FAIR - User contributions [en]

Criticism of Mormonism/Cognitive dissonance

2012-07-11T00:51:25Z

BrandonHansen: /* {{Conclusion label}} */ caps, space

{{Articles FAIR copyright}} {{Articles Header 1}} {{Articles Header 2}} {{Articles Header 3}} {{Articles Header 4}} {{Articles Header 5}} {{Articles Header 6}} {{Articles Header 7}} {{Articles Header 8}} {{Articles Header 9}} {{Articles Header 10}}
=={{Criticism label}}==
Many critics of the Church portray members as either naive, ill-informed dupes or cynical exploiters. Fortunately, most fair-minded people realize that—just as in any religion—there are intelligent, well-informed people who become or remain members of the Church. In response, some critics appeal to the social psychological concept of “cognitive dissonance” to dismiss the spiritual witnesses of intelligent, articulate members.

{{CriticalSources}}

=={{Conclusion label}}==
Cognitive dissonance theory, when applied with a critic’s intent to explaining away the witnesses and convictions of believers, is badly flawed. Critics' efforts fail on many grounds:

* Cognitive dissonance is a “motivational state” like hope or remorse or love. The fact that it may be operating does not exclude the possibility of a spiritual witness.
* Critics define what evidence or beliefs are "rational" and which are "false" or "irrational." In doing so, the dice are loaded from the start since it's the critics' epistemological assumptions that will determine the outcome.
* Critics can dismiss any attitude or conviction using the concept of cognitive dissonance. Conversely, believers can dismiss any argument made by critics using the same concept. The arguments cancel each other, resulting in a nil score.
* Critics’ claims rely on inferences about hidden, unverifiable, unfalsifiable, “subconscious” sources.
* Critics reject subjects' self-reports of experiences and inner states in favor of their own assumptions.

== ==
{{Response label}}
===What is cognitive dissonance?===

Cognitive dissonance theory was first described in the 1957 by social psychologist Leon Festinger {{ref|Festinger1}} . The term describes the unpleasant feeling arising from an awareness of a difference between what we feel or believe and how we are actually acting. Cognitive dissonance can also arise when we hold two or more different beliefs that conflict with each other. It’s an uncomfortable, even painful state. It’s aversive enough to drive us to make changes. When we feel cognitive dissonance, we’re motivated to reduce it and return to a state of psychological harmony.

Critics argue that believers make claims of love for and faith in the gospel in order to explain why they would put up with the demands and difficulties of a Church oriented lifestyle. It’s argued by critics that members don’t actually receive spiritual witnesses. Instead, it’s argued, members invent personal spiritual myths to reduce the dissonance they feel when they take on religious rules and responsibilities that yield minimal rewards. Inventing a reward like a spiritual witness makes the dissonance go away. It makes the social transaction of compliance to a religious way of life make sense.

====A Case Study====

Consider the payment of tithing to the Church as a case study. If a Church member doesn’t pay tithing but believes he should be paying it, he’s in a state of cognitive dissonance. His beliefs are in conflict with his actions. It’s painful to him. In order to restore inner equilibrium, he can reduce the dissonance, acquire new information, or minimize the importance of the dissonance to a point where it doesn’t bother him anymore.
The conflicted non-tithe payer can choose from four different strategies:

#'''Acquiring New Information'''—He might try to restore his inner harmony by gathering more information. Maybe he’ll comb news items to see how the Church spends money. He might demand an accounting from Church leaders detailing how all his individual donations are spent. He could continue to do this until he either a) decided tithing is well-spent and he should begin paying it or b) decided the Church is wasteful and/or misguided and doesn’t deserve his money until it undergoes a reformation. He might tell himself that he’d like to pay tithing but he can’t do it in good conscience when the Church is undeserving of the money.
#'''Minimizing the Importance of the Inconsistency'''—He might convince himself that it doesn’t matter that he doesn’t pay tithing because his tithing really isn’t important to the Church. After accepting this minimization, he can feel better about not paying it. After all, the Church appears prosperous. Its programs seem well-funded. It can afford to donate to humanitarian efforts. He could even promise himself if it ever looked like the Church was suffering and needed his personal funds, he’d start paying it.
#'''Reducing the Dissonance by Accepting the Attitude and Changing the Behavior'''—He might look for and emphasize the benefits of the behavior (paying tithing) and ignore the negative effects of giving up ten percent of one’s income. He pays tithing. He changes his behavior and eliminates the dissonance between his attitudes and actions. This is the process critics point to as acting as a counterfeit for conversion through a spiritual witness.
#'''Reducing the Dissonance by Accepting the Behavior and Changing the Attitude'''—In this case, the conflicted tithe payer accepts his non-payment of tithing. He brings his attitudes about tithing into harmony with his practice of not paying it. In order to do this, he now claims his former belief about the Church being “true” was wrong. His attitude has changed and he is justified in abandoning tithing and keeping his money.

===How do the critics misuse it?===

====The Irony====

This is where the irony of cognitive dissonance as a complaint against believers emerges. Of the four possibilities listed above, only one applies to people who persist in their belief in the Church. The other three can lead to a full or partial departure from Church life. Most of the strategies for managing cognitive dissonance don’t lead people to stay in the Church. On the contrary, they lead people out of it. The same kind of analysis could be made with other challenging aspects of Church life such as home teaching, sexual behavior, honesty, Sabbath observance, etc.

In the spirit of “live by the sword, die by the sword,” critics who level cognitive dissonance at believers should consider the role of the same phenomenon in their own thoughts, feelings, and convictions. All people experience cognitive dissonance when we do or learn something that does not match what we previously thought or believed. None of us is immune to it.

Even though cognitive dissonance may be real and universal, its operation alone says nothing about the quality or truth of someone's beliefs. The presence, or resolution, of dissonance proves nothing about the facts in question.

====Motivational States====

Admitting the possibility that cognitive dissonance may play a role in religious choices is not the same thing as dismissing the possibility that real spiritual witnesses are also factors. The dichotomy critics have used to frame the relationship between cognitive dissonance and a spiritual witness is a false one. Nothing in cognitive dissonance theory demands it be exclusive of all other motivating factors and influences.

From the very beginning, cognitive dissonance was a term meant to describe a “motivational state.” There are many different kinds of motivational states. They include our most basic feelings like hunger, fear and lust or they may be more complicated emotions like curiosity, guilt, hope, or love. Cognitive dissonance falls into the same category as these feelings. What they have in common is that they’re internal states that drive us to action.

Most of us will recognize motivational states such as hope and love and remorse as common themes in personal stories of spiritual witnesses. We’ve come to expect believers to refer to these kinds of motivational states in their accounts. Even Mormon scriptures deal at length with the role of hope and desire in faith acquisition {{scripture||Moro|7|40}} {{scripture||Alma|32|27}}. No one apologizes for the role of motivational states in spiritual life. The same frankness should exist when addressing the motivational state of cognitive dissonance. Why should believers be expected to assume a defensive posture when a critic complains cognitive dissonance is operating? It may be an underlying factor, like dozens of other possible factors. But that doesn’t mean it has to be the only one. That would be like claiming anything we do while we're hungry is the result of that hunger alone and can't be attributed to any other motivation. Such a claim would be clearly ridiculous.

Cognitive Dissonance Theory does not undermine the possibility of receiving a genuine spiritual witness. It simply illuminates another of many motivational states. These states may be tools or stepping stones believers can use as they progress toward more sublime experiences.

====The Problem of Falsifiability====

Michael Shermer, an agnostic and writer for ''Skeptic'' magazine, specifically dismissed the idea that cognitive dissonance could serve as a tool to explain away the convictions of religious believers as a group:

:It would be a long stretch to classify [millions of white, middle class American Christians] as oppressed, disenfranchised, or marginalized…[millions of apocalyptically-inclined] Americans are anything but in a state of learned helplessness or cognitive dissonance. Indeed, some recent polls and studies indicate that religious people, on average, may be both physically and psychologically happier and healthier than non-believers.{{ref|shermer1}}

This is not to say Shermer would deny some believers might be misusing cognitive dissonance. However, he balks at using cognitive dissonance to explain an entire group of believers.

Critics claim their invocation of cognitive dissonance is scientific and objective. However, this claim doesn't measure up to one of the most important principles of a scientific inquiry: falsifiability. And a hallmark of pseudoscience is its inability to be falsified.

:The criterion of falsifiability...says that statements or systems of statements, in order to be ranked as scientific, must be capable of conflicting with possible, or conceivable, observations.{{ref|popper1}}

It’s difficult to imagine a setting where faithful Mormons could be given a proper chance to prove that their resistance to anti-Mormon "evidence" operates independently of cognitive dissonance. Until someone can create such a setting, critics' claims about believers are not falsifiable and, therefore, not strictly scientific.

Dissonance is easier to identify when the group of people in question is exposed to the same situation and makes the same kinds of choices under controlled conditions. Festinger’s initial experiments on cognitive dissonance were conducted in controlled laboratory settings where simple tasks and questions were used to measure behaviors and attitudes. Though later attempts were made to extend the experimental principles into real social situations, no further claims about how cognitive dissonance actually operates can boast the same rigor as the basic experimental data. Trying to tease out why an individual holds or rejects specific religious or philosophical positions is a much taller order. Religious attitudes and behaviors are complicated and nuanced and drawn out over lifetimes. They don’t reduce well to laboratory settings. Critics try to extrapolate the first simple, straightforward findings into areas of social and spiritual life where the original concepts and methods can never venture.

====Problems in the Rules of Engagement====

This is not to say that cognitive dissonance cannot play a problematic role in religious beliefs. However, it can play a problematic role in beliefs of all sorts—the religious as well as the non-religious or even anti-religious.

It might play a role in some Mormons' refusal to accept uncomfortable “glitches.” But without access to others’ reasoning and spiritual experiences, critics cannot objectively evaluate the influence of cognitive dissonance in others’ religious attitudes and behaviors.

Many critics seem unwilling to recognize that men and women of good will and sound intelligence might honestly disagree on the interpretation of evidence, even when considering it with all the objectivity they can muster. This is, for example, why some people will buy stock at a price at which other people are eager to sell. Surely the entire economy isn’t merely an exercise in cognitive dissonance reduction.

LDS critics often have a naïve, over-simplified view of historians’ work. They may assume anyone who disbelieves a religious account is somehow more free from bias than a believer. Such a stance ignores the fact that unbelievers may feel as great a stake in disproving uncomfortable and uncompromising religious claims as believers might in supporting them. Non-believing critics may be prone to labeling interpretations with which they do not agree as examples of “cognitive dissonance” while their own positions are portrayed as products of dispassionate analysis.

====Mining the Subconscious====

One critic espousing cognitive dissonance as a problem in religious life tells us:

:The most important part of this analysis, by far, is to recognize that the forces we are about to discuss [cognitive dissonance] operate mostly at the subconscious level. To the extent we drag them into the conscious realm, they largely stop operating.{{ref|mccue1}}

“Subconscious” forces used to explain behavior, especially by the outside observer, can only be unfalsifiable hypotheses. How can anyone know that a “cause” which has been supposedly dragged from subconscious is genuine? Since a person is—by definition—unaware of subconscious processes, how can the critic know with any confidence that the "forces we are about to discuss" look anything like the subconscious ones? How can anyone say that A and B are the same thing if no one can get a certain look at A?

Despite these major hurdles, critics seem to presume they can reliably determine others’ subconscious processes and “drag them into the conscious realm.” It’s an especially remarkable claim since critics don’t usually claim to have interviewed or analyzed any of the believers of whom they speak. Not even Freud made claims like these about our access to the subconscious.

The critic then makes the equally strange assertion that these effects “largely stop operating” if believers become aware of them. Even if the critic has identified a proper “subconscious force”—something of which he can never be sure—this belief is extraordinarily optimistic. The accepted wisdom in counseling or mental health work has long been that awareness of a problem rarely provides a direct line to altering thinking or behavior. Mental health services are not merely magic confessionals.

The critic goes on:

:The message that booms through the above evidence to me is that the denial inducing nature of cognitive dissonance makes it difficult to self-diagnose.{{ref|mccue2}}

Unfortunately for the critics, if we assume that this is true, then critics themselves are equally vulnerable to the same treatment. The faithful Mormon could just as easily respond that an anti-Mormon's perspective is all due to cognitive dissonance. The anti-Mormon just doesn't know it because such a condition is "difficult to self-diagnose."

Appeals to cognitive dissonance allow the critic to fit the evidence to his biases and “diagnose” flaws in others. No matter how much faithful Mormons might insist the critic does not understand Mormons’ points of view or evaluations of the evidence, this just serves as stronger evidence to the critic of the depth of the Mormons’ delusions.

In the hands of critics, cognitive dissonance is a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-fulfilling_prophecy self-fulfilling prophecy], or a variation of the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer-expectancy_effect observer-expectancy effect]. It is full of [[Cognitive_dissonance#Further reading | fallacies]]. It is a substitute for rational discussion of the evidence and for thoughtful consideration of the possibility of a real the witness of the Spirit.

=={{Endnotes label}}==
#{{note|Festinger1}}Leon Festinger, ''A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance'' (Evanston, IL: Row, Peterson, 1957)
#{{note|shermer1}}Michael Shermer, ''How We Believe: The Search for God in an Age of Science'' (New York: WH Freeman and Company, 1999),211–212.
#{{note|popper1}}Karl Popper, ''Conjectures and Refutations'' (London: Routledge and Keagan Paul, 1963), 33.
#{{note|web1}}M. Bruce Abbot, “Cognitive Dissonance Theory,” class notes for ADV382J, University of Texas at Austin, September 2003 (accessed 31 October 2005). {{link|url=http://www.ciadvertising.org/sa/fall_03/adv382J/mbabbott/critique2.htm}}
#{{note|mccue1}}Bob McCue, “Notes for Van Hale’s Radio Show”; e-mail posting (5 September 2004), copy in author's possession.
#{{note|mccue2}}Bob McCue, “Notes for Van Hale’s Radio Show”; e-mail posting (5 September 2004), copy in author's possession.

{{FurtherReading}}

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

[[fr:Cognitive dissonance]]

Kinderhook Plates

2012-05-06T15:39:36Z

BrandonHansen: /* Did Joseph Smith attempt to translate the Kinderhook Plates? */ rmv redundant GAEL reference

Origin of the Book of Mormon

2012-02-19T20:01:40Z

BrandonHansen: /* {{Topics label}} */ rmv redundancy

Mormonism and Church discipline/Purpose

2012-02-13T04:01:36Z

BrandonHansen: /* What Church disciplinary options are available? */ make wording consistent

Book of Mormon textual changes

2012-02-13T03:07:50Z

BrandonHansen: /* {{Subarticles label}} */ typo

{{Articles FAIR copyright}} {{Articles Header 1}} {{Articles Header 2}} {{Articles Header 3}} {{Articles Header 4}} {{Articles Header 5}} {{Articles Header 6}} {{Articles Header 7}} {{Articles Header 8}} {{Articles Header 9}} {{Articles Header 10}}
{{BoMPortal}}
<onlyinclude>
=[[Book of Mormon/Textual changes|Book of Mormon textual changes]]=
<noinclude>
=={{Criticism label}}==

The published text of the Book of Mormon has been corrected and edited through its various editions. Critics claim that this is evidence that Joseph Smith and other Church leaders were attempting to cover up errors that would expose the book as a work of man, not God.

{{CriticalSources}}
</noinclude>
=={{Subarticles label}}==

{{SummaryItem
|link=Book of Mormon/Textual changes/"the Son of"
|subject="the Son of" added to 1 Nephi 11:18, 1 Nephi 11:21, 1 Nephi 11:32, and 1 Nephi 13:40
|summary=
}}
{{SummaryItem
|link=Book of Mormon/Textual changes/"or out of the waters of baptism"
|subject="or out of the waters of baptism" added to 1 Nephi 20:1
|summary=
}}
{{SummaryItem
|link=Book of Mormon/Textual changes/"white" changed to "pure"
|subject="white" changed to "pure" in 2 Nephi 30:6
|summary=
}}
{{SummaryItem
|link=Book of Mormon/Textual changes/"Benjamin" changed to "Mosiah"
|subject="Benjamin" changed to "Mosiah" in Mosiah 21:28 and Ether 4:1
|summary=
}}
{{SummaryItem
|link=Book of Mormon/Textual changes/"Words missing in Alma 32:30"
|subject="Words missing in Alma 32:30"
|summary=
}}
</onlyinclude>

=={{Response label}}==
[[FAIRwiki:Table_of_contents#Joseph_Smith.2C_Jr.|Joseph Smith]] taught "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."{{ref|mostcorrect}} As the end of the preceding quote clarifies, by "most correct" this he meant in ''principle and teaching.'' The authors of the Book of Mormon themselves explained several times that their writing was imperfect, but that the teachings in the book were from God ({{scripture|1|Nephi|19|6}}; {{scripture|2|Nephi|33|4}}; {{scripture||Mormon|8|17}}; {{scripture||Mormon|9|31-33}}; {{scripture||Ether|12|23-26}}).

===Insignificant changes===

If one counts every difference in every punctuation mark in every edition of the Book of Mormon, the result is well over 100,000 changes.{{ref|skousen2002}} The critical issue is not the ''number'' of changes that have been made to the text, but the ''nature'' of the changes.

Most changes are insignificant modifications to spelling, grammar, and punctuation, and are mainly due to the human failings of editors and publishers. For example, the word ''meet'' — meaning "appropriate" — as it appears in {{scripture|1|Nephi|7|1}}, was spelled "mete" in the first edition of the Book of Mormon, published in 1830. (This is a common error made by scribes of dictated texts.) "Mete" means ''to distribute'', but the context here is obvious, and so the spelling was corrected in later editions.

Some of these typographical errors ''do'' affect the meaning of a passage or present a new understanding of it, but not in a way that presents a challenge to the divinity of the Book of Mormon. One example is {{scripture|1|Nephi|12|18}}, which in all printed editions reads "a great and a terrible gulf divideth them; yea, even the ''word'' of the justice of the Eternal God," while the manuscript reads "the ''sword'' of the justice of the Eternal God." In this instance, the typesetter accidentally dropped the ''s'' at the beginning of ''sword''.

The current (1981) edition of the Book of Mormon has [http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bm/explanation this notice] printed at the bottom of the page opposite 1 Nephi, chapter 1:

:Some minor errors in the text have been perpetuated in past editions of the Book of Mormon. This edition contains corrections that seem appropriate to bring the material into conformity with prepublication manuscripts and early editions edited by the Prophet Joseph Smith.

===Significant changes===
[[Image:Printing_BoM1.jpg|frame|right|Some Book of Mormon changes were corrections of transcription or printing errors.]]
Changes that would affect the ''authenticity'' of the Book of Mormon are limited to:
*those that are substantive AND
**could possibly change the doctrine of the book OR
**could be used as evidence that the book was written by Joseph Smith.

There are surprisingly few meaningful changes to the Book of Mormon text, and all of them were made by Joseph Smith himself in editions published during his lifetime. These changes include:

*'''[[Book of Mormon/Textual changes/"the Son of"|"the Son of"]]''' added to {{scripture|1|Nephi|11|18}}; {{scripture|1|Nephi|11|21}}, {{scripture|1|Nephi|11|32}}, and {{scripture|1|Nephi|13|40}}.
*'''[[Book of Mormon/Textual changes/"or out of the waters of baptism"|"or out of the waters of baptism"]]''' added to {{scripture|1|Nephi|20|1}}.
*'''[[Book of Mormon/Textual changes/"white" changed to "pure"|"white" changed to "pure"]]''' in {{scripture|2|Nephi|30|6}}.
*'''[[Book of Mormon/Textual changes/"Benjamin" changed to "Mosiah"|"Benjamin" changed to "Mosiah"]]''' in {{scripture||Mosiah|21|28}} and {{scripture||Ether|4|1}}.
*'''[[Book of Mormon/Textual changes/"Words missing in Alma 32:30"|"Words missing in Alma 32:30"]]{{ref|juddstoddard}} {{scripture||Alma|32|30-31}}

The historical record shows that these changes were made to ''clarify'' the meaning of the text, not to ''alter'' it.

Many people in the church experience revelation that is to be dictated (such as a patriarch blessing). They will go back and alter their original dictation. This is done to clarify the initial premonitions received through the Spirit. The translation process for the Prophet Joseph may have occurred in a similar manner.

=={{Conclusion label}}==

The authenticity of the Book of Mormon is not affected by the modifications that have been made to its text because the vast majority of those modifications are minor corrections in spelling, punctuation, and grammar. The few significant modifications were made by the Prophet Joseph Smith to clarify the meaning of the text, not to change it. This was his right as translator of the book.

These changes have not been kept "secret." A discussion of them can be found in the individual articles linked above, and in the references listed below, including papers in ''BYU Studies'' and the ''Ensign''.

