniélou, ''The Theology of Jewish Christianity'', 174; However, it is clear from the passages which mention two heavens in the Recognitions that the two heavens spoken of are the visible heaven, which men can see, and the invisible, where the angels, etc., dwell. See ''Clementine Recognitions'' 9:3, in ANF 8:183; ''Clementine Recognitions'' 3:27, in ANF 8:121; ''Clementine Recognitions'' 2:68, in ANF 8:116. There is no mention of any division in the invisible heaven, but the following passage may be an oblique reference to the three degrees: "Be this therefore the first step to you of three; which step brings forth thirty commands, and the second sixty, and the third a hundred, as we shall expound more fully to you at another time." Peter, in Clementine Recognitions 4:36, in ANF 8:143. The footnote to this passage makes clear that whatever it referred to was most likely part of the esoteric tradition.
#{{note|fn210}}Daniélou, ''The Theology of Jewish Christianity'', 174.
#{{note|fn211}}Irenaeus, ''Proof of the Apostolic Preaching'' 9, in ACW 16:53.
#{{note|fn212}}Daniélou, ''The Theology of Jewish Christianity'', 176.
#{{note|fn213}}The Gospel of Philip, in , James M. Robinson, ed., ''The Nag Hammadi Library in English'' (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1977), 140, brackets in original.
#{{note|fn214}}The Pastor of Hermas, ''Sim.'' 9:19, in ANF 2:50.
#{{note|fn215}}Origen, ''De Principiis'' 2:10:8, in ANF 4:296.
#{{note|fn216}}''The Gospel of Bartholomew'', in ANT, 173.
#{{note|fn217}}Clark, ''The Origenist Controversy'', 131.

==Further reading==

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

===FAIR web site===
* Barry R. Bickmore, "The Tanners on the Hereafter:A Case Study in 'Studied Ignorance'," FAIR {{fairlink|url=http://www.fairlds.org/Anti-Mormons/Tanners_on_the_Hereafter.html}}
{{bibleFAIR}}

===External links===
*Mike Ash, "Doctrinal Criticisms: Degrees of Glory," 1999. {{link|url=http://www.mormonfortress.com/degrees5.html}}
{{bibleLinks}}

===Printed material===
{{BiblePrint}}
[[de:/Die_drei_Grade_der_Herrlichkeit_sind_nicht_biblisch]]

The Bible/Translations

2009-07-02T09:40:31Z

BettinaSiebert:

{{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 denominations, 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
[[de:Bibel:_Übersetzungen]]

Mormonism and priesthood/Restoration/Aaronic/Hebrews 7

2009-07-02T09:38:38Z

BettinaSiebert:

{{BiblePortal}}
{{question}}
==Question==
Hebrews 7 states that the Aaronic/Levitical Priesthood was "changed" to the unique priesthood "after the order of Melchizedek" held by Jesus Christ. Why then do Mormons still use the Aaronic Priesthood?

==Source(s) of the criticism==
*{{QuestionsMormonsShouldAsk}}
*{{CriticalWork:Abanes:Becoming Gods|pages=274-276}}
*{{CriticalWork:Martin:Kingdom of the Cults|pages=214}}
* Norman L. Geisler, "Scripture," in ''The Counterfeit Gospel of Mormonism'' (Eugene, Ore.: Harvest House, 1998), 9–49.
* {{50Questions}}
*{{CriticalWork:Tanner:Changing World|pages=443-444}}

==Answer==
The idea that the Melchizedek Priesthood superseded the Aaronic Priesthood is a correct one. But this does not necessarily imply that there is no Aaronic Priesthood. As other Christians see it, the Aaronic Priesthood is like a small glass of water that is replaced by a fruit juice (the Melchizedek Priesthood). They are distinguished from each other, in most Christians' eyes, as quite separate things.

The LDS would use a different metaphor to explain things: they might compare the Aaronic Priesthood to a glass of water that is filled only part way. Instead of being replaced by an entirely different drink, more water is poured into it until it is a full glass (the Melchizedek Priesthood).

===An Aaronic Appendage===
From an LDS perspective, the two priesthoods are really the same substance: the power of God delegated to man. From whence do the two priesthoods originate? The same source—God. What is the purpose of the two priesthoods? They bring mortals to the Lord (note that only the Melchizedek Priesthood can do so entirely—see [http://scriptures.lds.org/en/heb/7/11#11 Hebrews 7:11]—but the Aaronic Priesthood was instrumental in keeping ancient Israel holy and pure). The Aaronic Priesthood is merely a limited form of the Melchizedek Priesthood, or (as LDS scriptures call it) an "appendage" to it ([http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/107/13-14#13 D&C 107:13–14]).

Elder M. Russell Ballard of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles illustrated the doctrine clearly:

:Since all priesthood is Melchizedek, the Aaronic Priesthood being a portion of it, one does not lose the Aaronic Priesthood when he is ordained to the Melchizedek Priesthood [...] {{ref|Priesthood}}

===Why does the Aaronic Priesthood persist in the Church?===
So, if the Church possesses the Melchizedek priesthood, then why would the Aaronic Priesthood persist today? The Aaronic priesthood serves as a 'preparatory priesthood' (see [http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/84/26#26 D&C 84:26].) Just as the Levitical authority in ancient Israel acted as a "schoolmaster" to prepare Israel to receive Christ (see [http://scriptures.lds.org/en/gal/3/24-25#24 Galatians 3:24–25]), in the modern Church the Aaronic priesthood serves to school young men for service in God's kingdom on earth.

The modern Aaronic priesthood's organizational structure follows the pattern established by the New Testament Church, and consists of Deacons (see [http://scriptures.lds.org/en/philip/1/1#1 Philippians 1:1], [http://scriptures.lds.org/en/1_tim/3/8,10,12-13#8 1 Timothy 3:8,10,12–13]), Teachers ([http://scriptures.lds.org/en/acts/13/1#1 Acts 13:1],[http://scriptures.lds.org/en/1_cor/12/28-29#28 1 Corinthians 12:28–29]), and Priests (see [http://scriptures.lds.org/en/acts/6/7#7 Acts 6:7]), and countless references in the Old Testament to Levitical/Aaronic 'priests').

Each Aaronic priesthood office is trusted with more responsibility, providing LDS young men with the opportunity to progress and mature until they are ready to receive the priesthood in full—the Melchizedek Priesthood.

===Aaronic priesthood duties and function similar to ancient Israel===
Despite some modern differences from ancient Israel, the Aaronic Priesthood is not much different compared to ancient times.

The Aaronic priesthood performs two ordinances (some Christian groups would call these 'sacraments').
#Baptism: John the Baptist held the Aaronic Priesthood, which holds the keys of baptism, and baptism is of course a fundamental part of salvation through Christ (see [http://scriptures.lds.org/en/acts/2/38#38 Acts 2:38)].
#Sacrifice: The modern Church does not, of course, sacrifice animals because Jesus Christ sacrificed Himself for us, giving us the last great sacrifice (see [http://scriptures.lds.org/en/eph/5/2#2 Ephesians 5:2)]. Yet, the Church rejoices in and recalls His sacrifice for us by partaking of the sacrament ("communion" or "the Lord's supper" in other denominations) [http://scriptures.lds.org/en/matt/26/26-29#26 Matthew 26:26-29)]. Thus, the modern priest repeats a ceremony of atonement and sacrifice through the sacrament of the Lord's supper; this plays a similar theological role to the animal sacrifices offered by Aaronic priests anticipation of Christ's atonement and resurrection.

===Separation of priesthood duties in the New Testament Church===

It should be noted that all priesthood was not equivalent in the New Testament Church either. For example, many members had been baptized with water (an ordinance of the Aaronic priesthood) but had not yet received the Holy Ghost until one of the apostles laid hands upon them (a Melchizedek priesthood function). (See [http://scriptures.lds.org/en/acts/8/15-19#15 Acts 8:15–19], [http://scriptures.lds.org/en/acts/19/2-6#2 Acts 19:2–6]).

==Endnotes==
# {{note|Priesthood}} M. Russell Ballard, cited in ''Priesthood'' (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1981), 72.

==Further Reading==

===FAIR Wiki articles===
{{biblewiki}}

===FAIR website===

===External links===
{{AaronicPriesthoodLinks}}

===Printed material===
[[de:Hebräer_7_und_das_aaronische_Priestertum]]

Science and the Church of Jesus Christ/Global or local Flood

2009-07-02T09:36:41Z

BettinaSiebert:

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

==Criticism==

*Modern scientific knowledge regarding the diversity of species, language and evidence of continuous human habitation does not support the Biblical story that a global flood wiped out most life as recently as 4,400 years ago.
*Critics claim that LDS scriptures require Mormons to believe in a global flood, and that if LDS doctrine or leaders are fallible in their statements concerning the flood, then they must be wrong about other Church doctrines as well.
*If Noah's Flood was not global, how do we account for Joseph Smith's claim that the Garden of Eden was located in Missouri?
*Isn't it true that before the flood all the continents were all one land mass, since the Bible says that the earth was "divided in the days of Peleg."

===Source(s) of the criticism===
*{{CriticalWork:Southerton:Losing|pages=143, 203}}
*Internet message boards

==Response==
===Belief in a global flood within the Church===
Although this criticism is directed at the LDS church, it is really directed at anyone who believes in a literal reading of the Old Testament. LDS leaders have in the past taught the concept of a global flood based upon such a reading. Although the idea of the global flood has been used as an example, Church leaders have never stated that a belief in a global flood is ''necessary'' for salvation.

{{scripture||Genesis|7|19-23}} reads:
:19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.
:20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.
:21 And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man:
:22 All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.
:23 And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.

A similar reference to the destruction of all flesh from off the earth is found in Latter-day scripture in {{scripture||Moses|8|25-30}}. These passages have long been interpreted to mean that the entire globe was covered by water (although some have pointed out that the reader is left to wonder how "the mountains were covered" by water "fifteen cubits" deep — approximately 23 feet.) The primary reason for this global interpretation is the use of the word "earth." When modern readers see the word "earth," they envision the ''entire planetary sphere''. Dr. Duane E. Jeffery elaborates:

:A critical issue in the Flood story in the King James Bible has to do with translations of the Hebrew words ''eretz'' and ''adamah'' as meaning the entire “earth.” What do these terms actually mean? It is widely recognized that Hebrew is a wonderful language for poets, since virtually every word has multiple meanings. But that same characteristic makes it a horrible language for precision. As it turns out, ''eretz'' and ''adamah'' can indeed be a geographical reference akin to what we usually mean by “the earth.” But it is not at all clear that the ancients had the concept of a spherical planet that you and I do. Many scholars argue that the Bible writers thought in terms of a flat earth that was covered by a bowl-shaped firmament into which the windows of heaven were literally cut..." {{ref|jeffery.30}}

In fact, the concept of a spherical earth "did not appear in Jewish thought until the fourteenth or fifteenth century."{{ref|jeffery1}} The word "earth," as used in the Bible, simply refers to solid ground or land, as opposed to water (see {{scripture||Genesis|1|10}} — "God called the dry land Earth; and...the waters called he Seas...."). It is, of course, possible that earlier prophets had a more advanced view of the nature of the earth—this perspective could, however, have been lost to later centuries and scribes.

The concept of a global flood has become further reinforced within the Church by the fact that modern day prophets and apostles have taught that the flood washed away the earth's wickedness. For example, in 1880 Elder Orson Pratt stated that God "required our globe to be baptized by a flow of waters, and all of its sins were washed away, not one sin remaining."{{ref|pratt1}} Joseph Smith, Jr. taught that Noah was born to save seed of everything when the earth was washed of its wickedness by the flood.{{ref|smith1}} Such wickedness could include ''man's'' wickedness, or it could imply a need for the earth itself to have a type of baptism.