==See also==

*[[Textual criticism|Biblical textual criticism]]

=={{Endnotes label}}==
#{{note|mostcorrect}}{{WWJ1|vol=2|start=139}} Quoted in {{HoC1|vol=4|start=461}} See also {{TPJS1|start=194}}
#{{note|skousen2002}}Royal Skousen, "Changes In the Book of Mormon," 2002 FAIR Conference proceedings.{{fairlink|url=http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/2002_Changes_in_the_Book_of_Mormon.html}}
#{{note|juddstoddard}}Daniel K. Judd and Allen W. Stoddard, "Adding and Taking Away 'Without a Cause' in Matthew 5:22," in ''How the New Testament Came to Be'', ed. Kent P. Jackson and Frank F. Judd Jr. (Provo and Salt Lake City: Religious Studies Center and Deseret Book, 2006),159-160 ISBN 1590386272

=={{Further reading label}}==

==={{FAIR wiki articles label}}===
{{BoMWiki}}
*[[Doctrine and Covenants textual changes]]
*[[Pearl of Great Price textual changes]]

==={{FAIR web site label}}===
*{{tg|url=http://fairlds.org/apol/ai282.html|topic=Changes in the Book of Mormon}}
*L. Ara Norwood, "Benjamin or Mosiah? Resolving an Anomaly in Mosiah 21:28" {{link|url=http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/conf/2001NorL.html}}
*J. Cooper Johnson, "King Benjamin or Mosiah: A Look at Mosiah 21:28" {{link|url=http://www.fairlds.org/apol/bom/bom03.html}}
*Royal Skousen, "Changes In the Book of Mormon," 2002 FAIR Conference proceedings.{{fairlink|url=http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/2002_Changes_in_the_Book_of_Mormon.html}}
{{BoMFAIR}}

==={{External links label}}===
*Jeff Lindsay, "Have there been thousands of changes in the Book of Mormon?" ''jefflindsay.com'' {{link|url=http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_changes.shtml}}
*Mike Ash, "Book of Mormon Criticisms: Changes," ''mormonfortress.com'' {{link|url=http://www.mormonfortress.com/changeb3.html}}
*{{Dialogue1|author=Douglas Campbell|article='White' or 'Pure': Five Vignettes|vol=29|num=4|date=Winter 1996|start=119}} {{link|url=http://www.geocities.com/marcschindler1/vignette.htm}}
*Stephen R. Gibson, "Why Were 4,000 Changes Made in The Book of Mormon?" ''lightplanet.com'' {{link|url=http://www.lightplanet.com/response/answers/changes.htm}}
*{{Ensign1|author=George Horton|article=Understanding Textual Changes in the Book of Mormon|date=December 1983|start=25}} {{link|url=http://library.lds.org/library/lpext.dll/ArchMagazines/Ensign/1983.htm/ensign%20december%201983%20.htm/understanding%20textual%20changes%20in%20the%20book%20of%20mormon.htm}}
*{{Sunstone|author=Stan Larson|article=Early Book of Mormon Texts: Textual Changes to the Book of Mormon in 1837 and 1840|vol=4|num=4|date=Fall 1976|start=45|end=59}}
*{{Dialogue|author=Stan Larson|article=Textual Variants in Book of Mormon Manuscripts|vol=10|num=4|date=Autumn 1977|start=8|end=30}}{{link|url=http://content.lib.utah.edu/cgi-bin/docviewer.exe?CISOROOT=/dialogue&CISOPTR=1260&CISOSHOW=1117}}
*Stanley R. Larson, "A Study of Some Textual Variations in the Book of Mormon Comparing the Original and the Printer's Manuscripts and the 1830, the 1837, and the 1840 Editions," Master's Thesis, BYU, Department of Ancient Scripture, April 1974. {{link|url=http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/cdm4/document.php?CISOROOT=/MTAF&CISOPTR=28431&REC=20}}
*{{Ensign1|author=Robert J. Matthews|article=I Have A Question: Why have changes been made in the printed editions of the Book of Mormon?|date=March 1987|start=47}}{{link|url=http://library.lds.org/library/lpext.dll/ArchMagazines/Ensign/1987.htm/ensign%20march%201987.htm/i%20have%20a%20question.htm#LPTOC1}}
*{{BYUS|author=Royal Skousen|article=Towards a Critical Edition of the Book of Mormon|vol=30|num=1|date=1990|start=41|end=69}}{{link|url=http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/cgi-bin/docviewer.exe?CISOROOT=/byustudies&CISOPTR=21978&CISOSHOW=9564}}
*Royal Skousen, "Piecing Together the Original Manuscript," ''BYU Today'' (May 1992): 18–24.
*Royal Skousen, "Changes In the Book of Mormon," 2002 FAIR Conference proceedings.{{fairlink|url=http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/2002_Changes_in_the_Book_of_Mormon.html}}
*W. John Walsh, Robert L. Matthews, Van Hale, and Stan Larson, "Changes to the Book of Mormon," ''lightplanet.com'' {{link|url=http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/response/qa/bom_changes.htm}}
*Daniel B. Wallace, "Changes to the KJV since 1611: An Illustration," ''bible.org'' {{link|url=http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=1197}}
{{BoMLinks}}

==={{Printed material label}}===
*George A. Horton, Jr., “Changes in the Book of Mormon and How to Handle Them,” in ''Report of the Sixth Annual Church Educational System Religious Educators’ Symposium on the Book of Mormon,'' August 1982.
*{{Ensign|author=Stan Larson|article=Changes in Early Texts of The Book of Mormon|date=September 1976|start=77|end=82}}
*{{BoMCriticalText}}
{{BoMPrint}}
[[es:Cambios_textuales_en_el_Libro_de_Morm%C3%B3n]]
{{Articles Footer 1}} {{Articles Footer 2}} {{Articles Footer 3}} {{Articles Footer 4}} {{Articles Footer 5}} {{Articles Footer 6}} {{Articles Footer 7}} {{Articles Footer 8}} {{Articles Footer 9}} {{Articles Footer 10}}
[[de:Textänderungen im Buch Mormon]]
[[fr:Book of Mormon/Textual changes]]

The Bible/Completeness

2007-12-12T16:41:30Z

BrandonHansen: /* Response */ correct quote

{| 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===

* {{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}}

Mormonism and the nature of God/Polytheism

2007-12-06T13:51:49Z

BrandonHansen: /* Further reading */

{{GodPortal}}
{{question}}
{{GermanWiki|http://www.de.fairmormon.org/index.php/Polytheismus}}

==Question==

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

===Source(s) of the Criticism===

* {{50Questions}}

==Response==
Almost invariably when someone claims Mormons are polytheists, they are not seeking a clear explanation of Mormon thought on the nature of God, but are simply using a word with negative connotations in our religious culture as a club to intimidate or confuse others.

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

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

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

The facts that the LDS do not believe the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are one in [[Godhead and the Trinity|substance]], and believe in [[Deification of man|deification/theosis]] (that humans may eventually become deified and become partakers in the divine nature), could be used to paint Mormons as in some sense polytheists.

When we examine the technical terminology above, though, it becomes clear that a key point of demarcation is worship v. acknowledgment of existence. If members of the Church worshiped an extensive pantheon like the Greeks or Romans, then the label would be appropriate. However, in the context of doctrinal differences over the relationship among the Father, Son and Holy Ghost or the doctrine of deification (which is a profoundly Christian doctrine and not just a Mormon one), use of the word "polytheistic" as a pejorative is both inaccurate and inappropriate.

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

===Are Christians monotheists?===

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

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


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

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

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

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

==Conclusion==

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

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

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

==Further reading==
*William O. Nelson, “[http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=338871ec9b17b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1 Is the LDS View of God Consistent with the Bible?]” ''Ensign'', July 1987, p56.

===FAIR wiki articles===

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

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

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

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

===Printed material===
{{GodPrint}}

Mormonism and the nature of God/Polytheism

2007-12-06T13:51:32Z

BrandonHansen: /* Endnotes */

{{GodPortal}}
{{question}}
{{GermanWiki|http://www.de.fairmormon.org/index.php/Polytheismus}}

==Question==

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

===Source(s) of the Criticism===

* {{50Questions}}

==Response==
Almost invariably when someone claims Mormons are polytheists, they are not seeking a clear explanation of Mormon thought on the nature of God, but are simply using a word with negative connotations in our religious culture as a club to intimidate or confuse others.

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

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

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

The facts that the LDS do not believe the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are one in [[Godhead and the Trinity|substance]], and believe in [[Deification of man|deification/theosis]] (that humans may eventually become deified and become partakers in the divine nature), could be used to paint Mormons as in some sense polytheists.

When we examine the technical terminology above, though, it becomes clear that a key point of demarcation is worship v. acknowledgment of existence. If members of the Church worshiped an extensive pantheon like the Greeks or Romans, then the label would be appropriate. However, in the context of doctrinal differences over the relationship among the Father, Son and Holy Ghost or the doctrine of deification (which is a profoundly Christian doctrine and not just a Mormon one), use of the word "polytheistic" as a pejorative is both inaccurate and inappropriate.

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

===Are Christians monotheists?===

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

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


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

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

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

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

==Conclusion==

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

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

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

==Further reading==

William O. Nelson, “[http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=338871ec9b17b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1 Is the LDS View of God Consistent with the Bible?]” ''Ensign'', July 1987, p56.

===FAIR wiki articles===

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

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

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

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

===Printed material===
{{GodPrint}}

Mormonism and the nature of God/Polytheism

2007-12-06T13:50:40Z

BrandonHansen: /* Human deification and monotheism */ formatting

{{GodPortal}}
{{question}}
{{GermanWiki|http://www.de.fairmormon.org/index.php/Polytheismus}}

==Question==

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

===Source(s) of the Criticism===

* {{50Questions}}

==Response==
Almost invariably when someone claims Mormons are polytheists, they are not seeking a clear explanation of Mormon thought on the nature of God, but are simply using a word with negative connotations in our religious culture as a club to intimidate or confuse others.

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

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

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

The facts that the LDS do not believe the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are one in [[Godhead and the Trinity|substance]], and believe in [[Deification of man|deification/theosis]] (that humans may eventually become deified and become partakers in the divine nature), could be used to paint Mormons as in some sense polytheists.

When we examine the technical terminology above, though, it becomes clear that a key point of demarcation is worship v. acknowledgment of existence. If members of the Church worshiped an extensive pantheon like the Greeks or Romans, then the label would be appropriate. However, in the context of doctrinal differences over the relationship among the Father, Son and Holy Ghost or the doctrine of deification (which is a profoundly Christian doctrine and not just a Mormon one), use of the word "polytheistic" as a pejorative is both inaccurate and inappropriate.

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

===Are Christians monotheists?===

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

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


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

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

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

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

==Conclusion==

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

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

==Endnotes==
''None''

==Further reading==

William O. Nelson, “[http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=338871ec9b17b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1 Is the LDS View of God Consistent with the Bible?]” ''Ensign'', July 1987, p56.

===FAIR wiki articles===

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

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

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

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

===Printed material===
{{GodPrint}}

Mormonism and the nature of God/Polytheism

2007-12-06T13:48:55Z

BrandonHansen: /* Response */ +content

{{GodPortal}}
{{question}}
{{GermanWiki|http://www.de.fairmormon.org/index.php/Polytheismus}}

==Question==

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

===Source(s) of the Criticism===

* {{50Questions}}

==Response==
Almost invariably when someone claims Mormons are polytheists, they are not seeking a clear explanation of Mormon thought on the nature of God, but are simply using a word with negative connotations in our religious culture as a club to intimidate or confuse others.

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

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

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

The facts that the LDS do not believe the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are one in [[Godhead and the Trinity|substance]], and believe in [[Deification of man|deification/theosis]] (that humans may eventually become deified and become partakers in the divine nature), could be used to paint Mormons as in some sense polytheists.

When we examine the technical terminology above, though, it becomes clear that a key point of demarcation is worship v. acknowledgment of existence. If members of the Church worshiped an extensive pantheon like the Greeks or Romans, then the label would be appropriate. However, in the context of doctrinal differences over the relationship among the Father, Son and Holy Ghost or the doctrine of deification (which is a profoundly Christian doctrine and not just a Mormon one), use of the word "polytheistic" as a pejorative is both inaccurate and inappropriate.

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

===Are Christians monotheists?===

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

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


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

<quote>We worship God the Father in the name of Jesus Christ - not glorious angels or Abraham or Moses or John the Baptist, no matter how great they may be in the kingdom of heaven as sons of God who have become "like Christ" (1 John 3:2). The only reasonable definition of polytheism requires that plural gods be worshipped - but the beings that Christ calls "gods" are not who we worship at all. In terms of worship, we are properly called monotheists.<ref>Lindsay, Jeff. "[http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_Relationships.shtml#poly If you believe the Father and the Son are separate beings, doesn't that make you polytheistic?]" ''JeffLindsay.com''. Accessed December 2007.</ref></quote>

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

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

==Conclusion==

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

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

==Endnotes==
''None''

==Further reading==

William O. Nelson, “[http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=338871ec9b17b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1 Is the LDS View of God Consistent with the Bible?]” ''Ensign'', July 1987, p56.

===FAIR wiki articles===

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

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

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

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

===Printed material===
{{GodPrint}}

Mormonism and the nature of God/Polytheism

2007-12-06T13:41:18Z

BrandonHansen: /* Question */ add facet to polytheist issue

{{GodPortal}}
{{question}}
{{GermanWiki|http://www.de.fairmormon.org/index.php/Polytheismus}}

==Question==

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

===Source(s) of the Criticism===

* {{50Questions}}

==Response==

Almost invariably when someone claims Mormons are polytheists, they are not seeking a clear explanation of Mormon thought on the nature of God, but are simply using a word with negative connotations in our religious culture as a club to intimidate or confuse others.

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

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

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

The facts that the LDS do not believe the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are one in [[Godhead and the Trinity|substance]], and believe in [[Deification of man|deification/theosis]] (that humans may eventually become deified and become partakers in the divine nature), could be used to paint Mormons as in some sense polytheists.

When we examine the technical terminology above, though, it becomes clear that a key point of demarcation is worship v. acknowledgment of existence. If members of the Church worshiped an extensive pantheon like the Greeks or Romans, then the label would be appropriate. However, in the context of doctrinal differences over the relationship among the Father, Son and Holy Ghost or the doctrine of deification (which is a profoundly Christian doctrine and not just a Mormon one), use of the word "polytheistic" as a pejorative is both inaccurate and inappropriate.

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

===Are Christians monotheists?===

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

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


===Human deification and monotheism===

The New Testament has language indicating human beings can and should eventually become one with Jesus just as he is one with his Father. Building on this concept, there is abundant evidence of deification being taught by various Christians. If belief in theosis makes one a polytheist, many Christians would have to be so labeled - including such figures as C. S. Lewis and John Calvin. Clearly, this is not the way in which the term "polytheist," is normally used, but critics of the Church are often willing to be inconsistent if the Church can be made to look alien or "unChristian."

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

==Conclusion==

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

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

==Endnotes==
''None''

==Further reading==

William O. Nelson, “[http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=338871ec9b17b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1 Is the LDS View of God Consistent with the Bible?]” ''Ensign'', July 1987, p56.

===FAIR wiki articles===

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

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

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

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

===Printed material===
{{GodPrint}}

Mormonism and the nature of God/Polytheism

2007-12-06T13:36:44Z

BrandonHansen: /* Further reading */ +page number

{{GodPortal}}
{{question}}
{{GermanWiki|http://www.de.fairmormon.org/index.php/Polytheismus}}

==Question==

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

===Source(s) of the Criticism===

* {{50Questions}}

==Response==

Almost invariably when someone claims Mormons are polytheists, they are not seeking a clear explanation of Mormon thought on the nature of God, but are simply using a word with negative connotations in our religious culture as a club to intimidate or confuse others.

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

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

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

The facts that the LDS do not believe the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are one in [[Godhead and the Trinity|substance]], and believe in [[Deification of man|deification/theosis]] (that humans may eventually become deified and become partakers in the divine nature), could be used to paint Mormons as in some sense polytheists.

When we examine the technical terminology above, though, it becomes clear that a key point of demarcation is worship v. acknowledgment of existence. If members of the Church worshiped an extensive pantheon like the Greeks or Romans, then the label would be appropriate. However, in the context of doctrinal differences over the relationship among the Father, Son and Holy Ghost or the doctrine of deification (which is a profoundly Christian doctrine and not just a Mormon one), use of the word "polytheistic" as a pejorative is both inaccurate and inappropriate.

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

===Are Christians monotheists?===

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

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


===Human deification and monotheism===

The New Testament has language indicating human beings can and should eventually become one with Jesus just as he is one with his Father. Building on this concept, there is abundant evidence of deification being taught by various Christians. If belief in theosis makes one a polytheist, many Christians would have to be so labeled - including such figures as C. S. Lewis and John Calvin. Clearly, this is not the way in which the term "polytheist," is normally used, but critics of the Church are often willing to be inconsistent if the Church can be made to look alien or "unChristian."

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

==Conclusion==

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

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

==Endnotes==
''None''

==Further reading==

William O. Nelson, “[http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=338871ec9b17b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1 Is the LDS View of God Consistent with the Bible?]” ''Ensign'', July 1987, p56.

===FAIR wiki articles===

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

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

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

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

===Printed material===
{{GodPrint}}

Mormonism and the nature of God/Polytheism

2007-12-06T13:35:59Z

BrandonHansen: /* Further reading */ +link

{{GodPortal}}
{{question}}
{{GermanWiki|http://www.de.fairmormon.org/index.php/Polytheismus}}

==Question==

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

===Source(s) of the Criticism===

* {{50Questions}}

==Response==

Almost invariably when someone claims Mormons are polytheists, they are not seeking a clear explanation of Mormon thought on the nature of God, but are simply using a word with negative connotations in our religious culture as a club to intimidate or confuse others.

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

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

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

The facts that the LDS do not believe the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are one in [[Godhead and the Trinity|substance]], and believe in [[Deification of man|deification/theosis]] (that humans may eventually become deified and become partakers in the divine nature), could be used to paint Mormons as in some sense polytheists.

When we examine the technical terminology above, though, it becomes clear that a key point of demarcation is worship v. acknowledgment of existence. If members of the Church worshiped an extensive pantheon like the Greeks or Romans, then the label would be appropriate. However, in the context of doctrinal differences over the relationship among the Father, Son and Holy Ghost or the doctrine of deification (which is a profoundly Christian doctrine and not just a Mormon one), use of the word "polytheistic" as a pejorative is both inaccurate and inappropriate.

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

===Are Christians monotheists?===

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

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


===Human deification and monotheism===

The New Testament has language indicating human beings can and should eventually become one with Jesus just as he is one with his Father. Building on this concept, there is abundant evidence of deification being taught by various Christians. If belief in theosis makes one a polytheist, many Christians would have to be so labeled - including such figures as C. S. Lewis and John Calvin. Clearly, this is not the way in which the term "polytheist," is normally used, but critics of the Church are often willing to be inconsistent if the Church can be made to look alien or "unChristian."

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

==Conclusion==

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

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

==Endnotes==
''None''

==Further reading==

William O. Nelson, “[http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=338871ec9b17b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1 Is the LDS View of God Consistent with the Bible?]” ''Ensign'', July 1987, ---.

===FAIR wiki articles===

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

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

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

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

===Printed material===
{{GodPrint}}

Works and grace

2007-12-04T19:59:29Z

BrandonHansen: /* Differences in terminology */ wording, punctuation

{{question}}
{{draft}}
==Question==

How do the LDS see the relationship between works and grace?

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

==Response==

{{nw}}

===Differences in terminology===

Two LDS authors insightfully described the LDS doctrine of grace and salvation, and compared it to the schema used by many Protestants, as follows:

:(1) Latter-day Saints believe that our individual sins (not just the original sin introduced by Adam) are forgiven as a result of God's grace. (2) Latter-day Saints believe that salvation (in the Protestant sense of that term—salvation from death and hell, coupled with immortality in the presence of God) is graciously and unconditionally granted to all but sons of perdition; (3) For Latter-day Saints the real issue of salvation has to do with the individual's continued growth into God's likeness (sanctification) and exaltation, which are the synergistic outcome of divine grace and human striving. It is the Latter-day Saint degrees-of-glory eschatology that does not fit nicely with Protestant models of grace, grafted as they are to a heaven-or-hell eschatology...

:Salvation is an all-or-nothing affair for most Protestants, making the distinction between "born again" and "unregenerate" correspond exactly to that between "saved" and "damned." For Latter-day Saints, though, most of the "unregenerate" receive a degree of glory—one which passes all earthly understanding ({{s||DC|76|89}})—for having chosen to come to earth and for deciding not to deny the Holy Spirit. Moreover, Latter-day Saints hold that the life led by those receiving lower degrees of glory is substantially different than that supposedly enjoyed in Protestant heaven or hell. Those in the telestial kingdom for instance (and thus some of those that are "saved") do not enjoy the full presence of the Godhead as they would in Protestant versions of heaven. However, the absence of the Father and the Son (which in this respect would equate to Protestant notions of hell) is a far cry from the Protestant notion of eternal torment, as they still enjoy the presence of God, the Holy Spirit, and a glory beyond human comprehension. Similarly, the residents of the terrestrial kingdom are neither clearly "saved" nor clearly "damned" according to Protestant definitions: they have accepted the testimony of Jesus (corresponding to "saved") but have not been valiant therein and receive only the "glory" and not the "full presence" of the Father (corresponding in this sense to "damned"). Clearly, given these and other differences, the Latter-day Saint understanding of salvation cannot be directly correlated to Protestant soteriology and eschatology...

:Latter-day Saints do not accept the Protestant assumption that faith/grace and human agency/actions/works constitute two separate grammars of discourse. To the contrary, we believe that it is false and that James and even Paul, as well as living prophets, make it clear that faith/grace and human agency/actions/works are actually ''inseparable''.{{ref|paulsen1}}

==Endnotes==
#{{note|paulsen1}} {{FR-18-2-4}}, italics in original, see footnote 11 for some of the quoted text. 

==Further reading==
===FAIR wiki articles===
{{GraceWiki}}

===FAIR web site===
{{GraceFAIR}}

===External links===
{{GraceLinks}}
===Printed material===
{{GracePrint}}

Mormonism and the nature of God/Nicene creed

2007-12-04T16:23:06Z

BrandonHansen: /* Criticism */ wording

{{GodPortal}}
==Criticism==
Critics claim members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are not Christian because they do not accept the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene_creed Nicene Creed's] statement about the Trinity.

===Source(s) of the Criticism===
*Francis J. Beckwith and Stephen E. Parrish, ''The Mormon Concept of God: A Philosophical Analysis'' (Lewiston, N.Y.: Mellen, 1991).
*Ed Decker and Dave Hunt, ''The Godmakers'' (Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 1984), 11.
*Bill McKeever and Eric Johnson, ''Mormonism 101'' (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books), 53–54.
*Ron Rhodes, "Christ," in ''The Counterfeit Gospel of Mormonism'' (Eugene, Ore.: Harvest House, 1998,), 99–140.
* {{50Questions}}
*James White, ''Is the Mormon My Brother?'' (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House Publishing, 1997), 18, 43.
*James R. White, ''Letters to a Mormon Elder: Eye Opening Information for Mormons and the Christians Who Talk with Them '' (Southbridge, MA: Crowne, 1990),

==Response==
Since the Nicene Creed was first adopted in A.D. 325, it seems clear that there were many Christians in the first centuries following the resurrection of Christ who did not use it. Those who oppose calling the Latter-day Saints "Christians" need to explain whether Peter and Paul are "Christians," since they lived and practiced Christianity at a time when there was no Nicene Creed, and no Trinitarianism in the current sense.

Critics may try to argue that the Nicene Creed is merely a statement of Biblical principles, but Bible scholarship is very clear that the Nicene Creed was an innovation.

===Was Nicean Trinitarianism always a key part of Christian belief?===

There is abundant evidence that “Trinitarianism”, as now understood by the majority of Protestants and Catholics was not present in the Early Christian Church.

:When we turn to the problem of the doctrine of the Trinity, we are confronted by a peculiarly contradictory situation. On the one hand, the history of Christian theology and of dogma teaches us to regard the dogma of the Trinity as the distinctive element in the Christian idea of God, that which distinguishes it from the idea of God in Judaism and in Islam, and indeed, in all forms of rational Theism. Judaism, Islam, and rational Theism are Unitarian. On the other hand, we must honestly admit that the doctrine of the Trinity did not form part of the early Christian-New Testament-message. Certainly, it cannot be denied that not only the word "Trinity", but even the explicit idea of the Trinity is absent from the apostolic witness of the faith. The doctrine of the Trinity itself, however, is not a Biblical Doctrine...{{ref|brunner1}}

===What were early Christian beliefs on the nature of God?===
We do know that Christian orthodoxy before Nicaea was not the Trinitarian creeds now popular:

:'Subordinationism', it is true, was pre-Nicean orthodoxy.{{ref|bettenson1}}

‘Subordinationism’ is a doctrine which means that Jesus and/or the Holy Ghost are ‘subordinate’ or ‘subject’ to God the Father. In subordinationism, Jesus must be a separate being from the Father, because you can’t be subject to yourself! This was the orthodox position before the Nicean council. Ideas that were once orthodox were later considered unacceptable after the councils altered and added to the doctrine.

:Writers who are usually reckoned orthodox but who lived a century or two centuries before the outbreak of the Arian Controversy, such as Irenaeus and Tertullian and Novatian and Justin Martyr, held some views which would later, in the fourth century, have been branded heretical...Irenaeus and Tertullian both believed that God had not always been a Trinity but had at some point put forth the Son and the Spirit so as to be distinct from him. Tertullian, borrowing from Stoicism, believed that God was material (though only of a very refined material, a kind of thinking gas), so that his statement that Father, Son and Spirit were 'of one substance', beautifully orthodox though it sounds, was of a corporeality which would have profoundly shocked Origen, Athanasius and the Cappadocian theologians, had they known of it.{{ref|hanson1}}

And:

:It [subordinationism] is a characteristic tendency in much Christian teaching of the first three centuries, and is a marked feature of such otherwise orthodox Fathers as St. Justin and Origen…Where the doctrine [of the Trinity] was elaborated, as e.g. in the writing of the Apologists, the language remained on the whole indefinite, and, from a later standpoint, was even partly unorthodox. Sometimes it was not free from a certain subordinationism.{{ref|cross1}}

So, Christians whose ideas were completely orthodox earlier would have been considered ‘heretics’ (i.e. going against the accepted doctrine) after the Nicean councils. This seems to be clear evidence that the doctrine was radically changed.

One also notes that Paul and the other New Testament writers would have been likewise ‘unorthodox’. Eusebius, an early Church historian, was even termed "blatantly subordinationist" by a Catholic author.{{ref|richard1}}

Even after the Trinitarian ideas were formed, there were three ‘camps’ of believers that understood the matter in very different ways:

:If such was the teaching of Athanasius and his allies [i.e. ''homousis'' as numerical unity of substance, rather than ‘the same kind of being’ in the three persons of the Godhead] , at least three types of theology found shelter at different times in the anti-Nicean camp. The first, indefinite, on occasion ambiguous on the crucial issues, but on the whole conciliatory, reflects the attitude of the great conservative 'middle party'.... It's positive doctrine is that there are three divine hypostases [i.e. persons], separate in rank and glory but united in harmony of will.{{ref|kelly2}}

Thus, most believers initially believed that there were three persons with a united will. It was only later that this group was “won over” to Athanasius and his group’s brand of Trinitarianism, which is the basis for today’s understanding in most of Christianity. Indeed, Athanasius and his cadre were decidedly in the minority:

:The victory over Arianism achieved at the Council was really a victory snatched by the superior energy and decision of a small minority with the aid of half-hearted allies. The majority did not like the business at all, and strongly disapproved of the introduction into the Creed . . . ''of new and untraditional and unscriptural terms''.{{ref|bethune-baker1}}

And, there is a noted tendency for some Christian writers to assume that the way they understand the nature of God is the only way in which anyone could have understood it. An evangelical scholar notes:

:The view of God worked out in the early [postapostolic] church, the "biblical-classical synthesis," has become so commonplace that even today most conservative [Protestant and Catholic] theologians simply assume that it is the correct scriptural concept of God and thus that any other alleged biblical understanding of God . . . must be rejected. The classical view is so taken for granted that it functions as a preunderstanding that rules out certain interpretations of Scripture that do not "fit" with the conception of what is "appropriate" for God to be like, as derived from Greek metaphysics.{{ref|sanders1}}

===Does the Bible contain also the necessary elements for Trinitarianism?===

:In order to argue successfully for the unconditionally and permanence of the ancient Trinitarian Creeds, it is necessary to make a distinction between doctrines, on the one hand, and on the terminology and conceptuality in which they were formulated on the other... Some of the crucial concepts employed by these creeds, such as "substance", "person", and "in two natures" are post-biblical novelties. If these particular notions are essential, the doctrines of these creeds are clearly conditional, dependent on the late Hellenistic milieu.{{ref|lindbeck1}}

Note that this author says that many of “the crucial concepts” are “post-biblical novelties”: that is, they are new ideas that arrived on the scene after the Bible was written. If the crucial concepts weren’t around until later, then the doctrine wasn’t around until later either. As the author notes, these ideas arose out of the “Hellenistic milieu”, that is: Greek philosophy.

:It is clearly impossible (if one accepts historical evidence as relevant at all) to escape the claim that the later formulations of dogma cannot be reached by a process of deductive logic from the original propositions and must contain an element of novelty...The emergence of the full trinitarian doctrine was not possible without significant modification of previously accepted ideas.{{ref|wiles1}}

Said David Noel Freedman:

:So in many was the Bible remains true to its “primitive” past [by accepting the strongly anthropomorphic understanding of God/Yahweh] and is less compatible with philosophical notions of an abstract being, or ultimate reality or ground of being. Just as there is an important and unbridgeable distance between Yahweh and the gods of Canaan, or those of Mesopotamia or Egypt or Greece or Rome, ''so there is at least an equal or greater distance from an Aristotelian unmoved mover, or even a Platonic Idea or Ideal''. The biblical God is always and uncompromisingly personal: he is above all a person, neither more nor less.{{ref|freeman1}}

New ideas and concepts were required.

:The formal doctrine of the Trinity as it was defined by the great church councils of the 4th and 5th centuries is not to be found in the New Testament.{{ref|achtemeir1}}

A Catholic encyclopedia notes that Trinitarianism doesn’t really appear until the last 25 years of the 4th century:

:Trinitarian discussion, Roman Catholic as well as others, presents a somewhat unsteady silhouette. Two things have happened. There is the recognition on the part of exegetes and Biblical theologians, including a constantly growing number of Roman Catholics, that one should not speak of Trinitarianism in the New Testament without serious qualification. There is also the closely parallel recognition on the part of historians of dogma and systematic theologians that when one does speak of an unqualified Trinitarianism, one has moved from the period of Christian origins to, say, the last quadrant of the 4th century.{{ref|newcatholic1}}

A Jesuit [Catholic] scholar says this:

:There is no formal doctrine of the Trinity in the New Testament writers, if this means an explicit teaching that in one God there are three co-equal divine persons. But the three are there, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and a triadic ground plan is there, and triadic formulas are there...The Biblical witness to God, as we have seen, did not contain any formal or formulated doctrine of the Trinity, any explicit teaching that in one God there are three co-equal divine persons.{{ref|fortman1}}

The idea of “three” is present: but not as ‘three co-equal divine persons’ that are one being. An idea about the nature of God (or the Godhead) is present, but it is different from that which is taught as Trinitarianism.

Two authors even assert that the Apostle Paul, the four gospels, and Acts have no Trinitarian understanding:

:...there is no trinitarian doctrine in the Synoptics or Acts...nowhere do we find any trinitarian doctrine [in the New Testament] of three distinct subjects of divine life and activity in the same God head...These passages [i.e. the Pauline epistles] give no doctrine of the Trinity, but they show that Paul linked together Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. They give no trinitarian formula...but they offer material for the later development of trinitarian doctrine...[Paul] has no formal Trinitarian doctrine and no clear-cut realization of a Trinitarian problem…in John there is no trinitarian formula.{{ref|fortman2}}

And:

:This double series of texts manifests Paul's lack of clarity in his conception of the relation of the Spirit to the Son. Paul shares with the Old Testament a more fluid notion of personality than the later theological refinements of nature, substance, and person. His lack of clarity should be respected for what it is and be regarded only as the starting point of the later development.{{ref|fitzmyer1}}

So, Paul doesn’t even ‘realize’ that there is a ‘Trinitarian problem’. Could this be because for Paul there was no such problem, because the doctrine was unknown to him? It was not an issue in his era, because it was not taught by Jesus or the Apostles, and no one felt the need to reconcile divine revelation with Greek philosophy.

One author asserts that the Trinity is correct, but readily admits that:

:The God whom we experience as triune is, in fact, triune. But we cannot read back into the New Testament, much less the Old Testament, the more sophisticated trinitarian theology and doctrine which slowly and often unevenly developed over the course of some fifteen centuries.{{ref|mcbrain1}}

===Are there new ideas necessary for creedal Trinitarianism?===

Robert Casey wrote long ago that “Origen’s development of Clement [of Alexandria’s] thought is characteristically thorough and systematic. He acknowledges that the doctrine of God’s immateriality is, at least formally, new, and asserts that the word ''asomatos'' ["no body" in Greek] had been unknown alike to biblical writers and to Christian theologians before his time.”{{ref|casey1}} Case also wrote that “the Christian doctrine of God was becoming inextricably involved in a trinitarian theory, the substance and form of which would have been impossible but for Clement and Origen, whose immaterialist teaching it presupposed.”{{ref|casey2}}

Jesuit Roland Teske states that Augustine turned to Manichaeism because he thought that all Christians believed in an anthropomorphic God, which he could not accept on philosophical grounds. Teske reports that Augustine believed that in accepting the Manichee doctrine he was joining a Christian sect which rejected the “anthropomorphic interpretation of the scriptural claim that man was made in the image of God” as taught in {{s||Genesis|1|26}}.{{ref|testke1}}

In a footnote to the above statement Teske writes that “prior to Augustine…the Western Church was simply without a concept of God as a spiritual substance.” Augustine apparently believed that the Catholic Church taught that God had a body similar to that of a mortal, and that belief prevented him from seeking truth within the Church.{{ref|teske2}} Augustine tells us in another work that it was the preaching of Ambrose of Milan who helped him see that there was another way to view God, which ‘spirituals’ alone could decipher.{{ref|teske3}}

===What about John 10:30?===
[http://scriptures.lds.org/john/10/30#30 John 10:30] was an important scripture in the early debates discussed above.

One author wrote of it:

:[John 10:30] was a key verse in the early Trinitarian controversies. On the one extreme, the onarchians (Sabellians) interpreted it to mean "one person", although the "one" is neuter, not masculine. On the other extreme, the Arians interpreted this text, which was often used against them, in terms of moral unity of will. The Protestant commentator Engel, following Augustine, sums up the Orthodox position: "Through the word "are" Sabellius is refuted; through the word one" so is Arius.." [In the Gospel of] John... all these relationships between Father and Son are described in function of the one's dealings with men. It would be up to the work of later theologians to take this gospel material pertaining to the mission of the Son add extra and draw from it a theology of the inner life of the Trinity.{{ref|brown1}}

Note that “one” in this verse is neuter, not masculine. In Greek, the masculine would be used to indicate a oneness of person or being, and neuter implies a oneness of purpose. So, read literally the verse merely says that Jesus and the Father are one in purpose or will: only a belief in the Trinity at the outset would lead one to read this as a Trinitarian passage.

Note also that later theologians had to contribute ‘extra’ information to solve the problem. This extra eventually resulted in the Trinitarian formulae of today.

===What about 1 John 5:7–8?===

[http://scriptures.lds.org/1_john/5/7#8 1 John 5:7-8] reads:

:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

These verses are considered to have been added to the Bible text. Said one conservative reference work:

:...the acceptance of this verse [i.e. the Johannine comma: 1 John 5:7-8] as genuine breaks almost every major canon of textual [criticism]{{ref|geisler1}}

Historian Paul Johnson notes:

:Altogether there are about 4,700 relevant manuscripts, and at least 100,000 quotations or allusions in the early fathers . . .Thus, the Trinitarian texts in the first Epistle of John, which make explicit what other texts merely hint at, originally read simply: 'There are three which bear witness, the spirit and the water and the blood, and the three are one.' This was altered in the fourth century to read: 'There are three which bear witness on earth, the spirit and the water and the blood, and these three are one in Christ Jesus; and there are three who bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Word and the Spirit, and these three are one.'{{ref|johnson1}}

So, the early Christians never referred to these verses in their writings. The verse in the early Greek manuscripts simply says:

:''There are three which bear witness, the spirit and the water and the blood, and the three are one.''

But, in the 4th century, the verse had words added to it to support the ‘new’ orthodox doctrine of the Trinity:

:''There are three which bear witness on earth, the spirit and the water and the blood, and these three are one in Christ Jesus; and there are three who bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Word and the Spirit, and these three are one.''

===Why is 1 John 5:7–8 still in the Bible, then?===

The writer Erasmus noted the problem with these verses in the 1500s, and did not include the addition change in his Greek New Testament:

:On the basis of the manuscript evidence available to him, Erasmus had eliminated the passage [1 John 5:7] from his first edition of the Greek New Testament in 1516, but had restored it in later editions, responding to a storm of protest and to further textual evidence that was produced—quite literally produced--in support of the text. Luther's translation of the New Testament into German, being based on the 1516 edition of Erasmus, did not contain the passage. Although the weight of textual evidence against it was seemingly overwhelming, the proof it supplied for the Trinity made an attack on its authenticity seemed to be an attack on the dogma [thus orthodoxy sought to wrongly restore the Johannine Comma].{{ref|pelikan1}}

This author explains that people were outraged that the verse was taken out. Erasmus replied that he would include it if they could show him a single Greek manuscript that contained it. Scholars believe that a forgery was produced, and (good to his word) Erasmus included the change in his next editions. People cared more about what their dogma, creeds, and councils had taught than what the word of God actually said. The above author continues:

:The most pertinacious and conservative in various communions were still holding out for the authenticity of the "Johannine Comma" in 1 John 5:7, despite all the textual and patristic evidence [evidence from the Early Christian Fathers before Nicea] against it, but there was an all but unanimous consensus among textual critics that it represented a later interpolation.{{ref|pelikan2}}

Many Bible translations today omit this part of the text, since it is not considered to be authentic:

:'''New American Bible''':So there are three that testify, the Spirit, the water, and the blood, and the three are of one accord.{{ref|nab1}}
:'''New American Standard Bible''':For there are three that testify: the Spirit and the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.{{ref|nasb1}}
:'''New Revised Standard Version''': There are three that testify: the Spirit and the water and the blood, and these three agree.{{ref|nrsv1}}

===Why, then, was Nicean Trinitarian introduced at all?===
:Let us return to the second century, when it was first sensed that the formulations of the New Testament and the Apostolic Fathers were not sufficient to describe the nature of the divinity. A new way of doing this was attempted. Thus the so-called Monarchian controversy occurred... In addition to the Modalists (such as Sabellius), for whom Christ and the Holy Spirit were modes in which one Godhead appeared, there the Dynamists or Adoptionists, who conceived of Christ either as a man who was raised up by being adopted by God, or as a man filled with God's power.{{ref|aland1}}

Simply put, people tried a ‘new’ way of talking about God because of disputes about the nature and mission of Christ. In the LDS view, this is because the loss of revelation to the Apostles (due to the apostasy) meant that Christianity was divided about key issues. No one had a good way to resolve the questions, and so they turned to the best intellectual tools they had—they merged Christian theology with Greek philosophy.

Father Charles Curran, a Roman Catholic priest, said,
:We [the Christians] went through the problem of appropriating the word in the fourth, fifth, and sixth centuries with the great trinitarian and Christalogical councils where we finally came to the conclusion of three persons in God and two natures in Jesus. Many people at the time said, ‘Well, you can’t say that because those words aren’t in the scriptures.’ That’s right, they aren’t in the scriptures, they are borrowed from Greek philosophy, but they are the on-going account of the believing community to understand, appropriate and live the word of God in its own circumstances.{{ref|curran1}}

===Is modern Trinitarianism all understood in the same sense?===
Owen Thomas, a professor of systemic theology, noted that:

:...our survey of the history of the [Trinity] doctrine in the text has indicated that there are several doctrines of the trinity: Eastern, Western, social analogy, modal, so forth. There is one doctrine in the sense of the threefold name of God of the rule of faith as found, for example, in the Apostle's Creed. This, however, is not yet a doctrine. It is ambiguous and can be interpreted in a number of ways. There is one doctrine in the sense of the Western formula of "three persons in one substance." However, this formula is also ambiguous if not misleading and can be interpreted in a number of ways. A doctrine of the trinity would presumably be one interpretation of this formula . . . let us assume that the phrase "doctrine of the trinity" in the question refers to any of a number of widely accepted interpretations of the threefold name of God in the role of faith.{{ref|thomas1}}

So, there is ambiguity and disagreement still. This is not characteristic of revelation, but rather of man’s imperfect intellectual efforts to define God according to philosophical criteria. Proponents of this view have even added text to the Bible and opposed the correcting of such errors when it was discovered.

As one current thinker about the Trinity writes:

:The notion that in the Trinity one Person may be the font or source of being or Godhead for another lingered on to be a cause of friction and controversy between the East and the West, and still persists today. The main thesis of these lectures, I have said, is that the act of faith required for acceptance of the doctrine of the Trinity is faith that the Divine unity is a dynamic unity actively unifying in the one divine life the lives of the three divine persons. I now wish to add that in this unity there is no room for any trace of subordinationism, and that the thought of the Father as the source or fount of God-head is a relic of pre Christian theology which has not fully assimilated the Christian revelation.{{ref|hodgson1}}

There is no room in his doctrine for ‘subordinationism’, but remember (already quoted above) that: "'Subordinationism', it is true, was pre-Nicean orthodoxy."

It is interesting that ideas that were once perfectly orthodox within early Christianity (like subordinationism) are now classed as “pre-Christian theology” which hasn’t yet “assimilated the Christian revelation”. If anything, this looks like a ‘post-Christian theology’ that has ‘altered the Christian revelation’. This observation is not intended to argue that subordinationism is correct in all particulars, but merely to point out that current creedal ideas are not what all Christians have always believed.

==Conclusion==

Some modern Christians wish to apply a "doctrinal exclusion" to declare who is or isn't Christian. Such definitions are generally self-serving, and not very helpful. With the Nicene Creed, critics are ironically in the position of using a definition that would exclude all Christians for more than two centuries after Christ from the Christian fold.