===Are Church members required to believe in a global flood?===
The early prophets and apostles taught their beliefs regarding a global flood using the scriptures. Modern scientific knowledge was unavailable to them, and they taught concepts which were in accordance with the popular belief. In modern times a belief in a global flood event, while still widely-held within the Church, does not constitute a critical part of Latter-day Saint theology.{{ref|jeffrey3}}

===How could the Garden of Eden have been in Missouri if the Flood was local?===
{{Main|Garden of Eden in Missouri?}}

A question related to the scope of the Flood that arises is how the Garden of Eden could possibly have been located in Missouri if Noah's flood was not global, since his posterity appeared in the Old World. If one were making assumptions about a localized flood in Noah's day, one would have to assume that the flood originated wherever Noah was, and that for as long as the ark drifted, extended at least as far as Noah could see. It would be difficult to know where Noah was before the flood, but the length of Noah's journey could be quite far based upon storm conditions and the time afloat.

One "limited flood" explanation that has been proposed for this is that Noah built his ark and either went down the Mississippi River valley, or that he built the ark on the East Coast of the North American continent. Another line of thought is that the placement of the Garden on the North American continent was more of a symbolic act intended to "sacralize" the land—thus providing it with its own "sacred history" similar to that of the Old World. The truth is, however, that the Biblical description of the location of the Garden of Eden does ''not'' match up with existing Old World geography, any more than it does with New World geography. {{ref|barney1}} (For a more in-depth treatment of this subject, see Kevin Barney, [http://www.bycommonconsent.com/2007/07/was-the-garden-of-eden-really-in-missouri Was the Garden of Eden Really in Missouri?] and the wiki article [[Garden of Eden in Missouri?]]).

===Doesn't the Bible say that the continents were divided immediately after the Flood?===

At least a few leaders of the Church have been of this view. Prominently, prior to becoming president of the Church, Joseph Fielding Smith wrote that

:in the beginning all of the land surface was in one place as it was in the days of Peleg, ({{b||Genesis|10|25}}.) that the earth was divided. Some Bible commentators have concluded that this division was one concerning the migrations of the inhabitants of the earth between them, but this is not the case. While this is but a very brief statement, yet it speaks of a most important event. The dividing of the earth was not an act of division by the inhabitants of the earth by tribes and peoples, but a breaking asunder of the continents, thus dividing the land surface and creating the Eastern Hemisphere and Western Hemisphere.{{ref|jfs1}}

John Taylor also expressed similar views, albeit more briefly.{{ref|taylor1}} It is perhaps important to note that then-Elder Smith wrote that "By looking at a wall map of the world, you will discover how the land surface along the northern and southern coast of the American Hemisphere and Europe and Africa has the appearance of having been together at one time."{{ref|jfs2}} Elder Smith was writing between 1953 and 1966; modern continental drift theory was only beginning to gain acceptance during this period (even by 1977, a geology textbook would note that "a poll of geologists now would probably show a substantial majority who favor the idea of drift," while also providing a substantial critique of the theory.{{ref|geobook1}})

It is difficult to know, then, if Elder Smith would have revised his view of the implication that continents "fit," jigsaw-puzzle-like, into each other had he been aware of some of the later evidence. He was certainly humble enough to renounce other views which he had expressed which contradicted later scientific advances.

A few scriptures, then, refer to the earth being ''divided'':

:{{s||Genesis|10|13}} and {{s|1|Chronicles|1|19}}: And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of the one was Peleg; because in his days the earth was divided: and his brother’s name was Joktan.

:{{s||DC|133|24}}: And the land of Jerusalem and the land of Zion shall be turned back into their own place, and the earth shall be like as it was in the days before it was divided.

The verses in Genesis and 1 Chronicles are describing the descendants of Shem. LDS scholar Hugh Nibley viewed Genesis 10:25 (which says that in the days of Peleg "the earth was divided") as meaning "the earth was divided among the children of Noah." There is no serious biblical scholarship that reads these verses as implying a rapid drift of the continents—partly because such an idea would have been utterly foreign to writers in that time period. Some members have preferred to take the reading of Elder Smith as described above.

{{NoOfficial}}

==Conclusion==
Like other Christians, Latter-day Saints hold different views on the issue of whether Noah's flood was local or global. Members of any given LDS congregation may have of a variety of points of view, and many have no firm opinion one way or the other.

A belief in either a global or local flood is not a requirement for Latter-day Saints; traditionally, many earlier members and leaders endorsed the global flood views common in society and Christendom generally. The accumulation of additional scientific information have led some to conclude that a local flood — one limited to the area in which Noah lived — is the best explanation of the available data. People of either view, or neither, can be members in good standing.

==Endnotes==
#{{note|jeffery1}}{{Sunstone | author=Duane E. Jeffery | article=Noah’s Flood: Modern Scholarship and Mormon Traditions|num=134|date=October 2004|start=30|end=}}
#{{note|jeffery2}}{{Sunstone | author=Duane E. Jeffery | article=Noah’s Flood: Modern Scholarship and Mormon Traditions|num=134|date=October 2004|start=27|end=45 }}
#{{note|pratt1}} {{JoD21_1 |author=Orson Pratt|title=The Earth's Baptism In Water|date=1 Aug. 1880|start=323}}
#{{note|smith1}} History of the Church 1:283; Evening and Morning Star, August 1832;
#{{note|jeffery3}}{{Sunstone | author=Duane E. Jeffery | article=Noah’s Flood: Modern Scholarship and Mormon Traditions|num=134|date=October 2004|start=31|end=32 }} Jeffrey notes that ideas of a global flood may have resulted from a widespread local problem. A current hypothesis that has been gaining ground since 1998 is that a significant flooding event occurred in the area now occupied by the Black Sea. Evidence has been discovered which has led a number of researchers to believe that the Black Sea area was once occupied by a completely isolated freshwater lake at a much lower level than the ocean. The theory is that the sea level rose and eventually broke through the Bosporus shelf, resulting in a rapid flooding event which would have wiped out all life living along the shores of the lake (see p. 34). Whether this is the source for the Genesis flood remains conjecture.
#{{note|barney1}}Kevin Barney, [http://www.bycommonconsent.com/2007/07/was-the-garden-of-eden-really-in-missouri Was the Garden of Eden Really in Missouri?], ''By Common Consent'', July 4, 2007.
#{{note|jfs1}} {{AnswersGospelQuestions1|vol=5|start=73}}
#{{note|taylor1}} John Taylor, ''Government of God'' (Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book, 1852), 110.
#{{note|jfs2}}{{AnswersGospelQuestions1|vol=5|start=73}} For essentially the same argument, see also 4:22; ''Church History and Modern Revelation'' (1947), 2:35; and ''Man: His Origin and Destiny'' (1954), 385, 421–422. Note that these sources are all even earlier, and likewise predate modern continental drift data and theory. President David O. McKay was clear on multiple occasions that the latter volume represented only President Smith's personal opinions, and were not Church doctrine (see [[Primary_sources/Evolution/David_O_McKay_1957|here]] and [[Primary_sources/Evolution/McKay_Letter_1959|here]]).
#{{note|geobook1}} Richard A. Davis, ''Principles of Oceanography'', 2nd edition, (Addison-Wesley, 1977), ISBN 0201014645. For more on continental drift theory's history and development, see ''wikipedia.org'' {{link|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_drift}}.

==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===
{{EvolutionWiki}}

===FAIR web site===
{{EvolutionFAIR}}

===Videos===
{{Video:Meldrum:Stephens:2003:Children of Lehi}}
{{Video:Ostler:2005:Fallacy}}

===External links===
{{EvolutionLinks}}
===Printed material===
{{EvolutionPrint}}

[[es:El Diluvio, Local o Universal]]
[[de:Sintflut:_Global_oder_lokal%3F]]
{{Suggestions}}

The Bible/Born again translation

2009-07-02T09:35:04Z

BettinaSiebert:

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

==Question==
When the Bible talks about being "born again," what does this mean? How did the first Christians understand this concept?

===Source(s) of the criticism===
*{{CriticalWork:McKeeverJohnson:Mormonism 101|pages=Chapter 11}}

==Answer==

===1. Baptisms===

:Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again he cannot see the kingdom of God. Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother’s womb, and be born? Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.({{s||John|3|3-5}})

Latter-day Saints believe this scripture should be interpreted as saying a man must be baptized in order to enter into the kingdom of God, while some conservative Christians often interpret this as saying that one need only believe in Jesus Christ to enter into the kingdom of God.

It is interesting to note that the LDS interpretation concurs with what the ancients taught and believed. Justin Martyr (100-165 A.D) said the following:

:For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, "Except ye be born again, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.{{ref|justin1}}

Irenaeus wrote:

:‘And dipped himself,’ says [the Scripture], "seven times in Jordan." It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but [it served] as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions; being spiritually regenerated as new-born babes, even as the Lord has declared: ‘Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.’{{ref|irenaeus1}}

The Clementine Homilies read

:And do not think, though you were more pious than all the pious that ever were, but if you be unbaptized, that you shall ever obtain hope. For all the more, on this account, you] shall endure the greater punishment, because you have done excellent works not excellently. For well-doing is excellent when it is done as God has commanded. But if you will not be baptized according to His pleasure, you serve your own will and oppose His counsel. But perhaps some one will say, What does it contribute to piety to be baptized with water? In the first place, because you do that which is pleasing to God; and in the second place, being born again to God of water, by reason of fear you change your first generation, which is of lust, and thus you are able to obtain salvation. But otherwise it is impossible. For thus the prophet has sworn to us, saying, "Verily I say to you, Unless ye be regenerated by living water into the name of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, you shall not enter the kingdom of heaven.{{ref|ch1}}

The Apostolic Constitutions says

:Nay, he that, out of contempt, will not be baptized, shall be condemned as an unbeliever, and shall be reproached as ungrateful and foolish. For the Lord says: "Except a man be baptized of water and of the Spirit, he shall by no means enter into the kingdom of heaven." And again: "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.”{{ref|ac1}}

===2. A "born again" experience?===

In some religious traditions the term “born again” refers to an often strong emotional experience that is interpreted in that tradition as a manifestation that he or she who has experienced it has been saved. Latter-day Saints do not accept the idea that one can enter the kingdom of God on this basis alone; but do not deny the sincerity of those who feel that the experience is sacred to them.

It is not uncommon for a Latter-day Saint to have a personal spiritual experience, or witness, which is often intense but differing from mere emotion. This experience is often life-changing, affirming, and strengthening to those that experience it. Occasionally members of other religious traditions tell a Latter-day Saint who has had such a spiritual witness, that he or she has instead had a “born again” experience, inferring that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is false.

On the contrary, an actual spiritual experience affirms to the Latter-day Saint the truth and efficacy of the restored gospel. Latter-day Saints believe in all of the gifts of the Holy Ghost, and that these may be experienced by any Latter-day Saint as appropriate to his or her faith and circumstance.

People who are not members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who are investigating its truth, may also experience a witness from the Holy Ghost that what they are taught by the missionaries or others, or reading in the Book of Mormon, is true. This enables them, by faith, to follow the Lord’s teaching and be baptized, receive the gift of the Holy Ghost, and become members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

==Conclusion==

Latter-day Saints have unknowingly had the same interpretation as those early writers who came after the Apostles. These authors may have had a more clear picture of the apostles' interpretation of Scripture than a modern reader does.

To be sure, baptism must be accompanied by faith in Christ and repentance of sins, or it is of no worth.{{ref|af1}} But, to argue that baptism is unnecessary, or only a formality, does not seem to be in keeping with either scriptural or early Patristic testimony.

A witness of the Spirit pushes those who are truly born again to repent, change their lives, and obey the Lord's commandments insofar as they are able to do so: e.g., be baptized. This witness by the Holy Ghost of the truth of the restored gospel has been shared by millions of people of all nations, ethnic backgrounds, cultures and tongues, and is the primary reason that thousands choose to join the Church even in the face of defamatory material published against it.