:Thus the New Testament itself is far from any doctrine of the Trinity or of a triune God who is three co-equal Persons of One Nature.{{ref|hill1}}

:The New Testament does not contain the developed doctrine of the Trinity.{{ref|ntt1}}

:There is in them [the Apostolic Fathers], of course, no trinitarian doctrine and no awareness of a trinitarian problem."{{ref|kelly1}}

:The Church had to wait for more than three hundred years for a final synthesis, for not until the Council of Constantinople [AD 381] was the formula of one God existing in three coequal Persons formally ratified.{{ref|fortman3}}

These passages are succinct summaries. If a critic wishes to justify his or her belief in the creedal Trinity, they must rely on tradition and the creeds of the 4th century, and abandon claims of scriptural or historical support for such a belief in early Christianity, including among the apostles and those they taught.

Since the LDS believe in an apostasy from true doctrine, they see the creedal Trinitarianism—which is an admitted novelty in the centuries after Christ—as evidence of it.

==Endnotes==
#{{note|brunner1}}Emil Brunner, ''The Christian Doctrine of God'' (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1949), 205, 236.

#{{note|bettenson1}}Henry Bettenson, editor and translator, ''The Early Christian Fathers:A Selection from the Writings of the Fathers from St. Clement of Rome to St. Athanasius'', (Oxford University Press: 1969), 239. ISBN 0192830090.
#{{note|hanson1}}RPC Hansen, "The Achievement of Orthodoxy in the Fourth Century AD", in Rowan Williams, editor, ''The Making of Orthodoxy'' (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), 151–152.
#{{note|cross1}} FL Cross and EA Livingston, editors, ''The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church'', 2nd edition, (London: Oxford University Press, 1974), 1319, 1394.
#{{note|richard1}}RL Richard, "Trinity, Holy", in ''New Catholic Encyclopedia'', 15 vols., (New York:McGraw-Hill, 1967) 14:298.
#{{note|kelly2}} JND Kelly, ''Early Christian Doctrines'', rev. ed. (New York: Harper, 1978), 247–248.
#{{note|bethune-baker1}} IF Bethune-Baker, ''An Introduction to the Early History of Christian Doctrine'', 8th edition, (London: Methuen, 1949), 171. (emphasis added)
#{{note|sanders1}} John Sanders; cited in Clark Pinnock, Richard Rice, John Sanders, William Hasker, and David Basinger, ''The Openness of God: A Biblical Challenge to the Traditional Understanding of God'' (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1994), 60.

#{{note|lindbeck1}}George A. Lindbeck, ''The Nature of Doctrine'' (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1984), 92.
#{{note|wiles1}} Maurice Wiles, ''The Making of Christian Doctrine'' (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967), 4, 144.
#{{note|freedman1}} David Noel Freedman, “When God Repents,” in ''Divine Commitment and Human Obligation: Selected Writings of David Noel Freedman, Volume One: History and Religion'' (William B. Eerdmans, 1997), 414.
#{{note|achtemeir1}} P Achtemeier, editor, ''Harper's Bible Dictionary'' (San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1985), 1099.
#{{note|newcatholic1}} RL Richard, "Trinity, Holy", in ''New Catholic Encyclopedia'', 15 vols. (New York:McGraw-Hill, 1967), 14:295.
#{{note|fortman1}} Edmund J. Fortman, ''The Triune God: A Historical Study of the Doctrine of the Trinity'' (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1972), 32,35.
#{{note|fortman2}} Edmund J. Fortman, ''The Triune God: A Historical Study of the Doctrine of the Trinity'' (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1972), 14,16, 22-23, 29.
#{{note|fitzmyer1}} J Fitzmyer, ''Pauline Theology: A Brief Sketch'' (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey): Prentice-Hall, 1967), 42.
#{{note|mcbrain1}}Richard P. McBrian, ''Catholicism'' (Minneapolis: Winston Press, 1980), 347.

#{{note|casey1}} Robert P. Casey, “Clement of Alexandria and the Beginnings of Christian Platonism,” ''Harvard Theological Review'' 18 (1925): 39–101, at page 82, referring to ''Contra Celsum'' 7.27, and ''Commentary on John'' 13.22.
#{{note|casey2}} ''Ibid.'', 100.
#{{note|teske1}} Roland Teske, S.J., “Divine Immutability in St. Augustine,” ''Modern Schoolman'' 63 (1986): 233–249, at page 236–237.
#{{note|teske2}} ''Ibid.'', 237–238, with notes 25 and 34, citing ''Confessions'' 5.10.19 (Pusey translation, page 77).
#{{note|teske3}} ''Ibid.'', 238–239, quoting ''De beata vita'' 1.4.

#{{note|brown1}} Raymond E. Brown, ''The Gospel According to John I–XII'' (Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Co. Inc.), 403, 407.

#{{note|geisler1}} Norman L. Geisler and William E. Nix, ''A General Introduction to the Bible'' (Chicago, Moody Press, 1968), 370.
#{{note|johnson1}} Paul Johnson, ''A History of Christianity'' (New York: Touchstone, 1976), 26–27. ISBN 684815036.
#{{note|pelikan1}} Jaroslav Pelikan, ''The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, Volume 4 : Reformation of Church and Dogma (1300-1700)'' (University Of Chicago Press, 1985), 4:346, comments in bracket A1. ISBN 0226653773.
#{{note|pelikan2}} Jaroslav Pelikan, ''The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, Volume 5 : Christian Doctrine and Modern Culture (since 1700)'' (University Of Chicago Press, 1991), 193. ISBN 0226653803.
#{{note|nab1}} Confraternity of Christian Doctrine, ''The New American Bible'' (World Bible Publishers, Iowa Falls, 1991), 1363.
#{{note|nasb1}}''New American Standard Bible'' (La Habra, CA: The Lockman Foundation), 1 John 5:7–8.
#{{note|nrsv1}}''New Revised Standard Version'' (Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America, 1995), 1 John 5:7–8.

#{{note|aland1}} Kurt Aland, ''A History of Christianity'' (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1985), 1:190.
#{{note|curran1}}{{Sunstone1|author=Charles Curran|article=Creative Fidelity: Keeping the Religion a Living Tradition|vol=11|date=July 1987|start=45}} Cited in {{BYUS1|author=Robert L. Millet|article=Joseph Smith and Modern Mormonism: Orthodoxy, Neoorthodoxy, Tension, and Tradition|vol=29|num=3|date=1989|start=footnote 14}}

#{{note|thomas1}} Owen C. Thomas, ''Theological Questions: Analysis and Argument'' (Wilton, Conn.: Morehouse-Barlow, 1983), 34.
#{{note|hodgson1}} Leonard Hodgson, ''Doctrine of the Trinity'' (London: Nisbet & Co. Ltd., 1944), 102.

#{{note|hill1}}William J. Hill, ''The Three-Personed God'' (Washington DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 1982), 27.
#{{note|ntt1}}''New Testament Theology'' (Grand Rapids MI, Zondervan, 1967), 1:84.
#{{note|kelly1}}JND Kelly, ''Early Christian Doctrines'', revised edition, (New York: Harper, 1978), 95.
#{{note|fortman3}}Edmund J. Fortman, ''The Triune God: A Historical Study of the Doctrine of the Trinity'' (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1972), 44.

==Further reading==

William O. Nelson, “Is the LDS View of God Consistent with the Bible?” ''Ensign'', July 1987, ---.

===FAIR wiki articles===

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

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

===FAIR web site===

{{GodFAIR}}

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

===Printed material===
{{GodPrint}}

Book of Mormon/Lamanites/Relationship to Amerindians

2007-12-03T21:40:30Z

BrandonHansen: standardize length warning

<table style="border: thin solid red; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto">
<tr><td style="background-color: #ffcccc; text-align: center; padding-left: 10px; padding-right: 10px">
This is the original-length article on Lamanite identity.<br>To read the shorter version, click '''[[Amerindians as Lamanites:Summary|here]]'''.
</td></tr>
</table><br>
{{DNAPortal}}
{{question}}

==Question==
Are all Amerindians descendants of Lehi?

===Source(s) of criticism===
* {{50Questions}}

==Answer==

===How have LDS members understood Amerindian origins?===

In their more candid moments, the ex-Mormon critics admit that their criticisms revolve around a key assumption. Simon Southerton writes of how some Mormons have argued that

:Bottleneck effect, genetic drift, Hardy-Weinberg violations and other technical problems would prevent us from detecting Israelite genes [in Amerindians].{{ref|southerton1}}

This is a technical way of explaining a relatively simple fact: if a small group is placed in contact with a larger group and allowed to intermarry, it becomes harder to detect the small group’s “genetic signature.”

It is as if one placed a teaspoon of red dye in an Olympic swimming pool, mixed well, and then withdrew a sample. Southerton and his fellow critics are in the position of someone who complains loudly because the sampled water does not seem to be “red”!

Southerton then goes on to say:

:I agree entirely. [!] In 600 BC there were probably several million American Indians living in the Americas. If a small group of Israelites entered such a massive native population it would be very, very hard to detect their genes 200, 2000 or even 20,000 years later. But does such a scenario fit with what the Book of Mormon plainly states or what the prophets have taught for 175 years? Short answer. No! Long answer. Nooo!{{ref|southerton2}}

This is really quite astonishing. Southerton has obliged us by shooting himself in the foot. He admits that there are many genetic objections to his attack, unless we accept that the American Indians are only descendants of Lehi and Mulek.

Contrary to Southerton’s assertion, the short answer is that he is either ignorant of the facts, or being deceptive.

For those who are interested, we turn to the long answer.

Remember, Southerton claims that we must accept his version, because

# the Book of Mormon ‘plainly’ teaches it; and
# “the prophets” have taught this doctrine (and no other, we must presume) for 175 years.

So, by Southerton’s own admission, his model is in fatal trouble if a “whole empty hemisphere” model is not taught by both the Book of Mormon and the prophets.That Southerton would make such a claim, and put his theory on such shaky ground, illustrates how poorly he understands the Book of Mormon and writing about it that has gone on for decades prior to Watson and Crick's discovery of the double helix.

====Initial ideas====
It is not surprising that some Church members concluded that all Amerindians were descendants of Lehi/Mulek. In fact, this was the initial conclusion drawn by many contemporaries of Joseph Smith. For example:

* Lucy Mack Smith describing the Book of Mormon: "a history of the origin of the Indians."{{ref|lms1}}
* WW Phelps, 1833: "That wonderful conjecture, which left blank as to the origin . . . of the American Indians, was done away by the Book of Mormon…"{{ref|wwphelps1}}
* Parley P. Pratt [apostle], 1837: "reveals the origin of the American Indians, which was before a mystery." {{ref|pppratt1}}
* Orson Pratt [apostle], 1875: I refer to the American Indians, all remnants of Joseph and belonging to the house of Israel. {{ref|orsonpratt1}}

And, many later members and leaders continued to emphasize this perspective (though, as discussed below, if Lehi had any descendants, then all present Amerindians are his descendants):

* LeGrand Richards [Apostle] 1954: The dark-skinned people who occupied this land of America from that time on were called "Lamanites," who are the people known generally as the American Indians, all of whom are of the house of Israel.{{ref|richards1}}

====A reevalution====

However, contrary to the claims of critics who attempt to use DNA evidence to discredit the Book of Mormon, some readers and leaders reconsidered these ideas.

Taught Elder Levi Edgar Young [First Council of the Seventy] in 1928 general conference:

:There must be a clear distinction, it grows every year more evident, ''between the origins of America's ancient people and the sources of their culture.'' The human material of the pre- Columbian societies probably came from Asia by way of Alaska, the orthodox route long accepted for the American Indians…Among many social belongings abandoned along the route seem to have been most of the things called intellectual. The men and women who peopled America arrived, intellectually, with the clothes they stood in…Dr. Uhle urges an alternative [theory for how high culture arose in the Americas]…Occasional cultured mariners from India, China, Japan or other lands may have landed, he believes, few in numbers, but full of ideas, to bring to the rude American societies…just the hint that culture was possible. ''Small numerically as this source of inspiration must have been, it may conceivably have been the seed from which sprouted the great achievements of Peru and Central America…''{{ref|young1}}

A 1927 Book of Mormon study guide noted that:

:All Indians Are ''Not'' the Descendants of Lehi …Students of the Book of Mormon should be cautioned against the error of supposing that all the American Indians are the descendants of Lehi, Mulek, and their companions, and that their languages and dialects, their social organizations, religious conceptions and practices, traditions, etc., are all traceable to those Hebrew sources.

:Because the Jaredite record is very brief we are apt to forget that it embraces many centuries—how many, we have no means of ascertaining—and that it gives an epitome principally of the history of Moron, where the Jaredites first established themselves. It stands to reason that the Jaredites gradually settled in favorable localities all over the American continents, and that both Nephites and Lamanites came in contact with them, and that an amalgamation took place everywhere as in the case of the Nephites and Mulekites in Zarahemla. If so, the Jaredite culture must have become a factor in the development of the institutions and languages of the country. But the Jaredites came from some center of population in Asia…{{ref|sjodahl1}}

In April 1929, President Anthony W. Ivins [Counselor in First Presidency] said in General Conference:

:We must be careful in the conclusions that we reach. The Book of Mormon teaches the history of three distinct peoples, or two peoples and three different colonies of people, who came from the old world to this continent. ''It does not tell us that there was no one here before them. It does not tell us that people did not come after. And so if discoveries are made which suggest differences in race origins, it can very easily be accounted for, and reasonably, for we do believe that other people came to this continent.''{{ref|ivins1}}

A Church study guide of 1938 was even more definitive:

:Indian ancestry, at least in part, is attributed by the Nephite record to the Lamanites. However, the Book of Mormon deals ''only with the history and expansion of three small colonies which came to America and it does not deny or disprove the possibility of other immigrations'', which probably would be unknown to its writers. ''Jewish origin may represent only a part of the total ancestry of the American Indian today.''{{ref|berrett1}}

And, in 1940, members with the critics' attitudes were cautioned:

:There is a tendency to use the Book of Mormon as a complete history of all pre-Columbian peoples. The book does not claim to be such an history, and we distort its spiritual message when we use it for such a purpose. ''The book does not give an history of all peoples who came to America before Columbus.'' There may have been other people who came here, by other routes and means, of which we have no written record. If historians wish to discuss information which the Book of Mormon does not contain but which is related to it, then we should grant them that freedom. ''We should avoid the claim that we are familiar with all the peoples who have lived on American soil when we discuss the Book of Mormon''. . . There is safety in using the book in the spirit in which it was written. Our use of poorly constructed inferences may draw us far away from the truth. In our approach to the study of the Book of Mormon let us guard against drawing historical conclusions which the book does not warrant.{{ref|west1}}

Elder Dallin H. Oaks [Apostle] noted that he had been taught this idea in the 1950s at BYU:

:Here [at BYU] I was introduced to the idea that the Book of Mormon is not a history of all of the people who have lived on the continents of North and South America in all ages of the earth. Up to that time, I had assumed that it was. If that were the claim of the Book of Mormon, any piece of historical, archaeological, or linguistic evidence to the contrary would weigh in against the Book of Mormon, and those who rely exclusively on scholarship would have a promising position to argue.

:In contrast, if the Book of Mormon only purports to be an account of a few peoples who inhabited a portion of the Americas during a few millennia in the past, the burden of argument changes drastically. It is no longer a question of all versus none; it is a question of some versus none. In other words, in the circumstance I describe, the opponents of historicity must prove that the Book of Mormon has no historical validity for any peoples who lived in the Americas in a particular time frame, a notoriously difficult exercise.{{ref|oaks1}}

In 1957, Elder Richard L. Evans [Apostle] prepared material for a secular audience, and described the Book of Mormon as

:part of a record, both sacred and secular, of prophets and peoples who (''with supplementary groups'') were among the ancestors of the American 'Indians'{{ref|evans1}}

This article was republished twice (in 1963 and 1975) and the latter publication was reapproved for publication by the First Presidency.{{ref|fn1}}

It is astonishing that critics do not realize that this approval puts a fairly “official” stamp of approval on this perspective—at the very least, it is hardly out of the ‘mainstream’ of Church thought to think that others besides Israelites make up modern Amerindians, and this perspective existed long before the DNA issue came to the fore.

More recently, the ''Ensign'' published an article from John Sorenson, one of the most prominent advocates of the presence of other non-Israelite peoples in the Americas:

:Archaeological evidence from all New World areas where the early Nephites and Lamanites could have lived makes clear that peoples who descended from the Jaredite era also lived during the time of Lehi’s descendants. Given Laman and Lemuel’s ambition to rule, perhaps they or their descendants ruled over and absorbed such “natives.” Nephite record keepers perhaps did not know the details of that process, but that is the best explanation that I know of for the remarkable growth in the number of Lamanites.

:The case of the numerous Amulonites [in Alma 43:13] can be explained on similar grounds—taking control over a resident population.{{ref|sorenson1}}

And, when asked about the Church’s '''official position''' on this matter by a writer, a Church spokesman said:

:As to whether these were the first inhabitants…we don't have a position on that. Our scripture does not try to account for any other people who may have lived in the New World before, during or after the days of the Jaredites and the Nephites, and we don't have any official doctrine about who the descendants of the Nephites and the Jaredites are. Many Mormons believe that American Indians are descendants of the Lamanites [a division of the Nephites], but that's not in the scripture.{{ref|official1}}

So, apostles and seventies have made statements which differ from Southerton’s understanding of the matter, taught them in General Conference, and the Church has published such perspectives in their magazines, study guides, and manuals. The Church’s university has passed them on to their students for generations. The Church’s official spokespeople disclaim the interpretation which Southerton insists we must hold. Why must we? Well, because Southerton’s DNA theory “disproving” the Book of Mormon is in deep trouble otherwise, as he’s already admitted!

===Why have there been different opinions on this matter?===

We have seen that Southerton and the other critics’ claim that a “Lehi-only” teaching has been the unanimous voice of the prophets is false. To be sure, there clearly have been Church leaders who felt that all Amerindians were descendants of Book of Mormon peoples (and, as we will see below, population genetics demonstrates that this is true). Some leaders and members have also believed that the Book of Mormon peoples are the only, or major, ancestors of Amerindians.

But, there have ''also'' been those who believed that Lehi was only one ancestor among many. Later readers were more likely than early readers to hold a “many ancestors” view. Why?

All readers approach scriptures from their own cultural perspective, and with their own biases. What biases did readers of Joseph Smith’s day have about American Indians?

:One further theoretical issue dictated by the discussion in Joseph Smith's day should be mentioned here: only a few early nineteenth-century writers suggested multiple origins for the American Indians. The very term "Indian," as Robert F. Berkhofer, Jr., has pointed out, embodied a unitary concept of the native inhabitants of the Americas invented by Europeans. "By classifying all these many peoples as Indians," writes Berkhofer, "whites categorized the variety of cultures and societies as a single entity for the purposes of description and analysis, thereby neglecting or playing down the social and cultural diversity of Native Americans then--and now--for the convenience of simplified understanding."{{ref|vogel1}}

Thus, in Joseph Smith’s day, it was “common knowledge” that the Indians were a single racial group, and so most likely to have a single origin. Since the Book of Mormon seemed to teach that at least ''some'' Indians must have come from Israel, it was a natural conclusion to see them ''all'' as coming from Israel since the early Saints likely did not even conceive of there being multiple “groups” of Indians at all. To explain some was to explain them all.

Elder Brigham H. Roberts of the Seventy noted the prevailing wisdom of his era:

:[The expert] Boudinot…hold[s] that the same color of the Indian generally is evidence of unity of race.{{ref|bhroberts1}}

However, the understanding of "the Indians" as a single, monolithic group began to change, and it is not a recent change brought on by the critics' DNA material!

In 1937, John A. Widtsoe [Apostle] and Franklin S. Harris, Jr., listed as one of the “claims” of the Book of Mormon that

:THE AMERICAN ABORIGINES ARE ''IN PART'' OF HEBREW DESCENT.{{ref|widtsoe1}}

Other members, such as Milton R. Hunter, First Council of Seventy, came to similar conclusions:

:At least part of the ancestry of the American Indians came from Jerusalem; however, evidence is available which shows that people from other lands migrated to the Western Hemisphere following the close of Book of Mormon history.{{ref|hunter1}}

A more recent discussion by James R. Christiansen, published by BYU, said:

:Based on figures given sometime after their arrival, these 150 to 200 pilgrims multiplied and spread throughout the land (Ether 6:13-21). Whatever their ancestral composition, these Jaredites were the true Paleo-Indians and must have carried with them the inheritable characteristics that came to typify modern American aborigines. The widespread O blood type, the dental peculiarities, the hair, and facial features were common within the group and became standardized as they intermarried and moved unrestricted, often compelled by war and insurrection, to all points of the compass. In time, language and customs changed, but these basic traits remained dominant.

:The next known group to arrive, in 589 B.C., was small (1 Nephi 18:1-25). It too experienced divisions and strife and soon migrated into the wilderness (2 Nephi 5:1-25). There, the followers of Laman, called Lamanites, and some of those who allied themselves with Laman's brother Nephi, called Nephites, met and intermarried with the remnants of the original Jaredite population, thereby becoming part of the established and more ancient gene pool. Within one or two generations, basic physical and cultural characteristics were greatly altered. As they received, however, they also gave, and in time the language, the culture, and the physical makeup of the Paleo-Indian or Jaredite population was indelibly influenced.