==Endnotes==

#{{note|justin1}} {{Anf1| author=Justin Martyr|article= First Apology of Justin |citation=Chapter 61|vol=1|start=183}}
#{{note|irenaeus1}} {{Anf1| author=Irenaeus|article= ?|citation=?|vol=1|start=574}}
#{{note|ch1}} {{ClementineH|vol=11|start=25|end=26}}
#{{note|ac1}} {{Anf| author= Apostolic Constitutions |article= ? |citation=6:15|vol=7|start=456|end=457}}
#{{note|af1}} {{scripture||Articles+of+Faith|1|4}}.

==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===
{{BibleWiki}}
{{ApostasyWiki}}
===FAIR web site===
{{BibleFAIR}}
{{ApostasyFAIR}}
===External links===
*{{Ensign1|author=Ezra Taft Benson|article=Born of God|date=July 1989|start=2}}{{link|url=http://beta.lds.org/portal/site/LDSOrg/menuitem.b12f9d18fae655bb69095bd3e44916a0/?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=419327cd3f37b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1}}
*{{Ensign1|author=Theodore M. Burton|article=To Be Born Again|date=September 1985|start=66}}{{link|url=http://beta.lds.org/portal/site/LDSOrg/menuitem.b12f9d18fae655bb69095bd3e44916a0/?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=73418949f2f6b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1}}
*{{Ensign|author=C. Richard Chidester|article=''I Have A Question'': How can we be ‘born again,’ or as King Benjamin phrased it, how can we be ‘spiritually begotten’ of Christ? (Mosiah 5:7)|date=April 1996|start=52|end=53}}{{link|url=http://beta.lds.org/portal/site/LDSOrg/menuitem.b12f9d18fae655bb69095bd3e44916a0/?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=7b817cf34f40c010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1}}
*{{Ensign1|author=James E. Faust|article=A Second Birth|date=June 1998|start=2}}{{link|url=http://beta.lds.org/portal/site/LDSOrg/menuitem.b12f9d18fae655bb69095bd3e44916a0/?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=1fed605ff590c010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1}}
*{{Ensign|author=David W. Hellem|article=Putting Off the Natural Man: How to Be ‘Spiritually Born of God|date=June 1992|start=10|end=13}}{{link|url=http://beta.lds.org/portal/site/LDSOrg/menuitem.b12f9d18fae655bb69095bd3e44916a0/?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=f5a394bf3938b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1}}
{{BibleLinks}}
{{ApostasyLinks}}

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

[[es:Ser «nacido de nuevo»—¿Que quiere decir la Biblia?]]
[[de:Bibel:_was_bedeutet_wiedergeboren_sein%3F]]

Criticism of Mormonism/Anti-Mormon

2009-07-02T09:32:08Z

BettinaSiebert:

==Criticism==
[[Image:Child molesting homosexuals protest poster.jpg|right|300px|An anti-Mormon protester at the Church's 2003 Mesa Easter Pageant expresses his view that "Mormonism is worse than child molesting homosexuals." Most anti-Mormon writers do not reach this level of vitriol, though some do. Unfortunately, a thriving anti-Mormon book and video industry spreads the misinformation that encourages such views and behavior.]]

Some critics of the Church object to the use of the term "anti-Mormon." They do not like to be referred to as "anti-Mormons," and deny that their books, speeches, blogs or videos are "anti-Mormon."

Such critics often insist that the term "anti-Mormon" is unfair because they are not "against" Mormons, but only write and act as they do because they "love" Mormons or Mormon investigators and want to bring them to the truth.

===Source(s) of the criticism===

* {{CriticalWork:Abanes:One Nation|pages=437}}
* Alan W. Gomes, foreword to ''Is the Mormon My Brother? Discerning the Differences between Mormonism and Christianity'', by James R. White (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House, 1997), 12.
* Living Hope Ministries, "An Open Letter to Mormons"
* Kurt Van Gorden, "Missionaries Not 'Anti-Mormon,'" ''Christianity Today'' 41/1 (1997): 15.

==Response==
===Origin of the term===
The term "anti-Mormon" was originally used by opponents of the early 19th century Church to describe themselves.

{{Main|/History|l1=Origin and history of the term "anti-Mormon"}}

===Contemporary usage===
FAIR and other apologetic organizations tend to use the term "anti-Mormon" when it is an accurate description of an author and his/her tactics.

FAIR does not believe or argue that everyone who disagrees with the LDS Church is "anti-Mormon." As one prominent scholar of anti-Mormonism put it:

:The hallmark of anti-Mormonism is an agenda, whether covert or openly expressed, of combating the faith of the Latter-day Saints and opposing their church.{{ref|peterson1}}

It is somewhat strange that critics of the Church wish to somehow divest the term "anti-Mormon" of its clear meaning.{{ref|vocab1}} It is composed of two elements:

1) the prefix ''anti-''

:Noun: "A person who is opposed to something, such as a group, policy, proposal, or practice"
:Adjective: Opposed
:Preposition: Opposed to; against.{{ref|dico1}}

2) ...and ''Mormon'', as a colloquial term for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

[[Image:Liars deceivers seducers.jpg|left|frame|An Anti-Mormon protester at the 2004 Mesa Easter Pageant uses a megaphone and an equally unsubtle written message.]]

"Anti-Mormon" is not a slur nor is it pejorative in its use; it is a descriptive term for those whose tactics or desires oppose or fight against the beliefs, members, or practices of the Church. Being "anti-" something may be a positive or negative thing, depending upon one's perspective. Almost everyone would be happy to be considered "anti-child abuse." Few people would want to be known as "anti-Semitic."

Characteristic of anti-Mormon tactics, aims, and behavior is their tendency to ''not'' preach their own faith, or tell Church members what ''they'' believe. Anti-Mormon authors seem to want to spend most of their time telling us that Mormons are wrong. They are, therefore, "anti-Mormon."

Anti-Mormons may have noble or base motives. They be sincere or insincere. Their criticisms may be well-founded or baseless. The term "anti-Mormon" only describes their approach, goals, and tactics.

The stated or implicit goal of anti-Mormons is to prevent investigators from joining the Mormon Church, and to encourage Mormons to abandon their faith. They fight ''against'' the Church. Apologists would not label them anti-Mormon if they were among the many people evangelizing for their faith by encouraging people to join their faith, preaching ''for'' something rather than ''against'' something.

But, strange to say, all too many Christians seem to feel the need to attack other Christians' beliefs. Of course we know that Christians do not agree on all points—otherwise, there would be only one Christian denomination, not thousands. (Thankfully, anti-Mormons make up a very small proportion of Christians, but they are rather a vocal minority.)

That being said, it should be noted that not all anti-Mormons are Christians. Anti-Mormons could (and have) come from non-Christian belief systems, or even from the ranks of atheists and agnostics. Again, the determining factor is whether the individual preaches ''against'' the Mormon belief system rather than ''for'' their own belief system:

:It should be noted that there is nothing unusual about the labels ''anti-Mormon'' or ''anti-Mormonism''. Nothing in the prefix ''anti-'' implies that those individuals or agencies linked to this compound word advocate or participate in violence or are mean-spirited, unsophisticated, evil, irrational, and so forth. When an individual or agency either self-identifies or is identified by the Saints as anti-Mormon, what is meant is merely that they oppose, dispute, or are against the well-established beliefs of the Saints. Hence it is amusing to see people scrambling to avoid the label, especially when they publish essays and books in which they clearly oppose the crucial core beliefs of the Saints.{{ref|midgley1}}

===Are Mormons "anti-Christian" or "anti-another faith"?===

Critics sometimes attempt to insist that because the LDS Church considers all other faiths to be deficient in some way, that Mormons are therefore "anti-Christian" or "anti-all other faiths." This charge reflects a clear misunderstanding (not least because the LDS are devout Christians, and so it makes no more sense for Mormons to be "anti-Christian" than it would for Pennsylvanians to be "anti-American.")

Clearly, Mormons believe that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has something to offer which other denominations do not. This is not news, or surprising, for otherwise they wouldn't be a separate Christian denomination. Hopefully every other denomination (Christian or not) believes that their faith system similarly has unique beliefs that set it apart from others or mark it as "true" while others may be in error.

The Church's scriptures, publications, and missionary efforts do not spend time detailing the errors or failings of other Christian faiths. Rather, they simply teach the gospel as the LDS understand it. One will not find books published by Mormons, for Mormons or others, explaining how to attack the 'false beliefs' of other faiths. One will not find films and videos explaining how "wrong" Baptists or Pentecostals or Greek Orthodox are. Mormons do not hire speakers to address their congregations on the 'dangers' or 'evils' of these faiths.

Unfortunately, all too many Christian churches engage in exactly this type of behavior against the Mormons, and other faiths with whom they disagree. This is 'anti' behavior; it does not build the body of Christ, but seeks to tear down the belief systems of others.

Members of the Church want only to explain what ''they'' believe, and invite others to consider it. That is the fundamental difference between their tactics and those of the anti-Mormons.

===Anti-Mormon authors use the term "anti-Mormon" themselves===
Jerald and Sandra Tanner, some of the most well known anti-Mormon writers, use the term "anti-Mormon" to refer to others who oppose the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. In their book ''The Changing World of Mormonism,'' the Tanners use the term ''fourteen times''.{{ref|tanner1}}

==Conclusion==

Said President Boyd K. Packer:

:There are misinterpretations and misrepresentations of us and of our history, some of it mean-spirited and certainly contrary to the teachings of Jesus Christ and His gospel. Sometimes clergy, even ministerial organizations, oppose us. They do what we would never do. We do not attack or criticize or oppose others as they do us...Strangest of all, otherwise intelligent people claim we are not Christian. This shows that they know little or nothing about us. It is a true principle that you cannot lift yourself by putting others down. {{ref|packer1}}

Those who are "Anti-" some thing oppose and fight against that thing. Anti-Mormons spend their efforts in opposing Mormonism instead of preaching their own beliefs. The label "anti-Mormon" is thus accurate and appropriate.

Members of the Church wish only to share their own beliefs, and not attack the beliefs of others. They generally consider other believers to be well-intentioned, and hope that they can add to the truths which others already have. (''See:'' [[Attitude to non-members]].)

FAIR's mission is only to defend LDS doctrine, history, and practice from illegitimate attacks by critics. It does not desire to criticize the faith or beliefs of others. If readers note any violations of this policy in FAIR materials, they are requested to bring it to our attention.

==Endnotes==

#{{note|peterson1}} {{FR-15-2-1}} 
#{{note|vocab1}} For an extensive analysis of the term "anti-Mormon," and critics' attempts to discourage its use, see {{FR-16-1-16}}
#{{note|dico1}} anti. (n.d.). ''The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language'', Fourth Edition. Retrieved 9 December 2006, from ''Dictionary.com'' website. {{link|url=http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/anti}}
#{{note|midgley1}} {{FR-16-1-16}}
#{{note|tanner1}}Tanner and Tanner, ''The Changing World of Mormonism'', pages 38, 49, 83, 126, 131, 132, 141, 164, 166, 209, 246, 455, 461 and 479.
#{{note|packer1}} {{Ensign|author=Boyd K. Packer|article=A Defense and a Refuge|date=November 2006|start=85|end=88}} {{link|url=http://beta.lds.org/portal/site/LDSOrg/menuitem.b12f9d18fae655bb69095bd3e44916a0/?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=ff120d034ceae010VgnVCM100000176f620a____&hideNav=1}}

==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===
{{InterfaithWiki}}

===FAIR web site===
{{InterfaithFAIR}}

===Video===
{{AntiMormonismFAIRVideos}}

===External links===
* {{FR-16-1-15}} 
*{{Dialogue|author=Massimo Introvigne|article=The Devil Makers: Contemporary Evangelical Fundamentalist Anti-Mormonism|vol=27|num=1|date=Spring 1994|start=153|end=169}}{{link|url=http://content.lib.utah.edu/cdm4/document.php?CISOROOT=%2Fdialogue&CISOPTR=15882&REC=3&CISOBOX=+Contemporary+Evangelical+Fundamentalist+Anti-Mormonism}}
* {{FR-10-1-8}} See especially pages 326–332.
* {{FR-16-1-16}} See especially pages 401–404.
{{InterfaithLinks}}

===Printed material===
{{InterfaithPrint}}
{{Suggestions}}
[[de:Antimormonen]]

Origin of the priesthood ban

2009-07-02T07:48:12Z

BettinaSiebert:

{{RacePortal}}
==The origin of the priesthood ban==

The origin of the priesthood ban is one of the most difficult questions to answer. Its origins are not clear, and this affected both how members and leaders have seen the ban, and the steps necessary to rescind it. The Church has never provided an official reason for the ban.