:Soon after the arrival of the Nephites and Lamanites came a third group, the followers of Mulek, a son of the Jewish King Zedekiah. The Mulekites crossed the ocean and located some distance north of the central Nephite settlements (Helaman 6:10; Mosiah 25:2). In time the remnants of these two societies merged, but retained the Nephite designation. Again their languages and cultures "blended," and within a few generations a new, more complex society emerged. Centuries passed and peripheral mixing of all the inhabitants occurred. A new and distinctly American gene pool was forming, radiating outward from several major areas of influence.

:The process heightened following A.D. 33, stimulated by a general combining of the principal Nephite and Lamanite factions. Major divisions followed a two-hundred-year period of integration, resulting in a total breakdown of Nephite society (4 Nephi 1:1-45; Mormon 6:1-20). The ensuing assimilation was final. The foundation population was in place, scattered throughout the Americas. Composed of remnants from prior Jaredite, Lamanite, Nephite, and Mulekite societies, it was further impacted over a 2,500-year period by countless other transoceanic and Bering Strait arrivals. Depending on individual numbers and the extent of their subsequent assimilation, such ingraftings may have profoundly enhanced cultural—especially language—variations among peripheral elements of the population. Thus viewed, the Americanization of the Indian was complete.{{ref|fn2}}

Thus, Christiansen saw the Jaredite remnants as playing a key, even dominant, role in the composition of the later Amerindians, and described “countless other transoceanic and Bering strait arrivals” as also important.

The text of the Book of Mormon has not altered on these issues, and yet the perspectives of both members and leaders has undergone a definite shift since its publication in 1829. Clearly, the growing appreciation that “the Indians” were not a single, monolithic block allowed readers of the Book of Mormon to see things that previous generations had not appreciated.

It is vital to recognize that leaders of the Church have expressed opinions on both sides of this question. This would seem to suggest that there is no “fixed” or “official” doctrine on the topic, since why would general authorities, Church publications, and BYU classes spend decades contradicting each other if there was a clear consensus about what the ‘doctrine’ was?

Well-known LDS scholar Hugh Nibley also argued forcibly and consistently for this point of view over a long period:

:'''1947, 1952''': once we have admitted that all pre-Columbian remains do not have to belong to Book of Mormon people, . . . the problem of the Book of Mormon archaeologist, when such appears, will be to find in America things that might have some bearing on the Book of Mormon, ''not'' to prove that anything and everything that turns up is certain evidence for that book.{{ref|nibley1}}

:'''1967''': the Book of Mormon offers no objections . . . to the arrival of whatever other bands may have occupied the hemisphere without its knowledge. {{ref|nibley2}}

:'''1980''': [it is a] simplistic reading of the book . . . [to] assume that the only people in the hemisphere before Columbus were either descendants of Lehi or of Jared and his brother. {{ref|nibley3}}

Quite simply, Southerton and other DNA critics are guilty of this “simplistic reading.” And, by his own admission, his theory falls flat if he indulges in it. The cautious reader might suspect that he has more interest in finding an excuse to discard the Book of Mormon, rather than a reason to understand it at a more mature level.

===Talking past each other?===

Critics are fond of citing Church leaders such as Spencer W. Kimball, who was certainly a powerful advocate for the Amerindians or “Lamanites.” For example, President Kimball said:

:With pride I tell those who come to my office that a Lamanite is a descendant of one Lehi who left Jerusalem six hundred years before Christ and with his family crossed the mighty deep and landed in America. And Lehi and his family became the ancestors of all Indian and Mestizo tribes in North and South and Central America and in the islands of the sea, for in the middle of their history there were those who left America in ships of their making and went to the islands of the sea.

:Not until the revelations of Joseph Smith, bringing forth the Book of Mormon, did any one know of these migrants. It was not known before, but now the question is fully answered. Now the Lamanites number about sixty million; they are in all the states of America from Tierra del Fuego all the way up to Point Barrows, and they are in nearly all the islands of the sea from Hawaii south to southern New Zealand. The Church is deeply interested in all Lamanites because of these revelations and because of this great Book of Mormon, their history that was written on plates of gold and deposited in the hill. The translation by the Prophet Joseph Smith revealed a running history for one thousand years-six hundred years before Christ until four hundred after Christ-a history of these great people who accompanied this land for those thousand years. Then for the next fourteen hundred years, they lost much of their high culture. The descendants of this mighty people were called Indians by Columbus when he found them here.{{ref|swk1}}

Clearly, President Kimball here considers all Amerindians under the rubric of “Lamanite.” Does this support Southerton’s argument? It might be that President Kimball is expressing the point of view which Southerton attributes to all the “prophets.” If so, we must remember that other leaders expressed different views.

With the arrival of DNA data, critics have insisted that this proves that LDS prophets who have mentioned such ideas (as with President Kimball above) are "wrong." Poorly researched newspaper accounts have sometimes dramatically recounted how Church members from various Amerindian groups (e.g. Navajo, Pacific Islanders) have expressed dismay at the idea that DNA has "proved" that they are not "really" descendants of Lehi as the Church has taught them.

Regardless of the population model which one uses (Lehi as small, major, or exclusive source of Amerindian DNA), or the Book of Mormon geographical model (hemispheric or limited), this claim is demonstrably false.

====All From Lehi====

The popularity of Dan Brown's novel, ''The Da Vinci Code'', led many Christians to consider the question of whether (as the novel postulates) Jesus Christ could have sired children and have living descendants today.

Non LDS-writer Steve Olson (an expert in population genetics{{ref|olson1}}) wrote:

:If anyone living today is descended from Jesus, so are most of us on the planet. That absurd-sounding statement is an inevitable consequence of the strange and marvelous workings of human ancestry...Say you go back 120 generations, to about the year 1000 B.C. According to the results presented in our Nature paper, your ancestors then included everyone in the world who has descendants living today... If Jesus had children (a big if, of course) and if those children had children so that Jesus' lineage survived, then Jesus is today the ancestor of almost everyone living on Earth. True, Jesus lived two rather than three millenniums ago, but a person's descendants spread quickly from well-connected parts of the world like the Middle East...In addition to Jesus...we're also all descended from Julius Caesar, from Nefertiti, from Confucius...and from any other historical figure who left behind lines of descendants and lived earlier than a few thousand years ago. ''Genetic tests can't prove this, partly because current tests look at just a small fraction of our DNA.'' But if we're descended from someone, we have at least a chance—even if it's a very small chance—of having their DNA in our cells...People may like to think that they're descended from some ancient group while other people are not. But human ancestry doesn't work that way, since we all share the same ancestors just a few millenniums ago.{{ref|olson2}}

If Lehi existed, and if he left ''any'' descendants who survive to the modern day, then it is overwhelmingly likely—via the laws of population genetics—that virtually ''all'' modern Amerindians count Lehi among their direct ancestors. (If someone in the Middle East at the time of Christ would be the ancestor of everyone currently alive, then Lehi's entry to the Americas 600 years prior to ''that'' time almost assures that he would be the direct ancestor of all Amerindians.) In a similar fashion, it is even more certain that all Amerindians are descendants of "the Lamanites," regardless of whether one considers Lehi's group to have been "the whole show" genetically ''or'' a mere drop in a genetic sea.

And, by the same token, the chance of actually having "Lehi's DNA" or a DNA marker from Lehi is vanishingly small under most population models, unless (as in [[Book_of_Mormon_and_DNA_evidence:Geography_issues#Hemispheric_geography_model.2C_type_3|hemisphere model, type 3]]) Lehi is literally the ''only'' source of DNA for the continent, and even then not all descendants will have a given marker.

Another non-LDS author discussed the difficulties associated with using genetic tests to determine ancestory even a few generations back:

:Many amateur genealogists are interested in whether they might have a Cherokee ancestor, for example. And for some people, admixture tests can give a relatively accurate answer about Native-American ancestry. But other people, including Greeks and Ashkenazi Jews, may have "Native American affinity," according to the tests, even if they and their ancestors have never been to America. As far as anthropologists know, there were no lost tribes connecting Greeks, Jews, and ancient Americans. [LDS readers might pause here and wonder!] So, maybe this "Native American affinity" reflects the scattering of alleles by prehistoric Asian nomads to the ancestors of Greeks and Jews as well as to American Indians.{{ref|howafrican1}}

''Articles which address the phenomenon of how large groups (or the entire human population) can have fairly recent common ancestors include:''

* {{FR-18-1-6}} 
* {{FR-15-2-8}} 
* {{FR-15-2-9}} 

====But then why does being a 'Lamanite' matter at all?====

One might ask, however, that if this is true, what is the point of identifying anyone as a "Lamanite," since much or all of the world's population might also be able to claim Lehi as an ancestor?

A closer examination of President Kimball’s remarks demonstrates that his interest is not predominantly “genetic” or even “ancestral.” He says that Lehi “became the ancestors” of these varied peoples—a curious choice of words if one is speaking only of genetic parenthood. In the same article, immediately prior to the portion cited above, he says:

:we would say that many, many of us are Lamanites, ''which includes the Indians'' and the mixtures of Indians with other races. ''Even I have been adopted into some of the Indian tribes'' and have been given Indian names...

:The term Lamanite includes all Indians and Indian mixtures…It is a large group of great people. The Church has always maintained a tremendous interest and concern for the Indian people and all of the Lamanites.{{ref|kimball1}}

Thus, for President Kimball, the “Lamanites” and “Indians” are made up of both genetic descendants and those who have been adopted into the tribes, or added through “mixtures…with other races.” This goes a long way toward explaining why the critics' DNA attack is fundamentally misdirected—the participants are talking past each other. Church leaders are quite happy, generally, to extend “Lamanite” status to any Amerindian (or even a white of European descent like President Kimball) because gospel promises are the focus of their attention. The Church is not and has not been particularly worried about someone’s Lamanite ''genes'', but rather about their eligibility for the ''promises'' made to the Lamanites as members of the covenant people. Thus, President Kimball is quite happy to have all American Aborigines considered Lamanites, since he considers them all eligible for these promises—he is also quite pleased and proud to be considered a “Lamanite” not because of genes but because of covenant blessings.

This idea is familiar to Latter-day Saints, whose patriarchal blessings indicate a lineage in one of the houses of Israel. Genetically, it is probable that ''all'' people alive today share ''all'' of the sons of Jacob as genetic ancestors. As Patriarch Eldred G. Smith explained, "Many of us are mixtures of several tribes of Israel, and so it is the right of the patriarch to declare that line through which the blessings of Israel shall come."{{ref|esmith1}} Thus, the blessings of the gospel come to people because of the covenants, and thus one ancestor is focused on as the conduit for those covenant blessings. Having lineage declared from the tribe of Ephraim, for example, does not mean that a member of the Church has no genetic ancestry from another tribe. It means simply that the member's blessings, promises, covenants, and duties are being focused upon the Ephraimite lineage.

Lamanite is an inclusive, not exclusive, term in the Church. President Kimball even extends the label of “Lamanites” beyond “the Indian people,” and no wonder, since his goal is to teach that

:There are no blessings, of all the imaginable ones, to which you are not entitled—you, the Lamanites—when you are righteous.{{ref|kimball2}}

We should perhaps be cautious, then, in assuming (as the critics do) that gospel statements about Lamanite ancestry are mostly about genetics, when they are most likely primarily about covenant duties and promises.

''Articles which discuss the nature of "Nephite" and "Lamanite" in the Book of Mormon:''
* {{JBMS-12-1-5}}{{NB}}
* {{JBMS-12-1-2}} 

==Conclusion==

#LDS leaders and members have been of a variety of opinions regarding the degree of contribution which Book of Mormon peoples provided to the Amerindian gene pool.
#Church spokesmen indicate that there is no official position.
#As Church members have understood that there was more than one "group" of Indians, they have read the Book of Mormon as being only a ''partial'' history of Amerindian ancestors
#If Lehi had any descendants, population genetics virtually guarantees that all Amerinidians have him as a common ancestor.
#Church discussions of Lamanite ancestory (or Israelite ancestory generally) is not about genetics, but is focused on covenant promises and blessings.

==Endnotes==

#{{note|southerton1}}Simon Southerton, e-mail, “Answering the DNA apologetics,” 15 February 2005, 18h42 (copy in author’s possession).
#{{note|southerton2}}''Ibid''.
#{{note|lms1}}Lucy Mack Smith, ''Biographical Sketches of Joseph Smith the Prophet, and His Progenitors for Many Generations'' (Liverpool, England, 1853), 152.
#{{note|wwphelps1}}{{EMS1 | author=W. W. Phelps | article=The Book of Mormon|date=January 1833|start=?}}
#{{note|pppratt1}}Parley P. Pratt, ''A Voice of Warning and Instruction to All People, etc.'' (New York: W. Sandford, 1837), 135.
#{{note|orsonpratt1}}{{JoD17_1|author=Orson Pratt|title=?|date=7 February 1875|start=299}}{{nl}}
#{{note|richards1}} LeGrand Richards, ''Israel! Do You Know?'' (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1954), 37.{{nl}}
#{{note|young1}} {{CR|author=Levi Edgar Young|date=October 1928|start=103|end=106, italics added}}
#{{note|sojdahl1}}{{IE1|author=Janne M. Sjodahl|article=Suggested Key To Book of Mormon Geography|vol=30|num=11|date=September 1927|start=?}}
#{{note|ivins1}} {{CR1|author=Anthony W. Ivins|date=April 1929|start=15, italics added}}
#{{note|berrett1}} William E. Berrett, Milton R. Hunter, Roy A. Welker, and H. Alvah Fitzgerald, ''A Guide to the Study of the Book of Mormon'' (Salt Lake City: LDS Department of Education, 1938), 47–48, italics added.
# {{note|west1}} Roy A. West, ''An Introduction to the Book of Mormon: A Religious-Literary Study'' (Salt Lake City: LDS Department of Education, 1940), 11, italics added.
# {{note|oaks1}} Dallin H. Oaks, "The Historicity of the Book of Mormon," (Provo, Utah: FARMS, 1994): 2–3; republished in Dallin H. Oaks, "The Historicity of the Book of Mormon," in ''Historicity and the Latter-day Saint Scriptures'', edited by Paul Y. Hoskisson (Provo, Utah: BYU Religious Studies Center, 2001), 238–239.
# {{note|evans1}} Richard L. Evans, "What Is a 'Mormon'?" in ''Religions of America'', edited by Leo Rosten (London: Heinemann, 1957), 94, italics added; reprinted as ''Religions of America: Ferment and Faith in an Age of Crisis: A New Guide and Almanac'' (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1975). {{nl}}
#{{note|fn1}}The quote and this observation are from {{FR-15-2-7}}
#{{note|sorenson1}} {{ensign1|author=John L. Sorenson|article=I Have a Question|date=September 1992|start=27, italics added}}{{nl}}
#{{note|official1}} Stewart Reid, LDS Public Relations Staff, quoted by William J. Bennetta in ''The Textbook Letter'' (March-April 1997), published by The Textbook League (P.O. Box 51, Sausalito, California 94966).
#{{note|vogel1}} Dan Vogel, ''Indian Origins and the Book of Mormon: Religious Solutions from Columbus to Joseph Smith'' (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1986), 8—9. The reader should be cautioned that Vogel—a former Church member and current atheist—believes that the Book of Mormon is a nineteenth-century fiction concocted by Joseph Smith. For a review of the strengths and weaknesses of this volume, see {{FR-16-1-14}}
#{{note|bhroberts1}} Brigham H. Roberts, ''Studies of the Book of Mormon'', 2nd edition, edited and with an introduction by Brigham D. Madsen (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1992), 203; also published by (Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1985).{{nl}}
#{{note|widtsoe1}} John A. Widtsoe and Franklin S. Harris, Jr., ''Seven Claims of the Book of Mormon: a collection of evidences'' (Independence, Jackson County, Mo: Press of Zion's Printing and Publishing Company, 1937), 15, 84, italics added, capitals in original.
#{{note|hunter1}} Milton R. Hunter, ''Archaelogy and the Book of Mormon'' (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1956), 53.
#{{note|fn2}} James R. Christiansen, ''Book of Mormon: the Keystone scripture'', edited by Paul R. Cheeseman, (Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 1988), 232–233.{{nl}}
#{{note|nibley1}} {{NibleyLDWJ1|start=253 (emphasis in original)}} ; reprinted in {{Nibley5_1|start=251}}
#{{note|nibley2}}{{Nibley7_1|start=249}}
#{{note|nibley3}}Hugh W. Nibley, "The Book of Mormon and the Ruins: The Main Issues," F.A.R.M.S. paper, 1980.
#{{note|swk1}} {{Ensign1|author=Spencer W. Kimball|article=Of Royal Blood|date=July 1971|start=7|end=10}} {{link|url=http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/1971.htm/ensign%20july%201971.htm/of%20royal%20blood.htm}}
#{{note|olson1}} Olson is co-author of a letter to ''Nature'', in which he discusses these ideas in a more technical format. See Douglas L. T. Rohde, Steve Olson, and Joseph T. Chang, "Modelling the recent common ancestry of all living humans," 431 ''Nature'' (30 September 2004): 562–566. {{link|url=http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v431/n7008/abs/nature02842.html}} Olson provides a "semi-technical" description of his findings [http://www.slate.com/id/2138060/sidebar/2138061/ here].
#{{note|olson2}} Steve Olson, "Why We're All Jesus' Children," ''slate.com'' (15 March 2006). Last accessed 12 October 2006 (emphasis added). {{link|url=http://www.slate.com/id/2138060/}}
#{{note|howafrican1}} John Hawks, "How African Are You? What genealogical testing can't tell you," ''slate.com'' (15 March 2006), accessed 12 October 2006. {{link|url=http://www.slate.com/id/2138059/}}
#{{note|kimball1}} {{Ensign1|author=Spencer W. Kimball|article=Of Royal Blood|date=July 1971|start=7}} {{link|url=http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/1971.htm/ensign%20july%201971.htm/of%20royal%20blood.htm}}
#{{note|esmith1}} Eldred G. Smith, "Lectures on Theology: Last Message Series," Address given at the Salt Lake Institute of Religion (30 April 1971), 2.
#{{note|kimball2}} {{Ensign1|author=Spencer W. Kimball|article=Of Royal Blood|date=July 1971|start=10}} {{link|url=http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/1971.htm/ensign%20july%201971.htm/of%20royal%20blood.htm}}

==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===
{{Book of Mormon anachronisms}}
{{DNAWiki}}

===FAIR web site===
{{DNAFAIR}}

===External links===
{{DNALinks}}

===Printed material===
{{DNAPrint}}

Book of Mormon/Lamanites/Relationship to Amerindians

2007-12-03T21:36:59Z

BrandonHansen:

<table style="border: thin solid red; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto">
<tr><td style="background-color: #ffcccc; text-align: center; padding-left: 10px; padding-right: 10px">
This is a longer version of an article on Lamanite identity.<br>To read the shorter version, click '''[[Amerindians as Lamanites:Summary|here]]'''.
</td></tr>
</table><br>
{{DNAPortal}}
{{question}}

==Question==
Are all Amerindians descendants of Lehi?

===Source(s) of criticism===
* {{50Questions}}

==Answer==

===How have LDS members understood Amerindian origins?===

In their more candid moments, the ex-Mormon critics admit that their criticisms revolve around a key assumption. Simon Southerton writes of how some Mormons have argued that

:Bottleneck effect, genetic drift, Hardy-Weinberg violations and other technical problems would prevent us from detecting Israelite genes [in Amerindians].{{ref|southerton1}}

This is a technical way of explaining a relatively simple fact: if a small group is placed in contact with a larger group and allowed to intermarry, it becomes harder to detect the small group’s “genetic signature.”

It is as if one placed a teaspoon of red dye in an Olympic swimming pool, mixed well, and then withdrew a sample. Southerton and his fellow critics are in the position of someone who complains loudly because the sampled water does not seem to be “red”!

Southerton then goes on to say:

:I agree entirely. [!] In 600 BC there were probably several million American Indians living in the Americas. If a small group of Israelites entered such a massive native population it would be very, very hard to detect their genes 200, 2000 or even 20,000 years later. But does such a scenario fit with what the Book of Mormon plainly states or what the prophets have taught for 175 years? Short answer. No! Long answer. Nooo!{{ref|southerton2}}

This is really quite astonishing. Southerton has obliged us by shooting himself in the foot. He admits that there are many genetic objections to his attack, unless we accept that the American Indians are only descendants of Lehi and Mulek.

Contrary to Southerton’s assertion, the short answer is that he is either ignorant of the facts, or being deceptive.

For those who are interested, we turn to the long answer.

Remember, Southerton claims that we must accept his version, because

# the Book of Mormon ‘plainly’ teaches it; and
# “the prophets” have taught this doctrine (and no other, we must presume) for 175 years.

So, by Southerton’s own admission, his model is in fatal trouble if a “whole empty hemisphere” model is not taught by both the Book of Mormon and the prophets.That Southerton would make such a claim, and put his theory on such shaky ground, illustrates how poorly he understands the Book of Mormon and writing about it that has gone on for decades prior to Watson and Crick's discovery of the double helix.