Members have generally taken one of three perspectives:
# the ban was based on revelation to Joseph Smith, and was continued by his successors until President Kimball
# the ban did not originate with Joseph Smith, but was implemented by Brigham Young by revelation
# the ban began as a series of administrative policy decisions, rather than a revealed doctrine, and drew partly upon ideas regarding race common in mid-19th century America. The passage of time gave greater authority to this policy than intended.

The difficulty in deciding between these options arises because: 
a) there is no contemporary account of a revelation underlying the ban; but 
b) many early members nevertheless believed that there had been such a revelation; and 
c) priesthood ordination of African blacks was a rare event, which became even more rare with time.

The history behind the practice in the modern Church of withholding the priesthood based on race is described well by Lester Bush in a 1984 book.{{ref|bush1}} A good timeline can be found at FAIR's '''BlackLDS''' site: {{fairlink|url=http://www.blacklds.org/mormon/history.html}}.

===Missouri and the 1830s===
As Mormons settled into Missouri, some of their viewpoints about slavery ({{s||DC|101|79}},{{s||DC|87|4}}) did not mesh well with those of the older settlers. The 1831 Nat Turner Rebellion left many southerners nervous as church leaders later recognized: "All who are acquainted with the situation of slave States, know that the life of every white is in constant danger, and to insinuate any thing which could possibly be interpreted by a slave, that it was not just to hold human beings in bondage, would be jeopardizing the life of every white inhabitant in the country.{{ref|bush2}}" Unfortunately, this recognition came after mobs persecuted the Missouri saints and destroyed their press in part because of W. W. Phelps's editorials supporting abolition {{ref|bush3}}.

Under these precarious conditions, early missionaries were instructed to not teach or baptize slaves without their master's wishes (see {{s||DC|134|12}}). The "Missouri policy theory" for the ban's origin was first popularized in 1970 by author Stephen Taggert,{{ref|taggert1}} and President Hugh B. Brown reportedly embraced it.{{ref|brown1}} Other authors found this theory wanting.{{ref|bringhurst1}}

Late, perhaps unreliable, recollections suggest that Joseph Smith received inspiration that blacks should not be ordained while contemplating the situation in the South.{{ref|bush4}} These accounts must be weighed against records of free blacks being given the priesthood such as Elijah Abel, Walker Lewis, William McCary, and Abel's descendants. Those who hold that the ban had a revelatory basis see these early ordinations as events which occurred prior to the revelation or without knowledge of it, while those who see the ban as more of a social/cultural phenomenon point to these ordinations as an example of the "pragmatic grounds" upon which decisions about black ordination were made.

===After Joseph Smith===
The priesthood ban became more comprehensive under Brigham Young's presidency, although he did not present a specific revelation on the subject. Brigham's earliest recorded comments on the subject indicated that he believed blacks should not receive the priesthood because they were the descendants of Cain and therefore a "cursed" people.{{ref|bush5}} Those who believe the ban had a revelatory basis point to this as an example of the prophet learning "line upon line," with revelation being implemented more rigorously. Those who see the influence of cultural factors and institutional practice behind the ban consider this evidence that the ban was based on Brigham's cultural and scriptural assumptions, and point out that such beliefs were common among most Christians in Antebellum America.{{ref|smith1}}

===Later views===

* In 1879, John Taylor conducted an investigation and concluded the policy had started under Joseph Smith, rather than Brigham Young, despite receiving mixed information.{{ref|bush6}}
*President George Q. Cannon in 1895 asserted that some of Young's teachings about miscegenation and the seed of Cain had first been taught by Joseph Smith.{{ref|bush7}}
* Nearly forty years after the ban started, B.H. Roberts was the first to argue, based on the Book of Abraham, that the curse of Cain had continued to modern blacks through the lineage of Ham.{{ref|bhroberts1}}
* Joseph Fielding Smith opined that blacks may have been less valiant in the pre-mortal conflict between God and Satan (however, he rejected that they may have been neutral in the war in heaven).{{ref|jfs1}}
* David O. McKay believed that the ban was "not doctrine but...policy," as reported by Sterling McMurrin,{{ref|mcmurrin1}} his son Llewelyn McKay,{{ref|llewelyn1}} and Elder Paul H. Dunn.{{ref|dunn1}} President McKay told Elder Marion D. Hanks that "he had pleaded and pleaded with the Lord, but had not had the answer he sought."{{ref|mckay1}}
* Harold B. Lee was inclined to reconfirm the ban,{{ref|lee1}} though Church Historian Leonard Arrington

:...asserts that President Lee, shortly before his death, sought the Lord's will on the question of blacks and the priesthood during'three days and nights [of] fasting in the upper room of the temple,...but the only answer he received was "not yet." Arrington relied on an unidentified person close to President Lee, but President Lee's son-in-law and biographer found no record of such an incident and thought it doubtful.{{ref|lee3}}

Following Joseph Fielding Smith's death, President Lee did say, "For those who don't believe in modern revelation there is no adequate explanation. Those who do understand revelation stand by and wait until the Lord speaks...It's only a matter of time before the black achieves full status in the Church. We must believe in the justice of God. The black will achieve full status, we're just waiting for that time."{{ref|lee2}}

===President Kimball===

* President Kimball began his administration by holding a press conference. When asked about the ban, he said:

:[I have given it] "a great deal of thought, a great deal of prayer. The day might come when they would be given the priesthood, but that day has not come yet. Should the day come it will be a matter of revelation. Before changing any important policy, it has to be through a revelation from the Lord."{{ref|kimball1}}

* He had previously written to his son:
:"...I have wished the Lord had given us a little more clarity in the matter. But for me, it is enough...I know the Lord could change His policy and release the ban and forgive the possible error (?) which brought about the deprivation. If the time comes, that He will do, I am sure."{{ref|kimball2}}

*In 1976, he mentioned
:"his concern for giving the priesthood to all men, and said that he had been praying about it for fifteen years without an answer...but I am going to keep praying about it."{{ref|kimball3}}

==Endnotes==
#{{note|bush1}}{{NeitherWhiteNorBlack0}}
#{{note|bush2}}''Neither White nor Black'', 56; citing {{EMS1|start=122|vol=2|date=January 1834|article=Ourtage in Jackson County, Missouri|author=Editor}}
#{{note|bush3}}''Neither White nor Black'', 55.
#{{note|taggert1}}Steven Taggert, ''Mormonism's Negro Policy: Social and Historical Origins'' (Salt Lake City, Utah: University of Utah Press, 1970).
#{{note|brown1}}{{Sunstone|author=Edwin B. Firmage|article=Hugh B. Brown in His Final Years|vol=11:6|num=67|date=November 1987|start=7|end=8}}
#{{note|bringhurst1}} {{BlackAndMormon1|start=13|author=Newell K. Bringhurst|article=The 'Missouri Thesis' Revisited: Early Mormonism, Slavery, and the Status of Black People}}
#{{note|bush4}} ''Neither White nor Black'', 61,77.
#{{note|bush5}}''Neither White nor Black'', 70–72.
#{{note|smith1}}For a history of such ideas in American Christian thought generally, see H. Shelton Smith, ''In His Image, But...: Racism in Southern Religion, 1780–1910'' (Durham, North Carolina: Duke University Press, 1972), 131. ISBN 082230273X.
#{{note|bush6}}''Neither White nor Black'', 77–78.
#{{note|bush7}}''Neither White nor Black'', 79–81.
#{{note|bhroberts1}}B.H. Roberts, "To the Youth of Israel," ''The Contributor'' 6 (May 1885): 296–97.
#{{note|jfs1}}{{DoS1|vol=1|start=65}}
#{{note|mcmurrin1}} Sterling M. McMurrin and and L. Jackson Newell, ''Matters of Conscience: Conversations with Sterling M. McMurrin On Philosophy, Education, and Religion'' (Salt Lake City, UT: Signature Books, 1996), 199–201; cited in {{LYS-CD1|start=chapter 20, page 5, footnote 17}}
#{{note|llewelyn1}}Kimball, ''Lengthen Your Stride'', chapter 20, page 5, footnote 17.
#{{note|dunn1}}Kimball, ''Lengthen Your Stride'', chapter 20, page 5–, footnote 17.
#{{note|mckay1}} Kimball, ''Lengthen Your Stride'', chapter 20 working draft, 13.
#{{note|lee1}}Kimball, ''Lengthen Your Stride'', 204–205.
#{{note|lee3}}Kimball, ''Lengthen Your Stride'', working draft chapter 20, page 22, footnote 105; citing for the affirmative Arrington, ''Adventures of a Church Historian'' and Arrington to author, February 10 and June 15, 1998; for the negative, L. Brent Goates, interview by author, February 9, 1998.
#{{note|lee2}}Kimball, ''Lengthen Your Stride'', working draft chapter 20, page 22; citing Goates, ''Harold B. Lee'', 506, quoting UPI interview published November 16, 1972.
#{{note|kimball1}} Kimball, ''Lengthen Your Stride'', working draft chapter 21, page 1; citing Charles J. Seldin, "Priesthood of LDS Opened to Blacks," ''Salt Lake City Tribune'' (10 June 1978), 1A.
#{{note|kimball2}} Kimball, ''Lengthen Your Stride'', working draft chapter 21, page 4; citing letter of 15 June 1963 to Edward Kimball.
#{{note|kimball3}} Kimball, ''Lengthen Your Stride'', working draft chapter 21, page 7; citing F. Burton Howard to author, June 15, 1995; F. Burton Howard, interview by author, July 30, 2002.

==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===
{{BlacksPriesthoodWiki}}
===FAIR web site===
{{BlacksPriesthoodFAIR}}

===Video===
{{BlackSaintsFAIRVideo}}

===External links===
{{BlacksPriesthoodLinks}}
===Printed material===
{{BlacksPriesthoodPrint}}
[[de:Schwarze_und_das_Priestertum/Ursache_des_Priestertumverbots]]

Origin of the priesthood ban

2009-07-02T07:44:03Z

BettinaSiebert:

Racial issues and the Church of Jesus Christ/Blacks and the priesthood

2009-07-02T07:41:46Z

BettinaSiebert:

{{RacePortal}}
{{Summary}}
==Criticism==

*Critics argue that God would not allow His church to ever deny blessings or privileges based on race.
*They are critical of the Church waiting until 1978 to lift the ban on ordaining black members to the priesthood.
*They [[Quote_mining%2C_selective_quotation%2C_and_distortion | mine quotes]] made by Latter-day Saint leaders prior to 1978 to portray the church as racist in its doctrines.
*They cite passages from LDS scripture that Latter-day Saints used to provide a rationale for the priesthood ban.
*They question the revelatory process that brought about the policy shift, portraying it as a response to social pressure or government threats to remove the church's tax-free status.