====Initial ideas====
It is not surprising that some Church members concluded that all Amerindians were descendants of Lehi/Mulek. In fact, this was the initial conclusion drawn by many contemporaries of Joseph Smith. For example:

* Lucy Mack Smith describing the Book of Mormon: "a history of the origin of the Indians."{{ref|lms1}}
* WW Phelps, 1833: "That wonderful conjecture, which left blank as to the origin . . . of the American Indians, was done away by the Book of Mormon…"{{ref|wwphelps1}}
* Parley P. Pratt [apostle], 1837: "reveals the origin of the American Indians, which was before a mystery." {{ref|pppratt1}}
* Orson Pratt [apostle], 1875: I refer to the American Indians, all remnants of Joseph and belonging to the house of Israel. {{ref|orsonpratt1}}

And, many later members and leaders continued to emphasize this perspective (though, as discussed below, if Lehi had any descendants, then all present Amerindians are his descendants):

* LeGrand Richards [Apostle] 1954: The dark-skinned people who occupied this land of America from that time on were called "Lamanites," who are the people known generally as the American Indians, all of whom are of the house of Israel.{{ref|richards1}}

====A reevalution====

However, contrary to the claims of critics who attempt to use DNA evidence to discredit the Book of Mormon, some readers and leaders reconsidered these ideas.

Taught Elder Levi Edgar Young [First Council of the Seventy] in 1928 general conference:

:There must be a clear distinction, it grows every year more evident, ''between the origins of America's ancient people and the sources of their culture.'' The human material of the pre- Columbian societies probably came from Asia by way of Alaska, the orthodox route long accepted for the American Indians…Among many social belongings abandoned along the route seem to have been most of the things called intellectual. The men and women who peopled America arrived, intellectually, with the clothes they stood in…Dr. Uhle urges an alternative [theory for how high culture arose in the Americas]…Occasional cultured mariners from India, China, Japan or other lands may have landed, he believes, few in numbers, but full of ideas, to bring to the rude American societies…just the hint that culture was possible. ''Small numerically as this source of inspiration must have been, it may conceivably have been the seed from which sprouted the great achievements of Peru and Central America…''{{ref|young1}}

A 1927 Book of Mormon study guide noted that:

:All Indians Are ''Not'' the Descendants of Lehi …Students of the Book of Mormon should be cautioned against the error of supposing that all the American Indians are the descendants of Lehi, Mulek, and their companions, and that their languages and dialects, their social organizations, religious conceptions and practices, traditions, etc., are all traceable to those Hebrew sources.

:Because the Jaredite record is very brief we are apt to forget that it embraces many centuries—how many, we have no means of ascertaining—and that it gives an epitome principally of the history of Moron, where the Jaredites first established themselves. It stands to reason that the Jaredites gradually settled in favorable localities all over the American continents, and that both Nephites and Lamanites came in contact with them, and that an amalgamation took place everywhere as in the case of the Nephites and Mulekites in Zarahemla. If so, the Jaredite culture must have become a factor in the development of the institutions and languages of the country. But the Jaredites came from some center of population in Asia…{{ref|sjodahl1}}

In April 1929, President Anthony W. Ivins [Counselor in First Presidency] said in General Conference:

:We must be careful in the conclusions that we reach. The Book of Mormon teaches the history of three distinct peoples, or two peoples and three different colonies of people, who came from the old world to this continent. ''It does not tell us that there was no one here before them. It does not tell us that people did not come after. And so if discoveries are made which suggest differences in race origins, it can very easily be accounted for, and reasonably, for we do believe that other people came to this continent.''{{ref|ivins1}}

A Church study guide of 1938 was even more definitive:

:Indian ancestry, at least in part, is attributed by the Nephite record to the Lamanites. However, the Book of Mormon deals ''only with the history and expansion of three small colonies which came to America and it does not deny or disprove the possibility of other immigrations'', which probably would be unknown to its writers. ''Jewish origin may represent only a part of the total ancestry of the American Indian today.''{{ref|berrett1}}

And, in 1940, members with the critics' attitudes were cautioned:

:There is a tendency to use the Book of Mormon as a complete history of all pre-Columbian peoples. The book does not claim to be such an history, and we distort its spiritual message when we use it for such a purpose. ''The book does not give an history of all peoples who came to America before Columbus.'' There may have been other people who came here, by other routes and means, of which we have no written record. If historians wish to discuss information which the Book of Mormon does not contain but which is related to it, then we should grant them that freedom. ''We should avoid the claim that we are familiar with all the peoples who have lived on American soil when we discuss the Book of Mormon''. . . There is safety in using the book in the spirit in which it was written. Our use of poorly constructed inferences may draw us far away from the truth. In our approach to the study of the Book of Mormon let us guard against drawing historical conclusions which the book does not warrant.{{ref|west1}}

Elder Dallin H. Oaks [Apostle] noted that he had been taught this idea in the 1950s at BYU:

:Here [at BYU] I was introduced to the idea that the Book of Mormon is not a history of all of the people who have lived on the continents of North and South America in all ages of the earth. Up to that time, I had assumed that it was. If that were the claim of the Book of Mormon, any piece of historical, archaeological, or linguistic evidence to the contrary would weigh in against the Book of Mormon, and those who rely exclusively on scholarship would have a promising position to argue.

:In contrast, if the Book of Mormon only purports to be an account of a few peoples who inhabited a portion of the Americas during a few millennia in the past, the burden of argument changes drastically. It is no longer a question of all versus none; it is a question of some versus none. In other words, in the circumstance I describe, the opponents of historicity must prove that the Book of Mormon has no historical validity for any peoples who lived in the Americas in a particular time frame, a notoriously difficult exercise.{{ref|oaks1}}

In 1957, Elder Richard L. Evans [Apostle] prepared material for a secular audience, and described the Book of Mormon as

:part of a record, both sacred and secular, of prophets and peoples who (''with supplementary groups'') were among the ancestors of the American 'Indians'{{ref|evans1}}

This article was republished twice (in 1963 and 1975) and the latter publication was reapproved for publication by the First Presidency.{{ref|fn1}}

It is astonishing that critics do not realize that this approval puts a fairly “official” stamp of approval on this perspective—at the very least, it is hardly out of the ‘mainstream’ of Church thought to think that others besides Israelites make up modern Amerindians, and this perspective existed long before the DNA issue came to the fore.

More recently, the ''Ensign'' published an article from John Sorenson, one of the most prominent advocates of the presence of other non-Israelite peoples in the Americas:

:Archaeological evidence from all New World areas where the early Nephites and Lamanites could have lived makes clear that peoples who descended from the Jaredite era also lived during the time of Lehi’s descendants. Given Laman and Lemuel’s ambition to rule, perhaps they or their descendants ruled over and absorbed such “natives.” Nephite record keepers perhaps did not know the details of that process, but that is the best explanation that I know of for the remarkable growth in the number of Lamanites.

:The case of the numerous Amulonites [in Alma 43:13] can be explained on similar grounds—taking control over a resident population.{{ref|sorenson1}}

And, when asked about the Church’s '''official position''' on this matter by a writer, a Church spokesman said:

:As to whether these were the first inhabitants…we don't have a position on that. Our scripture does not try to account for any other people who may have lived in the New World before, during or after the days of the Jaredites and the Nephites, and we don't have any official doctrine about who the descendants of the Nephites and the Jaredites are. Many Mormons believe that American Indians are descendants of the Lamanites [a division of the Nephites], but that's not in the scripture.{{ref|official1}}

So, apostles and seventies have made statements which differ from Southerton’s understanding of the matter, taught them in General Conference, and the Church has published such perspectives in their magazines, study guides, and manuals. The Church’s university has passed them on to their students for generations. The Church’s official spokespeople disclaim the interpretation which Southerton insists we must hold. Why must we? Well, because Southerton’s DNA theory “disproving” the Book of Mormon is in deep trouble otherwise, as he’s already admitted!

===Why have there been different opinions on this matter?===

We have seen that Southerton and the other critics’ claim that a “Lehi-only” teaching has been the unanimous voice of the prophets is false. To be sure, there clearly have been Church leaders who felt that all Amerindians were descendants of Book of Mormon peoples (and, as we will see below, population genetics demonstrates that this is true). Some leaders and members have also believed that the Book of Mormon peoples are the only, or major, ancestors of Amerindians.

But, there have ''also'' been those who believed that Lehi was only one ancestor among many. Later readers were more likely than early readers to hold a “many ancestors” view. Why?

All readers approach scriptures from their own cultural perspective, and with their own biases. What biases did readers of Joseph Smith’s day have about American Indians?

:One further theoretical issue dictated by the discussion in Joseph Smith's day should be mentioned here: only a few early nineteenth-century writers suggested multiple origins for the American Indians. The very term "Indian," as Robert F. Berkhofer, Jr., has pointed out, embodied a unitary concept of the native inhabitants of the Americas invented by Europeans. "By classifying all these many peoples as Indians," writes Berkhofer, "whites categorized the variety of cultures and societies as a single entity for the purposes of description and analysis, thereby neglecting or playing down the social and cultural diversity of Native Americans then--and now--for the convenience of simplified understanding."{{ref|vogel1}}

Thus, in Joseph Smith’s day, it was “common knowledge” that the Indians were a single racial group, and so most likely to have a single origin. Since the Book of Mormon seemed to teach that at least ''some'' Indians must have come from Israel, it was a natural conclusion to see them ''all'' as coming from Israel since the early Saints likely did not even conceive of there being multiple “groups” of Indians at all. To explain some was to explain them all.

Elder Brigham H. Roberts of the Seventy noted the prevailing wisdom of his era:

:[The expert] Boudinot…hold[s] that the same color of the Indian generally is evidence of unity of race.{{ref|bhroberts1}}

However, the understanding of "the Indians" as a single, monolithic group began to change, and it is not a recent change brought on by the critics' DNA material!

In 1937, John A. Widtsoe [Apostle] and Franklin S. Harris, Jr., listed as one of the “claims” of the Book of Mormon that

:THE AMERICAN ABORIGINES ARE ''IN PART'' OF HEBREW DESCENT.{{ref|widtsoe1}}

Other members, such as Milton R. Hunter, First Council of Seventy, came to similar conclusions:

:At least part of the ancestry of the American Indians came from Jerusalem; however, evidence is available which shows that people from other lands migrated to the Western Hemisphere following the close of Book of Mormon history.{{ref|hunter1}}

A more recent discussion by James R. Christiansen, published by BYU, said:

:Based on figures given sometime after their arrival, these 150 to 200 pilgrims multiplied and spread throughout the land (Ether 6:13-21). Whatever their ancestral composition, these Jaredites were the true Paleo-Indians and must have carried with them the inheritable characteristics that came to typify modern American aborigines. The widespread O blood type, the dental peculiarities, the hair, and facial features were common within the group and became standardized as they intermarried and moved unrestricted, often compelled by war and insurrection, to all points of the compass. In time, language and customs changed, but these basic traits remained dominant.

:The next known group to arrive, in 589 B.C., was small (1 Nephi 18:1-25). It too experienced divisions and strife and soon migrated into the wilderness (2 Nephi 5:1-25). There, the followers of Laman, called Lamanites, and some of those who allied themselves with Laman's brother Nephi, called Nephites, met and intermarried with the remnants of the original Jaredite population, thereby becoming part of the established and more ancient gene pool. Within one or two generations, basic physical and cultural characteristics were greatly altered. As they received, however, they also gave, and in time the language, the culture, and the physical makeup of the Paleo-Indian or Jaredite population was indelibly influenced.

:Soon after the arrival of the Nephites and Lamanites came a third group, the followers of Mulek, a son of the Jewish King Zedekiah. The Mulekites crossed the ocean and located some distance north of the central Nephite settlements (Helaman 6:10; Mosiah 25:2). In time the remnants of these two societies merged, but retained the Nephite designation. Again their languages and cultures "blended," and within a few generations a new, more complex society emerged. Centuries passed and peripheral mixing of all the inhabitants occurred. A new and distinctly American gene pool was forming, radiating outward from several major areas of influence.

:The process heightened following A.D. 33, stimulated by a general combining of the principal Nephite and Lamanite factions. Major divisions followed a two-hundred-year period of integration, resulting in a total breakdown of Nephite society (4 Nephi 1:1-45; Mormon 6:1-20). The ensuing assimilation was final. The foundation population was in place, scattered throughout the Americas. Composed of remnants from prior Jaredite, Lamanite, Nephite, and Mulekite societies, it was further impacted over a 2,500-year period by countless other transoceanic and Bering Strait arrivals. Depending on individual numbers and the extent of their subsequent assimilation, such ingraftings may have profoundly enhanced cultural—especially language—variations among peripheral elements of the population. Thus viewed, the Americanization of the Indian was complete.{{ref|fn2}}

Thus, Christiansen saw the Jaredite remnants as playing a key, even dominant, role in the composition of the later Amerindians, and described “countless other transoceanic and Bering strait arrivals” as also important.

The text of the Book of Mormon has not altered on these issues, and yet the perspectives of both members and leaders has undergone a definite shift since its publication in 1829. Clearly, the growing appreciation that “the Indians” were not a single, monolithic block allowed readers of the Book of Mormon to see things that previous generations had not appreciated.

It is vital to recognize that leaders of the Church have expressed opinions on both sides of this question. This would seem to suggest that there is no “fixed” or “official” doctrine on the topic, since why would general authorities, Church publications, and BYU classes spend decades contradicting each other if there was a clear consensus about what the ‘doctrine’ was?

Well-known LDS scholar Hugh Nibley also argued forcibly and consistently for this point of view over a long period:

:'''1947, 1952''': once we have admitted that all pre-Columbian remains do not have to belong to Book of Mormon people, . . . the problem of the Book of Mormon archaeologist, when such appears, will be to find in America things that might have some bearing on the Book of Mormon, ''not'' to prove that anything and everything that turns up is certain evidence for that book.{{ref|nibley1}}

:'''1967''': the Book of Mormon offers no objections . . . to the arrival of whatever other bands may have occupied the hemisphere without its knowledge. {{ref|nibley2}}

:'''1980''': [it is a] simplistic reading of the book . . . [to] assume that the only people in the hemisphere before Columbus were either descendants of Lehi or of Jared and his brother. {{ref|nibley3}}

Quite simply, Southerton and other DNA critics are guilty of this “simplistic reading.” And, by his own admission, his theory falls flat if he indulges in it. The cautious reader might suspect that he has more interest in finding an excuse to discard the Book of Mormon, rather than a reason to understand it at a more mature level.

===Talking past each other?===

Critics are fond of citing Church leaders such as Spencer W. Kimball, who was certainly a powerful advocate for the Amerindians or “Lamanites.” For example, President Kimball said:

:With pride I tell those who come to my office that a Lamanite is a descendant of one Lehi who left Jerusalem six hundred years before Christ and with his family crossed the mighty deep and landed in America. And Lehi and his family became the ancestors of all Indian and Mestizo tribes in North and South and Central America and in the islands of the sea, for in the middle of their history there were those who left America in ships of their making and went to the islands of the sea.

:Not until the revelations of Joseph Smith, bringing forth the Book of Mormon, did any one know of these migrants. It was not known before, but now the question is fully answered. Now the Lamanites number about sixty million; they are in all the states of America from Tierra del Fuego all the way up to Point Barrows, and they are in nearly all the islands of the sea from Hawaii south to southern New Zealand. The Church is deeply interested in all Lamanites because of these revelations and because of this great Book of Mormon, their history that was written on plates of gold and deposited in the hill. The translation by the Prophet Joseph Smith revealed a running history for one thousand years-six hundred years before Christ until four hundred after Christ-a history of these great people who accompanied this land for those thousand years. Then for the next fourteen hundred years, they lost much of their high culture. The descendants of this mighty people were called Indians by Columbus when he found them here.{{ref|swk1}}

Clearly, President Kimball here considers all Amerindians under the rubric of “Lamanite.” Does this support Southerton’s argument? It might be that President Kimball is expressing the point of view which Southerton attributes to all the “prophets.” If so, we must remember that other leaders expressed different views.

With the arrival of DNA data, critics have insisted that this proves that LDS prophets who have mentioned such ideas (as with President Kimball above) are "wrong." Poorly researched newspaper accounts have sometimes dramatically recounted how Church members from various Amerindian groups (e.g. Navajo, Pacific Islanders) have expressed dismay at the idea that DNA has "proved" that they are not "really" descendants of Lehi as the Church has taught them.

Regardless of the population model which one uses (Lehi as small, major, or exclusive source of Amerindian DNA), or the Book of Mormon geographical model (hemispheric or limited), this claim is demonstrably false.

====All From Lehi====

The popularity of Dan Brown's novel, ''The Da Vinci Code'', led many Christians to consider the question of whether (as the novel postulates) Jesus Christ could have sired children and have living descendants today.

Non LDS-writer Steve Olson (an expert in population genetics{{ref|olson1}}) wrote:

:If anyone living today is descended from Jesus, so are most of us on the planet. That absurd-sounding statement is an inevitable consequence of the strange and marvelous workings of human ancestry...Say you go back 120 generations, to about the year 1000 B.C. According to the results presented in our Nature paper, your ancestors then included everyone in the world who has descendants living today... If Jesus had children (a big if, of course) and if those children had children so that Jesus' lineage survived, then Jesus is today the ancestor of almost everyone living on Earth. True, Jesus lived two rather than three millenniums ago, but a person's descendants spread quickly from well-connected parts of the world like the Middle East...In addition to Jesus...we're also all descended from Julius Caesar, from Nefertiti, from Confucius...and from any other historical figure who left behind lines of descendants and lived earlier than a few thousand years ago. ''Genetic tests can't prove this, partly because current tests look at just a small fraction of our DNA.'' But if we're descended from someone, we have at least a chance—even if it's a very small chance—of having their DNA in our cells...People may like to think that they're descended from some ancient group while other people are not. But human ancestry doesn't work that way, since we all share the same ancestors just a few millenniums ago.{{ref|olson2}}

If Lehi existed, and if he left ''any'' descendants who survive to the modern day, then it is overwhelmingly likely—via the laws of population genetics—that virtually ''all'' modern Amerindians count Lehi among their direct ancestors. (If someone in the Middle East at the time of Christ would be the ancestor of everyone currently alive, then Lehi's entry to the Americas 600 years prior to ''that'' time almost assures that he would be the direct ancestor of all Amerindians.) In a similar fashion, it is even more certain that all Amerindians are descendants of "the Lamanites," regardless of whether one considers Lehi's group to have been "the whole show" genetically ''or'' a mere drop in a genetic sea.

And, by the same token, the chance of actually having "Lehi's DNA" or a DNA marker from Lehi is vanishingly small under most population models, unless (as in [[Book_of_Mormon_and_DNA_evidence:Geography_issues#Hemispheric_geography_model.2C_type_3|hemisphere model, type 3]]) Lehi is literally the ''only'' source of DNA for the continent, and even then not all descendants will have a given marker.

Another non-LDS author discussed the difficulties associated with using genetic tests to determine ancestory even a few generations back:

:Many amateur genealogists are interested in whether they might have a Cherokee ancestor, for example. And for some people, admixture tests can give a relatively accurate answer about Native-American ancestry. But other people, including Greeks and Ashkenazi Jews, may have "Native American affinity," according to the tests, even if they and their ancestors have never been to America. As far as anthropologists know, there were no lost tribes connecting Greeks, Jews, and ancient Americans. [LDS readers might pause here and wonder!] So, maybe this "Native American affinity" reflects the scattering of alleles by prehistoric Asian nomads to the ancestors of Greeks and Jews as well as to American Indians.{{ref|howafrican1}}

''Articles which address the phenomenon of how large groups (or the entire human population) can have fairly recent common ancestors include:''

* {{FR-18-1-6}} 
* {{FR-15-2-8}} 
* {{FR-15-2-9}} 

====But then why does being a 'Lamanite' matter at all?====

One might ask, however, that if this is true, what is the point of identifying anyone as a "Lamanite," since much or all of the world's population might also be able to claim Lehi as an ancestor?

A closer examination of President Kimball’s remarks demonstrates that his interest is not predominantly “genetic” or even “ancestral.” He says that Lehi “became the ancestors” of these varied peoples—a curious choice of words if one is speaking only of genetic parenthood. In the same article, immediately prior to the portion cited above, he says:

:we would say that many, many of us are Lamanites, ''which includes the Indians'' and the mixtures of Indians with other races. ''Even I have been adopted into some of the Indian tribes'' and have been given Indian names...

:The term Lamanite includes all Indians and Indian mixtures…It is a large group of great people. The Church has always maintained a tremendous interest and concern for the Indian people and all of the Lamanites.{{ref|kimball1}}

Thus, for President Kimball, the “Lamanites” and “Indians” are made up of both genetic descendants and those who have been adopted into the tribes, or added through “mixtures…with other races.” This goes a long way toward explaining why the critics' DNA attack is fundamentally misdirected—the participants are talking past each other. Church leaders are quite happy, generally, to extend “Lamanite” status to any Amerindian (or even a white of European descent like President Kimball) because gospel promises are the focus of their attention. The Church is not and has not been particularly worried about someone’s Lamanite ''genes'', but rather about their eligibility for the ''promises'' made to the Lamanites as members of the covenant people. Thus, President Kimball is quite happy to have all American Aborigines considered Lamanites, since he considers them all eligible for these promises—he is also quite pleased and proud to be considered a “Lamanite” not because of genes but because of covenant blessings.

This idea is familiar to Latter-day Saints, whose patriarchal blessings indicate a lineage in one of the houses of Israel. Genetically, it is probable that ''all'' people alive today share ''all'' of the sons of Jacob as genetic ancestors. As Patriarch Eldred G. Smith explained, "Many of us are mixtures of several tribes of Israel, and so it is the right of the patriarch to declare that line through which the blessings of Israel shall come."{{ref|esmith1}} Thus, the blessings of the gospel come to people because of the covenants, and thus one ancestor is focused on as the conduit for those covenant blessings. Having lineage declared from the tribe of Ephraim, for example, does not mean that a member of the Church has no genetic ancestry from another tribe. It means simply that the member's blessings, promises, covenants, and duties are being focused upon the Ephraimite lineage.

Lamanite is an inclusive, not exclusive, term in the Church. President Kimball even extends the label of “Lamanites” beyond “the Indian people,” and no wonder, since his goal is to teach that

:There are no blessings, of all the imaginable ones, to which you are not entitled—you, the Lamanites—when you are righteous.{{ref|kimball2}}

We should perhaps be cautious, then, in assuming (as the critics do) that gospel statements about Lamanite ancestry are mostly about genetics, when they are most likely primarily about covenant duties and promises.

''Articles which discuss the nature of "Nephite" and "Lamanite" in the Book of Mormon:''
* {{JBMS-12-1-5}}{{NB}}
* {{JBMS-12-1-2}} 

==Conclusion==

#LDS leaders and members have been of a variety of opinions regarding the degree of contribution which Book of Mormon peoples provided to the Amerindian gene pool.
#Church spokesmen indicate that there is no official position.
#As Church members have understood that there was more than one "group" of Indians, they have read the Book of Mormon as being only a ''partial'' history of Amerindian ancestors
#If Lehi had any descendants, population genetics virtually guarantees that all Amerinidians have him as a common ancestor.
#Church discussions of Lamanite ancestory (or Israelite ancestory generally) is not about genetics, but is focused on covenant promises and blessings.

==Endnotes==

#{{note|southerton1}}Simon Southerton, e-mail, “Answering the DNA apologetics,” 15 February 2005, 18h42 (copy in author’s possession).
#{{note|southerton2}}''Ibid''.
#{{note|lms1}}Lucy Mack Smith, ''Biographical Sketches of Joseph Smith the Prophet, and His Progenitors for Many Generations'' (Liverpool, England, 1853), 152.
#{{note|wwphelps1}}{{EMS1 | author=W. W. Phelps | article=The Book of Mormon|date=January 1833|start=?}}
#{{note|pppratt1}}Parley P. Pratt, ''A Voice of Warning and Instruction to All People, etc.'' (New York: W. Sandford, 1837), 135.
#{{note|orsonpratt1}}{{JoD17_1|author=Orson Pratt|title=?|date=7 February 1875|start=299}}{{nl}}
#{{note|richards1}} LeGrand Richards, ''Israel! Do You Know?'' (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1954), 37.{{nl}}
#{{note|young1}} {{CR|author=Levi Edgar Young|date=October 1928|start=103|end=106, italics added}}
#{{note|sojdahl1}}{{IE1|author=Janne M. Sjodahl|article=Suggested Key To Book of Mormon Geography|vol=30|num=11|date=September 1927|start=?}}
#{{note|ivins1}} {{CR1|author=Anthony W. Ivins|date=April 1929|start=15, italics added}}
#{{note|berrett1}} William E. Berrett, Milton R. Hunter, Roy A. Welker, and H. Alvah Fitzgerald, ''A Guide to the Study of the Book of Mormon'' (Salt Lake City: LDS Department of Education, 1938), 47–48, italics added.
# {{note|west1}} Roy A. West, ''An Introduction to the Book of Mormon: A Religious-Literary Study'' (Salt Lake City: LDS Department of Education, 1940), 11, italics added.
# {{note|oaks1}} Dallin H. Oaks, "The Historicity of the Book of Mormon," (Provo, Utah: FARMS, 1994): 2–3; republished in Dallin H. Oaks, "The Historicity of the Book of Mormon," in ''Historicity and the Latter-day Saint Scriptures'', edited by Paul Y. Hoskisson (Provo, Utah: BYU Religious Studies Center, 2001), 238–239.
# {{note|evans1}} Richard L. Evans, "What Is a 'Mormon'?" in ''Religions of America'', edited by Leo Rosten (London: Heinemann, 1957), 94, italics added; reprinted as ''Religions of America: Ferment and Faith in an Age of Crisis: A New Guide and Almanac'' (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1975). {{nl}}
#{{note|fn1}}The quote and this observation are from {{FR-15-2-7}}
#{{note|sorenson1}} {{ensign1|author=John L. Sorenson|article=I Have a Question|date=September 1992|start=27, italics added}}{{nl}}
#{{note|official1}} Stewart Reid, LDS Public Relations Staff, quoted by William J. Bennetta in ''The Textbook Letter'' (March-April 1997), published by The Textbook League (P.O. Box 51, Sausalito, California 94966).
#{{note|vogel1}} Dan Vogel, ''Indian Origins and the Book of Mormon: Religious Solutions from Columbus to Joseph Smith'' (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1986), 8—9. The reader should be cautioned that Vogel—a former Church member and current atheist—believes that the Book of Mormon is a nineteenth-century fiction concocted by Joseph Smith. For a review of the strengths and weaknesses of this volume, see {{FR-16-1-14}}
#{{note|bhroberts1}} Brigham H. Roberts, ''Studies of the Book of Mormon'', 2nd edition, edited and with an introduction by Brigham D. Madsen (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1992), 203; also published by (Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1985).{{nl}}
#{{note|widtsoe1}} John A. Widtsoe and Franklin S. Harris, Jr., ''Seven Claims of the Book of Mormon: a collection of evidences'' (Independence, Jackson County, Mo: Press of Zion's Printing and Publishing Company, 1937), 15, 84, italics added, capitals in original.
#{{note|hunter1}} Milton R. Hunter, ''Archaelogy and the Book of Mormon'' (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1956), 53.
#{{note|fn2}} James R. Christiansen, ''Book of Mormon: the Keystone scripture'', edited by Paul R. Cheeseman, (Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 1988), 232–233.{{nl}}
#{{note|nibley1}} {{NibleyLDWJ1|start=253 (emphasis in original)}} ; reprinted in {{Nibley5_1|start=251}}
#{{note|nibley2}}{{Nibley7_1|start=249}}
#{{note|nibley3}}Hugh W. Nibley, "The Book of Mormon and the Ruins: The Main Issues," F.A.R.M.S. paper, 1980.
#{{note|swk1}} {{Ensign1|author=Spencer W. Kimball|article=Of Royal Blood|date=July 1971|start=7|end=10}} {{link|url=http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/1971.htm/ensign%20july%201971.htm/of%20royal%20blood.htm}}
#{{note|olson1}} Olson is co-author of a letter to ''Nature'', in which he discusses these ideas in a more technical format. See Douglas L. T. Rohde, Steve Olson, and Joseph T. Chang, "Modelling the recent common ancestry of all living humans," 431 ''Nature'' (30 September 2004): 562–566. {{link|url=http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v431/n7008/abs/nature02842.html}} Olson provides a "semi-technical" description of his findings [http://www.slate.com/id/2138060/sidebar/2138061/ here].
#{{note|olson2}} Steve Olson, "Why We're All Jesus' Children," ''slate.com'' (15 March 2006). Last accessed 12 October 2006 (emphasis added). {{link|url=http://www.slate.com/id/2138060/}}
#{{note|howafrican1}} John Hawks, "How African Are You? What genealogical testing can't tell you," ''slate.com'' (15 March 2006), accessed 12 October 2006. {{link|url=http://www.slate.com/id/2138059/}}
#{{note|kimball1}} {{Ensign1|author=Spencer W. Kimball|article=Of Royal Blood|date=July 1971|start=7}} {{link|url=http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/1971.htm/ensign%20july%201971.htm/of%20royal%20blood.htm}}
#{{note|esmith1}} Eldred G. Smith, "Lectures on Theology: Last Message Series," Address given at the Salt Lake Institute of Religion (30 April 1971), 2.
#{{note|kimball2}} {{Ensign1|author=Spencer W. Kimball|article=Of Royal Blood|date=July 1971|start=10}} {{link|url=http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/1971.htm/ensign%20july%201971.htm/of%20royal%20blood.htm}}

==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===
{{Book of Mormon anachronisms}}
{{DNAWiki}}

===FAIR web site===
{{DNAFAIR}}

===External links===
{{DNALinks}}

===Printed material===
{{DNAPrint}}

Garden of Eden in Missouri?

2007-12-03T20:29:38Z

BrandonHansen: /* LDS concepts and perspectives */ +[sic], spelling, wording

{{AdamPortal}}
{{question}}
==Question==
Is it true Mormons believe the original Garden of Eden was located in Missouri? What can you tell me about this?

==Introduction==

As the official LDS church website points out, "The doctrinal tenets of any religion are best understood within a broad context and thoughtful analysis is required to understand them. ... Some doctrines are more important than others and might be considered core doctrines. ... A common mistake is taking an obscure teaching that is peripheral to the Church’s purpose and placing it at the very center. For example, the precise location of the Garden of Eden is far less important than doctrine about Jesus Christ and His atoning sacrifice."{{ref|lds1}}

==LDS concepts and perspectives==

It is important to first distinguish the "Garden of Eden" (the paradasiacal location where Adam and Eve dwelt before the Fall) from Adam-ondi-Ahman. Adam-ondi-Ahman was a location in which Adam and Eve settled after their expulsion from the Garden.

===Adam-ondi-Ahman===

Prior to his death, the repentant Adam held a meeting of his faithful posterity in a valley designated "Adam-ondhi-Ahman:"

:53 Three years previous to the death of Adam, he called Seth, Enos, Cainan, Mahalaleel, Jared, Enoch, and Methuselah, who were all high priests, with the residue of his posterity who were righteous, into the valley of Adam-ondi-Ahman, and there bestowed upon them his last blessing.
:54 And the Lord appeared unto them, and they rose up and blessed Adam, and called him Michael, the prince, the archangel.
:55 And the Lord administered comfort unto Adam, and said unto him: I have set thee to be at the head; a multitude of nations shall come of thee, and thou art a prince over them forever.
:56 And Adam stood up in the midst of the congregation; and, notwithstanding he was bowed down with age, being full of the Holy Ghost, predicted whatsoever should befall his posterity unto the latest generation. ({{s||DC|107|53|56}})

LDS scripture further notes:

: Spring Hill is named by the Lord Adam-ondi-Ahman, because, said he, it is the place where Adam shall come to visit his people, or the Ancient of Days shall sit, as spoken of by Daniel the prophet.({{s||DC|116|1}}){{ref|hc1}}

It is perhaps significant the Lord named this site because of a ''future'' event—the pre-millennial assembly of Adam and his faithful descendants prior to the second coming of Christ. It has generally been presumed that "Spring Hill," Missouri is thus the Adam-ondi-Ahman of Adam's mortal meeting with his posterity (D&C 107, above) ''and'' the pre-millennial visit (D&C 116), which is certainly possible.

An alternate interpretation would be the Lord has ''given'' the Adam-ondi-Ahman name to a second site (i.e., at Spring Hill, Missouri) in memorial of the first great meeting of the whole righteous human race. That first meeting, at which Adam presided, would then be a foreshadowing of the greater meeting of all the righteous prior to Christ's triumphant return in glory. This reading might better explain why D&C 116 bothers to explain why the Lord is giving the name to the site. If the site was already called Adam-ondi-Ahman, perhaps there would be little need for the Lord to renew its name. One could see this as analogous to the site "Jerusalem." There is, in LDS doctrine, to be a "New Jerusalem" built on the American continent in the last days.{{ref|aof1}} Yet, this does not mean the "New Jerusalem" site is the same as the Jerusalem of David and Jesus in the Old World, or that the old Jerusalem has ceased to exist.

On the other hand, Doctrine and Covenants 117 also seems to associate the Missouri Adam-ondi-Ahman with Adam's dwelling place in mortality:

:7 Therefore, will I not make solitary places to bud and to blossom, and to bring forth in abundance? saith the Lord.
:8 Is there not room enough on the mountains of Adam-ondi-Ahman, and on the plains of Olaha Shinehah, or the land where Adam dwelt, that you should covet that which is but the drop, and neglect the more weighty matters?
:9 Therefore, come up hither unto the land of my people, even Zion. ({{s||DC|117|7-9}})

The association of Adam-ondi-Ahman with the "land where Adam dwelt," and Adam's presence at Adam-Ondi-Ahman prior to his death have led most Latter-day Saints to conclude they are one and the same. (However, this verse raises more questions than it answers—there are no mountains of note in Missouri. So, was the geography more expansive than Joseph or the early saints presumed?)

Because Adam left the Garden of Eden, and (by this reading) dwelt somewhere in or near Missouri, many members have concluded the Garden of Eden must likewise be near by.

As President John Taylor wrote:

:[I]t was stated by the Prophet Joseph Smith, in our hearing while standing on an elevated piece of ground or plateau near Adam-ondi-Ahman (Davis Co., Missouri,), where there were a number of rocks piled together, that the valley before us was the valley of Adam-ondi-Ahman; or in other words, the valley where God talked with Adam, and where he gathered his righteous posterity, as recorded in the above revelation, and that this pile of stones was an altar built by him when he offered up sacrifices, as we understand, on that occasion.{{ref|taylor1}}

===Garden of Eden: LDS statements===

Most early statements about the location of the Garden of Eden in LDS thought come via Brigham Young, who often made reference to Joseph Smith's teachings on the matter. Brigham's history records he told Orson Hyde (who had been to Palestine):

:You have been both to Jerusalem and Zion, and seen both. I have not seen either, for I have never been in Jackson County. Now it is a pleasant thing to think of and to know where the Garden of Eden was. Did you ever think of it? I do not think many do, for in Jackson County was the Garden of Eden. Joseph has declared this, and I am as much bound to believe that as to believe that Joseph was a prophet of God.{{ref|by1}}

As this idea was a common one among 19th century members, it seems likely Joseph was the source of the idea (or, at the very least, the members' ''perceived'' this to be what Joseph had told them).

'''''Heber C. Kimball''''' (1863):

:...[T]he spot chosen for the garden of Eden was Jackson County, in the State of Missouri, where Independence now stands; it was occupied in the morn of creation by Adam and his associates who came with him for the express purpose of peopling this earth. {{ref|hck1}}

'''''George Q. Cannon''''' (1867):

:We appreciate the home that God has given us here, so fruitful in blessings [p.337] to the Saints; but we look forward to that land with indescribable feelings, because it is the place where God has said His City shall be built. It is the land where Adam, the Ancient of Days, will gather his posterity again, and where the blessings of God will descend upon them. It is the land for which the wise and learned have travelled [sic] and sought in vain. Asia has been ransacked in endeavouring [sic] to locate the Garden of Eden. Men have supposed that because the Ark rested on Ararat that the flood commenced there, or rather that it was from thence the Ark started to sail. But God in His revelations has informed us that it was on this choice land of Joseph where Adam was placed and the Garden of Eden was laid out. The spot has been designated, and we look forward with peculiar feelings to repossessing that land.{{ref|gqc1}}

'''''Wilford Woodruff''''' quoting Brigham Young (1879):

:[spelling as original diary] Again Presdet [sic] Young said Joseph the Prophet told me that the garden of Eden was in Jackson Co Missouri, & when Adam was driven out of the garden of Eden He went about 40 miles to the Place which we Named Adam Ondi Ahman, & there built an Altar of Stone & offered Sacrifize [sic]. That Altar remains to this day. I saw it as Adam left it as did many others, & through all the revolutions of the world that Altar had not been disturbed.{{ref|ww1}}

==Parallels with other religious traditions==

The early Saints' view of a Garden of Eden "local" to them has its parallels in other religious traditions.

The Garden of Eden or the primordial paradise of the race is often seen as the "center of the world," or the cosmic point around which all creation turns (sometimes called an ''axis mundi'' or ''umbilicum mundi''—the "navel" of the world).

Martin Luther warned that "we ask in vain today where and what that garden was" (155). Suarez said that knowledge of the earthly paradise was necessary to understand "all that the scriptures tell us of the condition of humanity before sin"

One student of the subject stated that during the 16th and 17th centuries the "location" of paradise was more important that any other question regarding it.{{ref|delumeau1}} And various religions have placed the Garden of Eden was in their part of the world.

Bishop Pierre-Daniel Huet (1691) a member of the French Academy, wrote of the wide variety of speculation and opinion on this subject

:[The earthly paradise] has been located in the third heaven, in the fourth, in the heaven of the moon, on the moon itself, on a mountain close to the heaven of the moon, in the middle region of the air, outside the earth, on the earth, under the earth, and in a hidden place far removed from human knowledge. It has been placed under the Arctic pole.... Some have located it... either on the banks of the Ganges or on the island of Ceylon, and have even derived the name 'India' from the word 'Eden.'... Others have located it in the Americas, others in Africa below the equator, others in the equinoctial East, others on the mountain of the moon, from which they believed the Nile to flow. Most have located it in Asia: some in Greater Armenia, others in Mesopotamia or Assyria or Persia or Babylonia or Arabia or Syria or Palestine. There have even been those who wished to honor our Europe and, in a move that strays into complete irrelevance, have located it in Hedin, a town in Artois, their reason being the similarity between the words 'Hedin' and 'Eden'" {{ref|delumeau2}}

The Bible itself seems to place the Garden of Eden at the center of the world:

:10 And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads.
:11 The name of the first is Pison: that is it which compasseth the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold;
:12 And the gold of that land is good: there is bdellium and the onyx stone.
:13 And the name of the second river is Gihon: the same is it that compasseth the whole land of Ethiopia.
:14 And the name of the third river is Hiddekel: that is it which goeth toward the east of Assyria. And the fourth river is Euphrates. ({{s||Genesis|2|10-14}})

The named rivers represent four of the great rivers of the known world, yet this description does not match any modern known configuration. It may be better to view these verses as a symbolic expression of Eden at "the center" of all that was known.

There is also a Jewish tradition that the Garden of Eden was in Jerusalem. There is a spring of water there known as the Gihon, one of the unidentified rivers of Paradise. {{b||Ezekiel|28|13}} says “You were in Eden, the garden of God,” and then parallels that in the next verse with “you were on the holy mountain of God,” generally understood as the temple mount. There is important symbolism here. If a Jewish tradition can assign the location of the Garden to its traditional headquarters—Jerusalem—it is not surprising to have a Mormon tradition assigning the location of the Garden to Jackson County, Missouri, which for a time was its church headquarters and which according to prophecy will be again some time in the future.

==Apologetic approaches==

Members and others sometimes ask how Abraham, Moses and other near eastern Bible prophets ended up in the Old World if Adam and Eden were in the Americas. A variety of approaches have been suggested for this issue:

# Some have conceptualilzed the earth as having only one land mass (e.g., Pangaea) even into historical time, which was only separated in the days of Peleg ({{s||Genesis|10|25}}).
# Those who accept a universal Noachian flood simply see Noah floating from a New World site to Ararat in the Old.
# Those who accept a "limited flood" theory see a similar process occuring whereby Noah traveled down rivers or from sea coasts with the flood's arrival. (This would, in effect, be a reversal of the Book of Mormon's Old World to New World migrations).
# Since there is evidence for human migration over the Siberia-Alaska land bridge from Old to New World, some have postulated travel in the opposite direction.
# It has been suggested that the Lord gave a ''second'' site the name of Adam-ondi-Ahman in the Americas, while the original site was located elsewhere, in the Old World (see discussion [[Garden_of_Eden_in_Missouri%3F#An_alternate_reading:_two_sites.3F|above]]). In this model, early Church leaders assumed that there was only one Adam-ondi-Ahman, when there were (in fact) two.
# Some have seen the concept of Eden as a symbolic idea which acted to "sacralize" the Americas for a new gospel dispensation, without having reference to actual geographic realities. Early members then made this concept more literal than intended.
# Some see Eden as a place which was always "separate" from the fallen world around it, and so regard questions about the present "location" of Eden as non-sensical.
# Many, perhaps most, members consider the matter of relatively little importance, and have no strong feelings about the issue at all.

It must be noted that there is little, if any, scriptural or scientific evidence to support any of the above hypotheses. The solution chosen by an individual member will probably depend mostly on their attitudes to other issues about which there is no official Church position and a variety of positions espoused by members. These issues include matters such as the issue of [[Death before the Fall]], [[Evolution]], [[Pre-Adamites]], the nature of Noah's [[Global_or_local_Flood|Flood]], the extent to which scripture ought to be interpreted literally, and related topics.

==Conclusion==

Although we have no contemporaneous record of Joseph Smith teaching explicitly that the Garden of Eden was in Missouri, that reading is consistent with LDS scripture, and there is substantial later testimony from Joseph's associates that he did teach such an idea.

Most Latter-day Saints are aware of this, though it is a relatively minor point that plays little role in LDS theology. (By contrast, the idea that the New Jerusalem—Zion—will be built in the Americas looms much larger in LDS consciousness.)

This idea perhaps strikes most non-members as odd, but not simply because the Saints have an opinion about the Garden's location—as we have seen, religions of all stripes have had a wide variety of views on the subject. What likely strikes outside American observers as strange is the idea that the Garden is local—the LDS view does not place the Garden in a never-never land, buried in distant time and far-away space. Rather, the LDS Garden is local and somewhat immediate.

Upon reflection, though, the thoughtful observer will realize that this is simply one more manifestation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints' uniqueness: rather than believing only in dead prophets, from long ago, in distant lands, in old records, the Church also embraces modern revelation, living prophets, and an on-going divine involvement with God's people. The gospel restored by Joseph Smith does not merely sacralize the past, but the present and future as well—and, it sacralizes both lofty matters and more earthly concerns like farms, hills, and geography.