===Source(s) of the criticism===
*{{CriticalWork:Palmer:Insider|pages=17}}
*{{CriticalWork:Brodie:No Man Knows|pages=365}}

==Introduction==

Members of African descent were restricted from holding the LDS Church's lay priesthood until 1978. Critics with an agenda, as well as sincere seekers with a laudable abhorrence of racism have used this fact to portray the former (or present) Church and its members as racist.

Understanding the priesthood ban is sometimes difficult, because the historical record is not entirely clear about the ban's institution. There is no contemporary, first-person account of the ban's implementation. Some members believe the ban was commanded by revelation. Others believe that Church leaders responded to threats and dangers facing the Church by restricting activities among black Americans in the pre-Civil War era, and that these policies and procedures persisted.

However, once the ban was in place—whether as a matter of revelation, or as a policy that arose out of the Church's 19th-century origins—members and leaders did not feel that they could simply "change" things.

Many modern Protestant denominations believe in a "priesthood of all believers," and settle doctrinal differences via councils, meetings, or plebiscites. As new social realities develop (e.g., the civil rights movement, women's suffrage, "gay rights," etc.), denominations adapt or modify previous stances.

This is not how the Church functions, and non-members may not appreciate this fact. Members or leaders of the Church do not feel that they have the right to alter previous practices or doctrines without direct revelation from God. Much as the ban confused and troubled many members—black and white—leaders did not feel at liberty to alter them without divine guidance. It is also important to realize that priesthood, in the LDS tradition, is not a right, nor is it something to be used to grant or enhance spiritual or social "status."

Furthermore, efforts to use political pressure against the Church may have slowed the change, since members do not believe that God will allow the Church to appear 'manipulated' by outside forces to create a convenient 'revelation' merely to satisfy social pressures.

It also important to give credit to Church members' strengths in the pre-1978 period:
* Church doctrine never held that blacks were less than human or without souls, as some denominations did
* Joseph Smith taught that any mental or economic weakness suffered by blacks was not due to any in-born defect, but simply due to not having ample opportunity to advance and receive the same education as whites
* Church members were overwhelmingly abolitionist and were even persecuted and driven out because of their anti-slavery leanings
* the Church never had segregated congregations; all members worshipped together
* the Church supported equal civil rights for many years before the 1978 revelation: to the Church, the issue of priesthood was not one of civil rights or granting status, but of revelation.
* sociologic studies demonstrated that pre-1978 Mormons were no more or less racist than their contemporaries

==Racist doctrine?==

The most unfortunate legacy of the ban is perhaps an aspect that was least intended. Since many members were sincerely concerned about the justice of the ban, many sought to explain it through a variety of hypotheses. Such "doctrinal folklore" was never official, but became widespread as members sought to reconcile their ideas about the justice and mercy of God with the ban's reality. In a good faith effort to understand, members drew on ideas about blacks then current in Protestantism generally.

Leaders of the Church have repeatedly emphasized that such explanations were misguided and never represented official doctrine.

For example, Elder Dallin H. Oaks pointed out that some leaders and members had ill-advisedly sought to provide justifications for the ban:

:...It's not the pattern of the Lord to give reasons. We can put reasons to commandments. When we do we're on our own. Some people put reasons to [the ban] and they turned out to be spectacularly wrong. There is a lesson in that.... The lesson I've drawn from that, I decided a long time ago that I had faith in the command and I had no faith in the reasons that had been suggested for it.

:...I'm referring to reasons given by general authorities and reasons elaborated upon [those reasons] by others. The whole set of reasons seemed to me to be unnecessary risk taking.

:...Let's [not] make the mistake that's been made in the past, here and in other areas, trying to put reasons to revelation. The reasons turn out to be man-made to a great extent. The revelations are what we sustain as the will of the Lord and that's where safety lies.{{ref|oaks1}}

Interviewed for a PBS special on the Church, Elder Jeffrey R. Holland said:

:One clear-cut position is that the folklore must never be perpetuated. ... I have to concede to my earlier colleagues. ... They, I'm sure, in their own way, were doing the best they knew to give shape to [the policy], to give context for it, to give even history to it. All I can say is however well intended the explanations were, I think almost all of them were inadequate and/or wrong. ...

:It probably would have been advantageous to say nothing, to say we just don't know, and, [as] with many religious matters, whatever was being done was done on the basis of faith at that time. But some explanations were given and had been given for a lot of years. ... At the very least, there should be no effort to perpetuate those efforts to explain why that doctrine existed. I think, to the extent that I know anything about it, as one of the newer and younger [apostles] to come along, ... we simply do not know why that practice, that policy, that doctrine was in place.{{ref|holland1}}

Recent remarks by the current prophet, President Hinckley, demonstrate that members of the LDS church must put aside any thoughts or legacy of racial intolerance or unkindness:

:Racial strife still lifts its ugly head. I am advised that even right here among us there is some of this. I cannot understand how it can be. It seemed to me that we all rejoiced in the 1978 revelation given President Kimball. I was there in the temple at the time that that happened. There was no doubt in my mind or in the minds of my associates that what was revealed was the mind and the will of the Lord.

:Now I am told that racial slurs and denigrating remarks are sometimes heard among us. I remind you that no man who makes disparaging remarks concerning those of another race can consider himself a true disciple of Christ. Nor can he consider himself to be in harmony with the teachings of the Church of Christ. How can any man holding the Melchizedek Priesthood arrogantly assume that he is eligible for the priesthood whereas another who lives a righteous life but whose skin is of a different color is ineligible?

:Throughout my service as a member of the First Presidency, I have recognized and spoken a number of times on the diversity we see in our society. It is all about us, and we must make an effort to accommodate that diversity.

:Let us all recognize that each of us is a son or daughter of our Father in Heaven, who loves all of His children.

:Brethren, there is no basis for racial hatred among the priesthood of this Church. If any within the sound of my voice is inclined to indulge in this, then let him go before the Lord and ask for forgiveness and be no more involved in such.{{ref|hinckley1}}

==Further details==

It is important to understand the history behind the priesthood ban to evaluate whether these criticisms have any merit and to contextualize the quotes with which LDS members are often confronted.

This is complex and sensitive issue, and definitive answers as to why God allowed the ban to happen await further revelation. There are some things we do not know, and we rely on faith that God will one day give us the answers to the questions of our mortal existence.

'''Please consult the sub-page which treats the issue(s) which interest you:'''

* Would God ever [[/Deny based on race|deny privileges based on race?]]
* What was the [[/Origin of the priesthood ban|origin of the priesthood ban?]]
* Given that the ban was rescinded in 1978, how should we understand [[/Understanding pre-1978 statements|pre-1978 statements by members and leaders of the Church?]]
* What about [[/LDS scriptures|LDS scriptures cited in support of the ban?]]
* What can you tell me about [[/Lifting the ban|lifting the ban?]]
* Did [[/Social pressure|social pressure]] play a role in lifting the ban?
* Are there any previously-taught [[/Repudiated ideas|ideas which have been repudiated by Church leaders since the ban?]]

==Conclusion==

Sometimes God withholds certain blessings from certain people without explaining why he does this. Sometimes this is a willful decision on his part expressed via direct revelation to his prophet. At other times, God allows his prophets to act as they feel best. In the case of the priesthood ban, we do not know which of these scenarios is applicable. What we ''do'' know, however, is that the ban was lifted by revelation in God's due time.

Past church leaders should be viewed as products of their times, no more racist than most of their American and Christian peers (and often surprisingly enlightened, given the surrounding culture). A proper understanding of the process of revelation creates a more realistic expectations of the Latter-day Saint prophet, instead of assumptions of infallibility foisted on the Saints by their critics.

Previous statements and scriptural interpretations that are no longer in harmony with current revelation should be discarded. We learn "line upon line, precept upon precept," and when modern revelation has shed new light, old assumptions made in the dark can be done away with.

==Endnotes==
#{{note|oaks1}}Dallin H. Oaks, Interview with Associated Press, in ''Daily Herald,'' Provo, Utah, 5 June 1988.
#{{note|holland1}} Jeffrey R. Holland, Interview, 4 March 2006. {{link|url=http://www.pbs.org/mormons/interviews/holland.html}}
#{{note|hinckley1}} {{Ensign | author=Gordon B. Hinckley | article=The Need for Greater Kindness|date=May 2006|start=58|end=61 }}{{link|url=http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/2006.htm/ensign%20may%202006.htm/the%20need%20for%20greater%20kindness.htm?fn=document-frameset.htm$f=templates$3.0}}
==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===

{{BlacksPriesthoodWiki}}

===FAIR web site===

{{BlacksPriesthoodFAIR}}

===Video===
{{BlackSaintsFAIRVideo}}

===External links===
[[de:Schwarze_und_das_Priestertum]]
{{BlacksPriesthoodLinks}}

===Printed material===

{{BlacksPriesthoodPrint}}

User talk:GregSmith

2008-07-12T01:34:46Z

BettinaSiebert:

I see you have registered on the GermanWiki. Of course we can conserve in English. Many years ago I prefered France. But I have no practise anymore.
You load up a picture of David Whitmer. The gravestone with his testimony ist more interesting. I tried to upload but I failed always. I was asked for a password which I do not have. --[[User:BettinaSiebert|BettinaSiebert]] 00:15, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I see you quote Paul Simon. I love his music as well, however only with his fellow Garfunkel
<videoflash>euuCiSY0qYs</videoflash>
<videoflash>eeOBPaM5G6k&feature=related</videoflash>

User talk:GregSmith

2008-07-12T01:33:41Z

BettinaSiebert:

User talk:GregSmith

2008-07-12T00:25:47Z

BettinaSiebert:

User talk:GregSmith

2008-07-12T00:15:50Z

BettinaSiebert:

User talk:GregSmith

2008-07-12T00:15:07Z

BettinaSiebert:

I see you have registered on the GermanWiki. Of course we can conserve in English. Many years ago I prefer France. But I have no practise anymore.
You load up a picture of David Whitmer. The gravestone with his testimony ist more interesting. I tried to upload but I failed always. I was asked for a password which I do not have. --[[User:BettinaSiebert|BettinaSiebert]] 00:15, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

User talk:GregSmith

2008-07-12T00:14:49Z

BettinaSiebert:

The Book of Mormon as the most correct book

2008-07-11T13:39:32Z

BettinaSiebert:

{{BoMPortal}}

==Criticism==
In the ''History of the Church'', the following entry is recorded as having been made by Joseph Smith on November 28, 1841.{{ref|fn1}}

:Sunday, 28.--I spent the day in the council with the Twelve Apostles at the house of President Young, conversing with them upon a variety of subjects. Brother Joseph Fielding was present, having been absent four years on a mission to England. I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book.

Critics of the Church assert that the phrase "the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth" means that the Prophet Joseph Smith was declaring the Book of Mormon to be without error of any kind. Since each edition of the printed Book of Mormon since 1829 (including editions published during the life of Joseph Smith) has included changes of wording, spelling, or punctuation, critics declare Joseph Smith's statement to have been demonstrably false, thus proving that he was a false prophet.

===Source(s) of the Criticism===
*Simon Southerton, [[Losing a Lost Tribe: Native Americans, DNA, and the Mormon Church|''Losing a Lost Tribe: Native Americans, DNA, and the Mormon Church'']] (Salt Lake City, UT: Signature Books, 2004), xiv.

==Response==

===Meaning of "most correct"===
Critics of the Book of Mormon have mistakenly interpreted "correct" to be synonymous with "perfect," and therefore expect the Book of Mormon to be without any errors in grammar, spelling, punctuation, clarity of phrasing, and other such ways.

But when Joseph Smith said the Book of Mormon was the "most correct of any book," he was referring to more than just wording, a fact made clear by the remainder of his statement: He said "a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book." When read in context, the Prophet's statement refers to the correctness of ''the principles it teaches.''

===No book of scripture is "perfect"===
Latter-day Saints do not subscribe to the conservative Protestant belief in [[Biblical inerrancy|scriptural inerrancy]]. We do not believe that ''any'' book of scripture is perfect or infallible. Brigham Young explained:

:When God speaks to the people, he does it in a manner to suit their circumstances and capacities.... Should the Lord Almighty send an angel to re-write the Bible, it would in many places be very different from what it now is. And I will even venture to say that if the Book of Mormon were now to be re-written, in many instances it would materially differ from the present translation. According as people are willing to receive the things of God, so the heavens send forth their blessings.{{ref|brigham1}}

So while the Book of Mormon has come down to us with fewer doctrinal errors and corruptions than the Bible, even it could be improved if we were ready to receive further light and knowledge.

===Perfectly Translated===
Another perfection of the book is its translation. Edward Stevenson related Martin Harris' description of the necessity for the translation to be perfect before the Lord would allow progression to the next character:
:By aid of the seer stone, sentences would appear and were read by the Prophet and written by Martin, and when finished he would say, “Written,” and if correctly written, that sentence would disappear, and another appear in its place, but if not written correctly, it remained until corrected, so that the translation was just as it was engraven on the plates, precisely in the language then used.{{ref|stevenson1}}

==Conclusion==
The Book of Mormon is the "most correct of any book" in that it contains [[Book of Mormon and the fulness of the gospel|the fulness of the gospel]] and presents it in a manner that is "plain and precious" ({{scripture|1|Nephi|13|35,40}}).

==Endnotes==
#{{note|fn1}} {{HoC1|vol=4|start=461}}
#{{note|brigham1}} {{JD1|author=Brigham Young|vol=9|start=311}}
#{{note|stevenson1}} {{MS | author=Martin Harris | article=Statement to Edward Stevenson|date=6 February 1882|start=86|end=87|vol=44|num=6|}} {{link|url=http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/cdm4/document.php?CISOROOT=/MStar&CISOPTR=5774&REC=4}}

==Further reading==

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

===FAIR web site===
{{BoMFAIR}}

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

===Printed material===
{{BoMPrint}}
[[es:El_Libro_de_Morm%C3%B3n_como_el_libro_m%C3%A1s_correcto]]

The Book of Mormon as the most correct book

2008-07-11T13:37:21Z

BettinaSiebert:

{{BoMPortal}}

==Criticism==
In the ''History of the Church'', the following entry is recorded as having been made by Joseph Smith on November 28, 1841.{{ref|fn1}}

:Sunday, 28.--I spent the day in the council with the Twelve Apostles at the house of President Young, conversing with them upon a variety of subjects. Brother Joseph Fielding was present, having been absent four years on a mission to England. I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book.

Critics of the Church assert that the phrase "the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth" means that the Prophet Joseph Smith was declaring the Book of Mormon to be without error of any kind. Since each edition of the printed Book of Mormon since 1829 (including editions published during the life of Joseph Smith) has included changes of wording, spelling, or punctuation, critics declare Joseph Smith's statement to have been demonstrably false, thus proving that he was a false prophet.

===Source(s) of the Criticism===
*Simon Southerton, [[Losing a Lost Tribe: Native Americans, DNA, and the Mormon Church|''Losing a Lost Tribe: Native Americans, DNA, and the Mormon Church'']] (Salt Lake City, UT: Signature Books, 2004), xiv.

==Response==

===Meaning of "most correct"===
Critics of the Book of Mormon have mistakenly interpreted "correct" to be synonymous with "perfect," and therefore expect the Book of Mormon to be without any errors in grammar, spelling, punctuation, clarity of phrasing, and other such ways.

But when Joseph Smith said the Book of Mormon was the "most correct of any book," he was referring to more than just wording, a fact made clear by the remainder of his statement: He said "a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book." When read in context, the Prophet's statement refers to the correctness of ''the principles it teaches.''

===No book of scripture is "perfect"===
Latter-day Saints do not subscribe to the conservative Protestant belief in [[Biblical inerrancy|scriptural inerrancy]]. We do not believe that ''any'' book of scripture is perfect or infallible. Brigham Young explained:

:When God speaks to the people, he does it in a manner to suit their circumstances and capacities.... Should the Lord Almighty send an angel to re-write the Bible, it would in many places be very different from what it now is. And I will even venture to say that if the Book of Mormon were now to be re-written, in many instances it would materially differ from the present translation. According as people are willing to receive the things of God, so the heavens send forth their blessings.{{ref|brigham1}}

So while the Book of Mormon has come down to us with fewer doctrinal errors and corruptions than the Bible, even it could be improved if we were ready to receive further light and knowledge.

===Perfectly Translated===
Another perfection of the book is its translation. Edward Stevenson related Martin Harris' description of the necessity for the translation to be perfect before the Lord would allow progression to the next character:
:By aid of the seer stone, sentences would appear and were read by the Prophet and written by Martin, and when finished he would say, “Written,” and if correctly written, that sentence would disappear, and another appear in its place, but if not written correctly, it remained until corrected, so that the translation was just as it was engraven on the plates, precisely in the language then used.{{ref|stevenson1}}

==Conclusion==
The Book of Mormon is the "most correct of any book" in that it contains [[Book of Mormon and the fulness of the gospel|the fulness of the gospel]] and presents it in a manner that is "plain and precious" ({{scripture|1|Nephi|13|35,40}}).

==Endnotes==
#{{note|fn1}} {{HoC1|vol=4|start=461}}
#{{note|brigham1}} {{JD1|author=Brigham Young|vol=9|start=311}}
#{{note|stevenson1}} {{MS | author=Martin Harris | article=Statement to Edward Stevenson|date=6 February 1882|start=86|end=87|vol=44|num=6|}} {{link|url=http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/cdm4/document.php?CISOROOT=/MStar&CISOPTR=5774&REC=4}}

==Further reading==

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

===FAIR web site===
{{BoMFAIR}}

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

===Printed material===
{{BoMPrint}}

Book of Mormon/Olive horticulture

2008-07-11T13:27:00Z

BettinaSiebert:

{{question}}
==Question==
Does the Book of Mormon's account of olive culture in [http://scriptures.lds.org/jacob/5/1#1 Jacob 5] match what we know about this subject?

==Answer==
The Book of Mormon provides a remarkably accurate portrait of olive horticulture.{{ref|olive1}} There are two points at which the allegory/parable deviates from the known principles of growing olives; in both cases, the allegory's characters draw the reader's attention to these deviations with some amazement. Thus, these 'mistakes' play a dramatic role in demonstrating the allegory/parable's meaning.{{ref|olive2}}

===Accurate olive culture information===
Information from{{ref|olive3}} unless otherwise specified.
{| border="1" cellpadding="2"
|'''Element'''||'''Horticulture principle'''
|-
|Wild vs. tame olives||
There are many species [at least 35-40] of olive trees, but only one, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olea_europaea Olea europaea], is domestic. Domestic olives have larger fruits and a higher oil content, having been bred for these desired characteristics. Wild olives often have thorns, which make handling them less pleasant.
|-
|Interbreeding wild and tame olive||''Olea europaea L.'' is interfertile with some wild olive species.
|-
|Wild olive reproduction||The olive is the seed of the tree. One could plant the olive seed, but this has a disadvantage: seeds are produced sexually (through the union of male and female genetic material). Thus, they may not have all of the desired characteristics of a given parent tree, since one cannot always control which other tree fertilizes a given seed.
|-
|All wild olive trees reproduce only by seeds.||Thus, even trees with desired characteristics will tend to produce offspring that "revert" to wild, since genes get mixed and combined with seed reproduction.
|-
|Growing new olive trees||Fortunately for olive growers, tame olive trees (i.e. domestics) can reproduce asexually [i.e. without sexual reproduction, or the mixture of genetic material — somewhat like a bacteria which splits in half, making a perfect copy of itself), and this is also faster than growing from seeds. This asexual reproduction involves a tree sending out shoots or runners, which can be trimmed off and simply "planted" into the ground, where they will grow as a genetically identical tree — a clone, in genetic terms, an exact copy of the parent (with all its good characteristics). This may suggest what the gospel is to make the reader — a clone of Christ, as it were, in behavior and character.
|-
|Using wild olives as "rootstock"||The wild relative of the domestic olive, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olea Olea oleaster] can be used as part of the reproduction by "runner" described above. A shoot can be grafted into a non-domestic (“wild”) tree for nutrition, yet will continue to produce olives according to its own genetics. (This is the pattern that is broken when the wild branches begin to produce tame fruit — see [[#Unusual olive culture information | below]].) This is often done to get the benefits of a certain rootstock (resistance to disease, ability to get by with less water, etc.) with a certain desired kind of domestic branch’s crop characteristic.
|-
|Olive trees are valuable||They live for hundreds of years. Starting a new olive grove was a major investment anciently, since no production could be hoped for before 40 years. It's no wonder olive trees were a common feature of civilization: one needed a stable, settled society to even think about growing them. [In fact, olives were considered by the Greeks to be a gift from the goddess Athena. This was common thinking in the ancient world — olive oil was good for light, medicinal purposes, cleaning or adorning the body, and for food. Olives were the key lipid (fat) source in early Eurasian agriculture, and a major economic driving force for the Greeks and the Roman empire (among others).]
|-
|Pruning is important||Fruit size varies with environmental conditions; sometimes excess fruit must be trimmed away so that the remaining fruit will grow larger, increasing the yield of oil. Fruit only grows on two-year-old branches of trees, so older branches must be pruned away as needed so as to concentrate the tree’s "efforts" on the productive branches. [One can't cut too many off at once, as the allegory says, or this won't leave enough leaves for photosynthesis, etc.]
|-
|Why is the Lord always threatening to burn the vineyard?||Olive trees will usually grow back after being burned, producing suckers from the old roots. This is often more time-effective than trying to start a completely new crop of trees from scratch.
|-
|Why are branches cut off and then burned?||This destroys any disease or parasite that may have caused the bad fruit, and prevents it from infecting the rest of the vineyard. Olive wood on the ground would also get in the way of the dunging, plowing, etc. needed to take care of the valuable trees.

The old wood is also knotted, twisted, and brittle: it is "good for nothing", one might say, except for burning.
|-
|Dung is an important fertilizer||5-10 tons per hectare every 1-2 years is needed in dry climates; half as frequently in wet areas.
|-
|Why the digging about the trees?||This aerates the soil, and lets minerals like potash and phosphates reach the feeder roots (since upper soil layers often bind these nutrients). Deep plowing is generally called for, and this needs to be done twice a year.
|-
|Olive trees do not need constant care||These trees have been called the "Cinderella" of agriculture, since one can leave them for a while and come back during the "off season" when there is no other crop work to do. This fits with the allegory, where the Lord and servant will leave for a while, and then come back and see how things are going.
|-
|Is "loftiness" a bad thing?||Yes. Olives can easily reach 15-20 meters in height. This makes it
*harder to pick the fruit and,
* wastes the tree's energy by supporting wood that is not productive of fruit.

This is likely why the Lord of the vineyard "plucks off" [as opposed to "pruning"] the trees — every few years one must cut off all the undesired growth, to keep the trees smaller and more productive/manageable.
|-
|How are laborers typically paid?||It was typical to provide the hired help with money wages. The offer to share the crop and its profits "should probably be understood as being very generous".{{ref|olive4}}
|-
|Why does the Lord always go "down" to the vineyard?||A few Roman manuals on olive culture (prepared for Roman citizens who were newly made "farmers" on lands which had been seized by the empire — sort of a Latin ''Olive Farming for Dummies'') are extant.

These manuals always recommended that the villa (farmhouse) be placed uphill from the crop areas and animals: and, not surprisingly, upwind from the manure pile!

|}
----

===Unusual olive culture information===
{|border="1" cellpadding="2"
|'''"Deviation" from Biology'''||'''Relevance for Interpretation'''
|-
|1. Grafted branches do not "take on" the genetic and fruit-bearing characteristics of the trunk to which they are grafted, despite the claim in Jacob 5. ||This does not happen with "real" olive trees, but Christ and His Gospel can transform one's very nature when a believer becomes "grafted in.” The parable author knows that he's stretching the truth here — the servant (who knows something about olive growing) is amazed, and calls the Lord: "Behold, look here; behold the tree." ([http://scriptures.lds.org/jacob/5/16#16 verse 16]). This is astonishing, and it is meant to be — it is a miracle, just as every transformation of sinner to saint is a miracle that cannot be explained, yet cannot be denied when one "tastes the fruits."

Likewise, tame fruit does not "become wild" in a genetic sense, though it may well take on the "wild" fruit aspects of being smaller, more bitter, and having less oil content because of poor farming, disease, nutritional or environmental problems, etc.
|-
|2. Trees grown in poor ground will not, as claimed, do as well as trees in good ground if given the same care and attention.||The servant, once again, clearly knows his olive culture. He asks the Lord just what he's thinking of: "How comest thou hither to plant this tree, or this branch of the tree? For behold, it was the poorest spot in all the land of thy vineyard." ([http://scriptures.lds.org/jacob/5/21#21 verse 21]) The Lord's reply is "Counsel me not" — ''I know what I'm doing here''. He's the Lord of the vineyard, and producing fruit (purified souls) is His business. Mankind's trials, sufferings, disadvantages, and tribulations are key in that process — see [http://scriptures.lds.org/ether/12/1#1 Ether 12], [http://scriptures.lds.org/2_cor/12/1#1 2 Corinthians 12]. The believer ought not to seek to "counsel" the Lord on these issues: He knows them already. The believer ought, rather, to trust His skill in the vineyard of souls.
|}

==Conclusion==
Jacob 5 is a virtuoso performance by Joseph Smith in his role as translator. He presents an intricate, accurate account of olive culture, and uses variances from the "proper" technique as a teaching tool. It should be noted that there was (and is) no olive culture done in New England. Furthermore, the original manuscript exists for part of this chapter — Jacob 5:46-48, 57-61, 69-70, and 77. Only one word is altered after dictation: "diged" in "digged about" of verse 47.{{ref|olive5}} Thus, Joseph produced this material by dictation, with no revision.

==Endnotes==
#{{note|olive1}} See the exhaustive {{olivetree1|start=1|author=Multiple Authors|article=All}}
#{{note|olive2}}{{BoMRC|start=618|end=621}}
#{{note|olive3}} {{olivetree|start=484|end=562|author=WM Hess, DJ Fairbanks , JW Welch, JK Driggs|article=Botanical Aspects of Olive Culture Relevant to Jacob 5}} (unless otherwise indicated).
#{{note|olive4}} Hess ''et al.'', 529.
#{{note|olive5}} {{CTBoM1|start=200|end=203}}

==Further reading==
===FAIR wiki articles===
{{Joseph Smith BoM against expectations}}



===Printed material===
*{{olivetree1|start=1|author=Multiple Authors|article=All}}
[[es:Cultura_de_olivos_en_el_Libro_de_Morm%C3%B3n]]

Book of Mormon/Olive horticulture

2008-07-11T13:26:21Z

BettinaSiebert:

Freemasonry and the Book of Mormon

2008-07-11T12:54:06Z

BettinaSiebert:

==Criticism==
Critics claim that the Gadianton robbers are thinly disguised references to the anti-Masonic panic of Joseph Smith's era.

===Source(s) of the Criticism===
*{{AntiBook:Brodie:No Man Knows|pages=63–66}}
*John L. Brooke, ''The Refiner's Fire: The Making of Mormon Cosmology, 1644–1844'' (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 168–171, 174–177, 226, 230, 233.
*Ed Decker, ''Decker's Complete Handbook on Mormonism'' (Eugene: Harvest House, 1995), 210–211, 280.
*Robert N. Hullinger, ''Mormon Answer to Skepticism: Why Joseph Smith Wrote the Book of Mormon'' (St. Louis, Mo.: Clayton, 1980), 100–119; republished as ''Joseph Smith's Response to Skepticism'' (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1992), 99–120.
*Thomas F. O'Dea, ''The Mormons'' (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1957), 23, 35, 57.
*David Persuitte, ''Joseph Smith and the Origins of the Book of Mormon'' (Jefferson, N.C.: McFarland, 1985), 173–180.
*Walter F. Prince, "Psychological Tests for the Authorship of the Book of Mormon," ''American Journal of Psychology'' 28 (July 1917): 373–389.
*Latayne Colvett Scott, ''The Mormon mirage : a former Mormon tells why she left the church'' (Grand Rapids : Zondervan Pub. House, 1979), 75.
*Dan Vogel, "Mormonism's 'Anti-Masonick Bible,'" ''John Whitmer Historical Association Journal'' 9 (1989): 17–30.
*Dan Vogel, "Echoes of Anti-Masonry: A Rejoinder to the Critics of the Anti-Masonic Thesis," in ''American Apocrypha'', ed. Dan Vogel and Brent Lee Metcalfe (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2002), 275–320.

==Response==
Many have speculated that the use of anti-masonic language in the Book of Mormon is 'proof' of 19th century authorship. The authors of these speculations fail to take into account four critical issues which discredit the association between the Gadiantion robbers of the Book of Mormon and the anti-Masonry of the opening decades of the 19th century [1826 through 1845].

1. Joseph Smith grew up with and was surrouned by Freemasons in his home. Both his father, Joseph Smith, Sr., and his elder brother Hyrum Smith were Masons in New York. It would seem unlikely that Joseph would be using anti-masonic language and terms, given his family's close connection and association with the institution of Freemasonry.

2. In 1842, Joseph Smith, Jr., became a Mason. Had Joseph intended to tie the Gadianton robbers to the Freemasons, it seems most unlikely that only 12 years later he would then join the very group which the critics' theories require that he oppose so vehemently in the Book of Mormon.

To credit the critics' theories, wrote anti-Mormon Theodore Schroeder, we must accept that

:when the Book of Mormon was finished, Smith's 'obsession' [with anti-Masonry] suddenly and permanently disappears without any other explanation, and Joseph Smith himself became a Mason, in spite of this anti-Masonic obsession.{{ref|schroeder1}}

3. The Book of Mormon is a translation. As such its phrasing may sometimes reflect the time and place in which it was translated. Any similarity between the language of the anti-masonic movement and Joseph's translation can better be expained by Joseph using the language of his time and place rather than by a deliberate connection to anti-masonry.{{ref|mourtisen1}}

Some have claimed that the phrase "secret combination" was used exclusively in a Masonic context in Joseph Smith's day. This is simply not the case, however. In 1788, during the debates at New York's state convention to ratify the federal constitution, Alexander Hamilton stated:

:In this, the few must yield to the many; or, in other words, the particular must be sacrificed to the general interest. If the members of Congress are too dependent on the state legislatures, they will be eternally forming '''secret combinations''' from local views.{{ref|hamilton1}}

And, in 1826, Andrew Jackson complained about Henry Clay's "secrete [sic] combinations of base slander."{{ref|Jackson1}} Jackson was a prominent and well-known Mason, and his presidency was rich fodder for those who feared a Masonic conspiracy. Yet, despite the critics' claims that "secret combination" must refer only to Masons, a prominent Mason here complains about an attack on ''him'' in exactly those terms.

4. Furthermore, the Saints of the 19th century saw the Book of Mormon's prophecies of latter-day "secret combinations" fulfilled by the persecution which they received at the hands of American citizens and the U.S. government. They did not invoke the Masons, which suggests that those who knew Joseph Smith did not recognize anti-Masonic themes in the Book of Mormon.{{ref|peterson1}}

==Conclusion==
Given Joseph Smith's long family involvement with the institution of Freemasonry and the fact that he would, in 1842, become a Mason himself, it seems unlikely that anti-Masonry was the "environmental source" of the Gadianton robbers found in the Book of Mormon. The members of his day likewise had little enthusiasm for anti-Masonic sentiments.

Any similarities in language between some anti-Masonic agitators and the Book of Mormon are more plausibly explained by the fact that similar words can be—and were—used to describe a variety of different tactics and organizations.

The claim that "secret combinations" was always used to refer to Masons is clearly false.

==Endnotes==
#{{note|schroeder1}} Theodore Schroeder, "Authorship of the Book of Mormon: Psychologic Tests of W. F. Prince Critically Reviewed," ''American Journal of Psychology'' 30 (January 1919): 70.
#{{note|Mourtisen1}}{{JBMS-12-1-7}}
#{{note|hamilton1}} Jonathan Elliot, ed., ''The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, as Recommended by the General Convention at Philadelphia in 1787, Together with the Journal of the Federal Convention, Luther Martin's Letter, Yates's Minutes, Congressional Opinions, Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions of '98-99 and other Illustrations of the Constitution'', 2nd ed., vol. 2 (Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott, 1861), 318, emphasis added.
#{{note|Jackson1}} Robert V. Remini, ''Henry Clay: Statesman for the Union'' (New York and London: Norton, 1991), 340; cited in {{JBMS-1-1-11}}
#{{note|peterson1}}, " Notes on 'Gadianton Masonry'" in {{warfarebom|author=Daniel C. Peterson|article=Notes on 'Gadianton Masonry'|start=174|end=224}}

==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===
{{Book of Mormon Anachronisms}}
{{MasonryWiki}}

===FAIR web site===
*Brant A. Gardner, "The Gadianton Robbers in Mormon's Theological History: Their Structural Role and Plausible Identification” {{fairlink|url=http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/conf/2002GarB.html}}
{{MasonryFAIR}}

===External links===
{{MasonryLinks}}
*Matthew P. Roper [“Anti-Masonic Influences”], ''FARMS Review of Books'', vol. 4, 1992, 184–85.

===Printed material===
{{MasonryPrinted}}
*Matthew B. Brown, “The LDS Temple and Freemasonry,” in Matthew B. Brown, ''The Gate of Heaven: Insights on the Doctrines and Symbols of the Temple'' (American Fork, UT: Covenant, 1999), 299–318.
[[es:Libro_de_Morm%C3%B3n_Anacronismos:_Ladrones_de_Gadianton_como_Masones%3F]]

The Bible/Joseph Smith Translation/As a restoration of the original Bible text

2008-07-11T12:48:17Z

BettinaSiebert:

{{BiblePortal}}
{{question}}

==Question==
If the Joseph Smith Translation (JST) is Joseph Smith's 'correction' of Biblical errors, why do these corrections not match known Biblical manuscripts?

==Answer==

In describing the nature of the JST, the leading expert said:

:To regard the New Translation [i.e. JST] as a product of divine inspiration given to Joseph Smith does not necessarily assume that it be a restoration of the original Bible text. It seems probable that the New Translation could be many things. For example, the nature of the work may fall into at least four categories:
#Portions may amount to restorations of content material once written by the biblical authors but since deleted from the Bible.
#Portions may consist of a record of actual historical events that were not recorded, or were recorded but never included in the biblical collection
#Portions may consist of inspired commentary by the Prophet Joseph Smith, enlarged, elaborated, and even adapted to a latter-day situation. This may be similar to what Nephi meant by "Likening" the scriptures to himself and his people in their particular circumstance. (See 1 Nephi 19:23-24; 2 Nephi 11:8).
#Some items may be a harmonization of doctrinal concepts that were revealed to the Prophet Joseph Smith independently of his translation of the Bible, but by means of which he was able to discover that a biblical passage was inaccurate.
:The most fundamental question seems to be whether or not one is disposed to accept the New Translation as a divinely inspired document.{{ref|matthews1}}

The same author later observed:

:It would be informative to consider various meanings of the word translate. The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) gives these definitions: "To turn from one language into another retaining the sense"; also, "To express in other words, to paraphrase." It gives another meaning as, "To interpret, explain, expound the significance of." Other dictionaries give approximately the same definitions as the OED. Although we generally think of translation as having to do with changing a word text from one language to another, that is not the only usage of the word. Translate equally means to express an idea or statement in other words, even in the same language. If people are unfamiliar with certain terminology in their own tongue, they will need an explanation. The explanation may be longer than the original, yet the original had all the meaning, either stated or implied. In common everyday discourse, when we hear something stated ambiguously or in highly technical terms, we ask the speaker to translate it for us. It is not expected that the response must come in another language, but only that the first statement be made clear. The speaker's new statement is a form of translation because it follows the basic purpose and intent of the word translation, which is to render something in understandable form…Every translation is an interpretation—a version. The translation of language cannot be a mechanical operation … Translation is a cognitive and functional process because there is not one word in every language to match with exact words in every other language. Gender, case, tense, terminology, idiom, word order, obsolete and archaic words, and shades of meaning—all make translation an interpretive process.{{ref|matthews2}}

==An example==

Thus, much of the JST is probably better understood as a kind of midrashic commentary on the text.

The JST for the opening of the Gospel of John is as follows:

:1 In the beginning was the gospel preached through the Son. And the gospel was the word, and the word was with the Son, and the Son was with God, and the Son was of God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not anything made which was made.

It seems more likely that the point of this revision is to avoid directly equating the Word (Greek: ''Logos'') with Jesus Christ. This equation was based on Greek philosophical usage, in which the concept of a Logos as an intermediary agency between God and man was first articulated. So equating the ''Logos'' with the gospel and not Jesus directly seems to be a way of rejecting too great a reliance on Greek philosophy in articulating the premortal nature of Jesus Christ. This is likely not a return to some primitive purity of the text, but a helpful explanation or commentary provided by the Lord through Joseph Smith to prevent us from going too far down a theological "blind alley."

==Conclusion==
Some aspects of the JST may reflect a restoration of lost Biblical text. But, such restoration is likely in the minority. Joseph did not claim to be mechanically preserving some hypothetically 'perfect' Biblical text. Rather, Joseph used the extant King James text as a basis for commentary, expansion, and clarification based upon revelation, with particular attention to issues of doctrinal importance for the modern reader. Reading the JST is akin to having the prophet at your elbow as one studies—it allows Joseph to clarify, elaborate, and comment on the Biblical text in the light of modern revelation.

Modern readers are accustomed to thinking of a 'translation' as only the conversion of text in one language to another. But, Joseph used the term in a broader and more inclusive sense, which included explanation, commentary, and harmonization. The JST is probably best understood in this light.

==Endnotes==
#{{note|matthews1}} Robert J. Matthews, ''"A Plainer Translation": Joseph Smith's Translation of the Bible: A History and Commentary'' (Provo, UT: Brigham Young University Press, 1985), 253.
#{{note|matthews2}}Robert J. Matthews, "Joseph Smith as Translator," in ''Joseph Smith, The Prophet, The Man'', edited by Susan Easton Black and Charles D. Tate, Jr. (Provo: Religious Studies Center, 1993), 80, 84.

==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===
{{JSTWiki}}

===FAIR web site===
{{JSTFAIR}}

===External links===
{{JSTLinks}}

===Printed material===
{{JSTPrint}}
[[es:/La_traducci%C3%B3n_de_Jos%C3%A9_Smith_como_una_restauraci%C3%B3n_del_texto_b%C3%ADblico_original]]

The Bible/Completeness

2008-07-11T12:32:29Z

BettinaSiebert:

{| style="margin: 0em 0em 0em 0em; border: 0px; align="right" cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0
|-
| {{BiblePortal}}
|-
| {{EarlyChristianityPortal}}
|}
==Criticism==
Critics claim the [[Bible_basics |Bible]] contains all necessary or essential knowledge to assure salvation. Therefore, things like modern prophets or additional scripture (such as the [[Book_of_Mormon_basics |Book of Mormon]]) are unnecessary or even blasphemous.

===Source(s) of the Criticism===
*{{QuestionsMormonsShouldAsk}}
* {{50Questions}}

==Response==

The Bible nowhere makes the claim for sufficiency or completeness.

Furthermore, the thousands of Christian sects and groups provide ample testimony that the Bible has not been sufficient to encourage unanimity among Christians about proper authority, doctrine, or practice. Critics would like us to accept that ''their'' reading is the correct one, but this means we must appeal to some other standard—one cannot use their reading of the Bible to prove their reading of the Bible!

There is also no unanimity among Christians concerning what constitutes the "true" Bible canon—once again, some other standard is needed to determine which Bible is the "true" or "inerrant" version.

There are also other writings which the Bible itself refers to as authoritative, and yet these books are not in the present Bible canon. Either the Bible is wrong in referring to these writings as authoritative, or some modern Christians are wrong for arguing that the Bible is a complete record of all God's word to His children.

While the LDS do not like to denigrate the Bible or call attention to its errors, since they consider it an inspired volume of scripture of great value, they also recognize that there are some errors and contradictions in the Bible which are the result of human error or tampering. This does not reduce the Bible's value in their estimation, but it does call into question any claims for "inerrancy."

Said early LDS leader George Q. Cannon:

:This book [the Bible] is of priceless worth; its value cannot estimated by anything that is known among men upon which value is fixed. ... But in the Latter-day Saints it should always be a precious treasure. Beyond any people now upon the face of the earth, they should value it, for the reason that from its pages, from the doctrines set forth by its writers, the epitome of the plan of salvation which is there given unto us, we derive the highest consolation, we obtain the greatest strength. It is, as it were, a constant fountain sending forth streams of living life to satisfy the souls of all who peruse its pages.{{ref|gqc1}}
:{{parabreak}}
:We are not called to teach the errors of translators but the truth of God's word. It is our mission to develop faith in the revelations from God in the hearts of the children, and "How can that best be done?" is the question that confronts us. Certainly not by emphasizing doubts, creating difficulties or teaching negations.... The [http://scriptures.lds.org/a_of_f/1/8#8 clause in the Articles of Faith] regarding mistakes in the translation of the Bible was never intended to encourage us to spend our time in searching out and studying those errors, but to emphasize the idea that it is the truth and the truth only that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints accepts, no matter where it is found.

==Conclusion==
In sum, claiming inerrancy and completeness:
* is not a Biblical doctrine
* has not been sufficient to prevent a vast range of Biblical interpretations and Christian practices, all of which cannot be correct
* ignores that the Biblical canon is not unanimous among Christians, and ignores non-canonical books which the Bible itself cites as being authoritative
* ignores that the Bible contains some errors and internal inconsistencies

However, the LDS cherish the Bible. Those who claim otherwise are mistaken. As Elder Neal A. Maxwell said:

:Occasionally, a few in the Church let the justified caveat about the Bible—“as far as it is translated correctly”—diminish their exultation over the New Testament. Inaccuracy of some translating must not, however, diminish our appreciation for the powerful ''testimony'' and ample ''historicity'' of the New Testament...

:So when we read and turn the pages of the precious New Testament, there is a barely audible rustling like the quiet stirrings of the Spirit, something to be 'spiritually discerned.' ({{s|1|Corinthians|2|14}}). The witnessing words came to us—not slowly, laboriously, or equivocally through the corridors of the centuries, but rather, swiftly, deftly, and clearly. Upon the wings of the Spirit these words proclaim, again and anew, “JESUS LIVED. JESUS LIVES!”

==Endnotes==
#{{note|gqc1}}{{JoD22|start=261|end=262|date=8 May 1881|author=George Q. Cannon|title=The Blessings Enjoyed Through Possessing The Ancient Records, etc.}}
#{{note|gqc2}}{{JInstructor1|author=George Q. Cannon|article=?|date=1 April 1901|vol=36|num=?|start=208}}
#{{note|nam1}} {{Ensign1|author=Neal Maxwell|author=The New Testament—A Matchless Portrait of the Savior|December 1986|start=20}}, italics in original. {{link|url=http://beta.lds.org/portal/site/LDSOrg/menuitem.b12f9d18fae655bb69095bd3e44916a0/?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=26fb67700817b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1}}

==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===
{{BibleWiki}}

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

===External links===
*{{EoM|author=Robert A. Cloward|article=Lost Scriptures|vol=2|start=845|end=846}}{{link|url=http://ldsfaq.byu.edu/emmain.asp?number=110}}
*{{FR-11-2-3}}
*{{ComparingLDSBeliefs}}
*{{aremormonschristians0}}{{link1|url=http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/response/general/christians/ser5.htm}}
{{BibleLinks}}

===Printed material===
{{BiblePrint}}
[[de:Bibel:_Sonst_nichts%3F_%28Sola_scriptura%29]]
[[es:Es_la_Bibla_completa_y_suficiente%3F]]

The Bible/Basics

2008-07-11T12:27:03Z

BettinaSiebert:

{{BiblePortal}}
==The Holy Bible==

Latter-day Saints consider the Bible to be holy scripture. The 8th Article of Faith states:

:"We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God."

The proviso that the LDS believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly seems to shake some persons' confidence in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as a Bible-believing church. There is no reason that this should be, for it is hardly a matter of dispute that when men translate words from one language to another they can easily err, and have often done so. Simply comparing different English-language versions of the Bible should demonstrate conclusively that some people understand ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek (the source languages of the Old and New Testaments) quite differently in some cases.

But let no one doubt: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints reveres the Bible and uses it extensively in its teaching and practice. The late Elder James E. Talmage, a member of the Quorum of the Twelve, had this to say about the Bible in his classic book about the Articles of Faith:

:''The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints accepts the Holy Bible as the foremost of her standard works, first among the books which have been proclaimed as her written guides in faith and doctrine. In the respect and sanctity with which the Latter-day Saints regard the Bible they are of like profession with Christian denominations in general, but differ from them in the additional acknowledgment of certain other scriptures as authentic and holy, which others are in harmony with the Bible, and serve to support and emphasize its facts and doctrines.''

:''The historical and other data upon which is based the current Christian faith as to the genuineness of the Biblical record are accepted as unreservedly by the Latter-day Saints as by the members of any sect; and in literalness of interpretation this Church probably excels.''

:''Nevertheless, the Church announces a reservation in the case of erroneous translation, which may occur as a result of human incapacity; and even in this measure of caution we are not alone, for Biblical scholars generally admit the presence of errors of the kind -- both of translation and of transcription of the text. The Latter-day Saints believe the original records to be the word of God unto man, and, as far as these records have been translated correctly, the translations are regarded as equally authentic. The English Bible professes to be a translation made through the wisdom of man; in its preparation the most scholarly men have been enlisted, yet not a version has been published in which errors are not admitted. However, an impartial investigator has cause to wonder more at the paucity of errors than that mistakes are to be found at all.''

:''There will be, there can be, no absolutely reliable translation of these or other scriptures unless it be effected through the gift of translation, as one of the endowments of the Holy Ghost. The translator must have the spirit of the prophet if he would render in another tongue the prophet's words; and human wisdom alone leads not to that possession. Let the Bible then be read reverently and with prayerful care, the reader ever seeking the light of the Spirit that he may discern between truth and the errors of men.'' (James E. Talmage, Articles of Faith, Ch.13, p.236 - p.237)

===External Links===

* [http://www.mormon.org/freeoffers/1,17785,3708-1-2,00.html?src=tv Click here] for a free copy of the King James Version (KJV) Holy Bible
* [http://scriptures.lds.org/ot/contents Old Testament] - KJV, with LDS footnotes and cross-references on-line
* [http://scriptures.lds.org/nt/contents New Testament] - KJV, with LDS footnotes and cross-references on-line
* [[Online_textual_sources_and_materials#Scripture_study | FAIRWiki scripture study links]]
[[de:Bibel%2C_Grundlagen]]
[[es:Bible_basics]]