It is this intrusion of the sacred into the mundane that surprises most observers—the issue of the Garden is merely one more example of a broader phenomenon.

==Endnotes==
# {{note|lds1}} {{ldspress|article=Approaching Mormon Doctrine|date=4 May 2007|url=http://www.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=970af549db852110VgnVCM100000176f620aRCRD&vgnextchannel=f5f411154963d010VgnVCM1000004e94610aRCRD}}
#{{note|hc1}} See also {{HoC1|vol=3|start=35}}
#{{note|aof1}} See {{s||A+of+F|1|10}}.
#{{note|taylor1}} {{MediationAtonement1|start=69}}
#{{note|by1}} Brigham Young in Journal History of the Church (15 March 1857); cited in {{EaR1|start=396}}
#{{note|hck1}} {{JoD10_1|start=235|author=Heber C. Kimball|title=Advancement of the Saints, etc.|date=27 June 1863}}
#{{note|gqc1}} {{JoD11_1|start=336|date=3 March 1867|title=Truth to Be Received for Its Own Sake, etc.|author=George Q. Cannon}}
#{{note|ww1}} {{WWJ1 |vol=7|start=129|date=30 March 1879}}
#{{note|delumeau1}} Jean Delumeau, ''History of Paradise. The Garden of Eden in Myth and Tradition'' (New York: Continuum, 1995), 155.
#{{note|delumeau2}} Cited by Delumeau, 162.
==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===
{{AdamWiki}}

===FAIR web site===
{{AdamFAIR}}
===External links===
{{AdamLinks}}
===Printed material===
*Jean Delumeau, ''History of Paradise. The Garden of Eden in Myth and Tradition'' (New York: Continuum, 1995).
* Alessandro Scafi, ''Mapping Paradise. A History of Heaven on Earth'' (University of Chicago Press 2006).
* {{EaR|start=394|end=397}}
{{AdamPrint}}

Garden of Eden in Missouri?

2007-12-03T20:22:43Z

BrandonHansen: /* Adam-ondi-Ahman */ spelling

{{AdamPortal}}
{{question}}
==Question==
Is it true Mormons believe the original Garden of Eden was located in Missouri? What can you tell me about this?

==Introduction==

As the official LDS church website points out, "The doctrinal tenets of any religion are best understood within a broad context and thoughtful analysis is required to understand them. ... Some doctrines are more important than others and might be considered core doctrines. ... A common mistake is taking an obscure teaching that is peripheral to the Church’s purpose and placing it at the very center. For example, the precise location of the Garden of Eden is far less important than doctrine about Jesus Christ and His atoning sacrifice."{{ref|lds1}}

==LDS concepts and perspectives==

It is important to first distinguish the "Garden of Eden" (the paradasiacal location where Adam and Eve dwelt before the Fall) from Adam-ondi-Ahman. Adam-ondi-Ahman was a location in which Adam and Eve settled after their expulsion from the Garden.

===Adam-ondi-Ahman===

Prior to his death, the repentant Adam held a meeting of his faithful posterity in a valley designated "Adam-ondhi-Ahman:"

:53 Three years previous to the death of Adam, he called Seth, Enos, Cainan, Mahalaleel, Jared, Enoch, and Methuselah, who were all high priests, with the residue of his posterity who were righteous, into the valley of Adam-ondi-Ahman, and there bestowed upon them his last blessing.
:54 And the Lord appeared unto them, and they rose up and blessed Adam, and called him Michael, the prince, the archangel.
:55 And the Lord administered comfort unto Adam, and said unto him: I have set thee to be at the head; a multitude of nations shall come of thee, and thou art a prince over them forever.
:56 And Adam stood up in the midst of the congregation; and, notwithstanding he was bowed down with age, being full of the Holy Ghost, predicted whatsoever should befall his posterity unto the latest generation. ({{s||DC|107|53|56}})

LDS scripture further notes:

: Spring Hill is named by the Lord Adam-ondi-Ahman, because, said he, it is the place where Adam shall come to visit his people, or the Ancient of Days shall sit, as spoken of by Daniel the prophet.({{s||DC|116|1}}){{ref|hc1}}

It is perhaps significant the Lord named this site because of a ''future'' event—the pre-millennial assembly of Adam and his faithful descendants prior to the second coming of Christ. It has generally been presumed that "Spring Hill," Missouri is thus the Adam-ondi-Ahman of Adam's mortal meeting with his posterity (D&C 107, above) ''and'' the pre-millennial visit (D&C 116), which is certainly possible.

An alternate interpretation would be the Lord has ''given'' the Adam-ondi-Ahman name to a second site (i.e., at Spring Hill, Missouri) in memorial of the first great meeting of the whole righteous human race. That first meeting, at which Adam presided, would then be a foreshadowing of the greater meeting of all the righteous prior to Christ's triumphant return in glory. This reading might better explain why D&C 116 bothers to explain why the Lord is giving the name to the site. If the site was already called Adam-ondi-Ahman, perhaps there would be little need for the Lord to renew its name. One could see this as analogous to the site "Jerusalem." There is, in LDS doctrine, to be a "New Jerusalem" built on the American continent in the last days.{{ref|aof1}} Yet, this does not mean the "New Jerusalem" site is the same as the Jerusalem of David and Jesus in the Old World, or that the old Jerusalem has ceased to exist.

===Traditional reading may still be best===

On the other hand, the next section of the Doctrine and Covenants also seems to associate the Missouri Adam-ondi-Ahman with Adam's dwelling place in mortality:

:7 Therefore, will I not make solitary places to bud and to blossom, and to bring forth in abundance? saith the Lord.
:8 Is there not room enough on the mountains of Adam-ondi-Ahman, and on the plains of Olaha Shinehah, or the land where Adam dwelt, that you should covet that which is but the drop, and neglect the more weighty matters?
:9 Therefore, come up hither unto the land of my people, even Zion. ({{s||DC|117|7-9}})

The association of Adam-ondi-Ahman with the "land where Adam dwelt," and Adam's presence at Adam-Ondi-Ahman prior to his death have led most Latter-day Saints to conclude they are one and the same. (However, this verse raises more questions than it answers—there are no mountains of note in Missouri. So, was the geography more expansive than Joseph or the early saints presumed?)

Because Adam left the Garden of Eden, and (by this reading) dwelt somewhere in or near Missouri, many members have concluded that the Garden of Eden must likewise be near by.

As President John Taylor wrote:

:it was stated by the Prophet Joseph Smith, in our hearing while standing on an elevated piece of ground or plateau near Adam-ondi-Ahman (Davis Co., Missouri,), where there were a number of rocks piled together, that the valley before us was the valley of Adam-ondi-Ahman; or in other words, the valley where God talked with Adam, and where he gathered his righteous posterity, as recorded in the above revelation, and that this pile of stones was an altar built by him when he offered up sacrifices, as we understand, on that occasion.{{ref|taylor1}}

===Garden of Eden: LDS statements===

Most early statements about the location of the Garden of Eden in LDS thought come via Brigham Young, but Brigham often made reference to Joseph Smith's teachings on the matter.

Brigham's history records that he told Orson Hyde (who had been to Palestine):

:You have been both to Jerusalem and Zion, and seen both. I have not seen either, for I have never been in Jackson County. Now it is a pleasant thing to think of and to know where the Garden of Eden was. Did you ever think of it? I do not think many do, for in Jackson County was the Garden of Eden. Joseph has declared this, and I am as much bound to believe that as to believe that Joseph was a prophet of God.{{ref|by1}}

This idea was a common one among 19th century members, at it seems likely that Joseph was the source of the idea (or, at the very least, the members' ''perception'' of what Joseph had told them).

'''''Heber C. Kimball''''' (1863):

:...the spot chosen for the garden of Eden was Jackson County, in the State of Missouri, where Independence now stands; it was occupied in the morn of creation by Adam and his associates who came with him for the express purpose of peopling this earth. {{ref|hck1}}

'''''George Q. Cannon''''' (1867):

:We appreciate the home that God has given us here, so fruitful in blessings [p.337] to the Saints; but we look forward to that land with indescribable feelings, because it is the place where God has said His City shall be built. It is the land where Adam, the Ancient of Days, will gather his posterity again, and where the blessings of God will descend upon them. It is the land for which the wise and learned have travelled and sought in vain. Asia has been ransacked in endeavouring to locate the Garden of Eden. Men have supposed that because the Ark rested on Ararat that the flood commenced there, or rather that it was from thence the Ark started to sail. But God in His revelations has informed us that it was on this choice land of Joseph where Adam was placed and the Garden of Eden was laid out. The spot has been designated, and we look forward with peculiar feelings to repossessing that land.{{ref|gqc1}}

'''''Wilford Woodruff''''' quoting Brigham Young (1879):

:[spelling as original diary] Again Presdet Young said Joseph the Prophet told me that the garden of Eden was in Jackson Co Missouri, & when Adam was driven out of the garden of Eden He went about 40 miles to the Place which we Named Adam Ondi Ahman, & there built an Altar of Stone & offered Sacrifize. That Altar remains to this day. I saw it as Adam left it as did many others, & through all the revolutions of the world that Altar had not been disturbed.{{ref|ww1}}

==Parallels with other religious traditions==

The early Saints' view of a Garden of Eden "local" to them has its parallels in other religious traditions.

The Garden of Eden or the primordial paradise of the race is often seen as the "center of the world," or the cosmic point around which all creation turns (sometimes called an ''axis mundi'' or ''umbilicum mundi''—the "navel" of the world).

Martin Luther warned that "we ask in vain today where and what that garden was" (155). Suarez said that knowledge of the earthly paradise was necessary to understand "all that the scriptures tell us of the condition of humanity before sin"

One student of the subject stated that during the 16th and 17th centuries the "location" of paradise was more important that any other question regarding it.{{ref|delumeau1}} And various religions have placed the Garden of Eden was in their part of the world.

Bishop Pierre-Daniel Huet (1691) a member of the French Academy, wrote of the wide variety of speculation and opinion on this subject

:[The earthly paradise] has been located in the third heaven, in the fourth, in the heaven of the moon, on the moon itself, on a mountain close to the heaven of the moon, in the middle region of the air, outside the earth, on the earth, under the earth, and in a hidden place far removed from human knowledge. It has been placed under the Arctic pole.... Some have located it... either on the banks of the Ganges or on the island of Ceylon, and have even derived the name 'India' from the word 'Eden.'... Others have located it in the Americas, others in Africa below the equator, others in the equinoctial East, others on the mountain of the moon, from which they believed the Nile to flow. Most have located it in Asia: some in Greater Armenia, others in Mesopotamia or Assyria or Persia or Babylonia or Arabia or Syria or Palestine. There have even been those who wished to honor our Europe and, in a move that strays into complete irrelevance, have located it in Hedin, a town in Artois, their reason being the similarity between the words 'Hedin' and 'Eden'" {{ref|delumeau2}}

The Bible itself seems to place the Garden of Eden at the center of the world:

:10 And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads.
:11 The name of the first is Pison: that is it which compasseth the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold;
:12 And the gold of that land is good: there is bdellium and the onyx stone.
:13 And the name of the second river is Gihon: the same is it that compasseth the whole land of Ethiopia.
:14 And the name of the third river is Hiddekel: that is it which goeth toward the east of Assyria. And the fourth river is Euphrates. ({{s||Genesis|2|10-14}})

The named rivers represent four of the great rivers of the known world, yet this description does not match any modern known configuration. It may be better to view these verses as a symbolic expression of Eden at "the center" of all that was known.

There is also a Jewish tradition that the Garden of Eden was in Jerusalem. There is a spring of water there known as the Gihon, one of the unidentified rivers of Paradise. {{b||Ezekiel|28|13}} says “You were in Eden, the garden of God,” and then parallels that in the next verse with “you were on the holy mountain of God,” generally understood as the temple mount. There is important symbolism here. If a Jewish tradition can assign the location of the Garden to its traditional headquarters—Jerusalem—it is not surprising to have a Mormon tradition assigning the location of the Garden to Jackson County, Missouri, which for a time was its church headquarters and which according to prophecy will be again some time in the future.

==Apologetic approaches==

Members and others sometimes ask how Abraham, Moses and other near eastern Bible prophets ended up in the Old World if Adam and Eden were in the Americas. A variety of approaches have been suggested for this issue:

# Some have conceptualilzed the earth as having only one land mass (e.g., Pangaea) even into historical time, which was only separated in the days of Peleg ({{s||Genesis|10|25}}).
# Those who accept a universal Noachian flood simply see Noah floating from a New World site to Ararat in the Old.
# Those who accept a "limited flood" theory see a similar process occuring whereby Noah traveled down rivers or from sea coasts with the flood's arrival. (This would, in effect, be a reversal of the Book of Mormon's Old World to New World migrations).
# Since there is evidence for human migration over the Siberia-Alaska land bridge from Old to New World, some have postulated travel in the opposite direction.
# It has been suggested that the Lord gave a ''second'' site the name of Adam-ondi-Ahman in the Americas, while the original site was located elsewhere, in the Old World (see discussion [[Garden_of_Eden_in_Missouri%3F#An_alternate_reading:_two_sites.3F|above]]). In this model, early Church leaders assumed that there was only one Adam-ondi-Ahman, when there were (in fact) two.
# Some have seen the concept of Eden as a symbolic idea which acted to "sacralize" the Americas for a new gospel dispensation, without having reference to actual geographic realities. Early members then made this concept more literal than intended.
# Some see Eden as a place which was always "separate" from the fallen world around it, and so regard questions about the present "location" of Eden as non-sensical.
# Many, perhaps most, members consider the matter of relatively little importance, and have no strong feelings about the issue at all.

It must be noted that there is little, if any, scriptural or scientific evidence to support any of the above hypotheses. The solution chosen by an individual member will probably depend mostly on their attitudes to other issues about which there is no official Church position and a variety of positions espoused by members. These issues include matters such as the issue of [[Death before the Fall]], [[Evolution]], [[Pre-Adamites]], the nature of Noah's [[Global_or_local_Flood|Flood]], the extent to which scripture ought to be interpreted literally, and related topics.

==Conclusion==

Although we have no contemporaneous record of Joseph Smith teaching explicitly that the Garden of Eden was in Missouri, that reading is consistent with LDS scripture, and there is substantial later testimony from Joseph's associates that he did teach such an idea.

Most Latter-day Saints are aware of this, though it is a relatively minor point that plays little role in LDS theology. (By contrast, the idea that the New Jerusalem—Zion—will be built in the Americas looms much larger in LDS consciousness.)

This idea perhaps strikes most non-members as odd, but not simply because the Saints have an opinion about the Garden's location—as we have seen, religions of all stripes have had a wide variety of views on the subject. What likely strikes outside American observers as strange is the idea that the Garden is local—the LDS view does not place the Garden in a never-never land, buried in distant time and far-away space. Rather, the LDS Garden is local and somewhat immediate.

Upon reflection, though, the thoughtful observer will realize that this is simply one more manifestation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints' uniqueness: rather than believing only in dead prophets, from long ago, in distant lands, in old records, the Church also embraces modern revelation, living prophets, and an on-going divine involvement with God's people. The gospel restored by Joseph Smith does not merely sacralize the past, but the present and future as well—and, it sacralizes both lofty matters and more earthly concerns like farms, hills, and geography.

It is this intrusion of the sacred into the mundane that surprises most observers—the issue of the Garden is merely one more example of a broader phenomenon.

==Endnotes==
# {{note|lds1}} {{ldspress|article=Approaching Mormon Doctrine|date=4 May 2007|url=http://www.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=970af549db852110VgnVCM100000176f620aRCRD&vgnextchannel=f5f411154963d010VgnVCM1000004e94610aRCRD}}
#{{note|hc1}} See also {{HoC1|vol=3|start=35}}
#{{note|aof1}} See {{s||A+of+F|1|10}}.
#{{note|taylor1}} {{MediationAtonement1|start=69}}
#{{note|by1}} Brigham Young in Journal History of the Church (15 March 1857); cited in {{EaR1|start=396}}
#{{note|hck1}} {{JoD10_1|start=235|author=Heber C. Kimball|title=Advancement of the Saints, etc.|date=27 June 1863}}
#{{note|gqc1}} {{JoD11_1|start=336|date=3 March 1867|title=Truth to Be Received for Its Own Sake, etc.|author=George Q. Cannon}}
#{{note|ww1}} {{WWJ1 |vol=7|start=129|date=30 March 1879}}
#{{note|delumeau1}} Jean Delumeau, ''History of Paradise. The Garden of Eden in Myth and Tradition'' (New York: Continuum, 1995), 155.
#{{note|delumeau2}} Cited by Delumeau, 162.
==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===
{{AdamWiki}}

===FAIR web site===
{{AdamFAIR}}
===External links===
{{AdamLinks}}
===Printed material===
*Jean Delumeau, ''History of Paradise. The Garden of Eden in Myth and Tradition'' (New York: Continuum, 1995).
* Alessandro Scafi, ''Mapping Paradise. A History of Heaven on Earth'' (University of Chicago Press 2006).
* {{EaR|start=394|end=397}}
{{AdamPrint}}

Garden of Eden in Missouri?

2007-12-03T20:21:56Z

BrandonHansen: /* LDS concepts and perspectives */ wording, spelling

{{AdamPortal}}
{{question}}
==Question==
Is it true Mormons believe the original Garden of Eden was located in Missouri? What can you tell me about this?

==Introduction==

As the official LDS church website points out, "The doctrinal tenets of any religion are best understood within a broad context and thoughtful analysis is required to understand them. ... Some doctrines are more important than others and might be considered core doctrines. ... A common mistake is taking an obscure teaching that is peripheral to the Church’s purpose and placing it at the very center. For example, the precise location of the Garden of Eden is far less important than doctrine about Jesus Christ and His atoning sacrifice."{{ref|lds1}}

==LDS concepts and perspectives==

It is important to first distinguish the "Garden of Eden" (the paradasiacal location where Adam and Eve dwelt before the Fall) from Adam-ondi-Ahman. Adam-ondi-Ahman was a location in which Adam and Eve settled after their expulsion from the Garden.

===Adam-ondi-Ahman===

Prior to his death, the repentant Adam held a meeting of his faithful posterity in a valley designated "Adam-ondhi-Ahman:"

:53 Three years previous to the death of Adam, he called Seth, Enos, Cainan, Mahalaleel, Jared, Enoch, and Methuselah, who were all high priests, with the residue of his posterity who were righteous, into the valley of Adam-ondi-Ahman, and there bestowed upon them his last blessing.
:54 And the Lord appeared unto them, and they rose up and blessed Adam, and called him Michael, the prince, the archangel.
:55 And the Lord administered comfort unto Adam, and said unto him: I have set thee to be at the head; a multitude of nations shall come of thee, and thou art a prince over them forever.
:56 And Adam stood up in the midst of the congregation; and, notwithstanding he was bowed down with age, being full of the Holy Ghost, predicted whatsoever should befall his posterity unto the latest generation. ({{s||DC|107|53|56}})

LDS scripture further notes:

: Spring Hill is named by the Lord Adam-ondi-Ahman, because, said he, it is the place where Adam shall come to visit his people, or the Ancient of Days shall sit, as spoken of by Daniel the prophet.({{s||DC|116|1}}){{ref|hc1}}

It is perhaps significant the Lord named this site because of a ''future'' event—the pre-millenial assembly of Adam and his faithful descendants prior to the second coming of Christ. It has generally been presumed that "Spring Hill," Missouri is thus the Adam-ondi-Ahman of Adam's mortal meeting with his posterity (D&C 107, above) ''and'' the pre-millenial visit (D&C 116), which is certainly possible.

An alternate interpretation would be the Lord has ''given'' the Adam-ondi-Ahman name to a second site (i.e., at Spring Hill, Missouri) in memorial of the first great meeting of the whole righteous human race. That first meeting, at which Adam presided, would then be a foreshadowing of the greater meeting of all the righteous prior to Christ's triumphant return in glory. This reading might better explain why D&C 116 bothers to explain why the Lord is giving the name to the site. If the site was already called Adam-ondi-Ahman, perhaps there would be little need for the Lord to renew its name. One could see this as analogous to the site "Jerusalem." There is, in LDS doctrine, to be a "New Jerusalem" built on the American continent in the last days.{{ref|aof1}} Yet, this does not mean the "New Jerusalem" site is the same as the Jerusalem of David and Jesus in the Old World, or that the old Jerusalem has ceased to exist.

===Traditional reading may still be best===

On the other hand, the next section of the Doctrine and Covenants also seems to associate the Missouri Adam-ondi-Ahman with Adam's dwelling place in mortality:

:7 Therefore, will I not make solitary places to bud and to blossom, and to bring forth in abundance? saith the Lord.
:8 Is there not room enough on the mountains of Adam-ondi-Ahman, and on the plains of Olaha Shinehah, or the land where Adam dwelt, that you should covet that which is but the drop, and neglect the more weighty matters?
:9 Therefore, come up hither unto the land of my people, even Zion. ({{s||DC|117|7-9}})

The association of Adam-ondi-Ahman with the "land where Adam dwelt," and Adam's presence at Adam-Ondi-Ahman prior to his death have led most Latter-day Saints to conclude they are one and the same. (However, this verse raises more questions than it answers—there are no mountains of note in Missouri. So, was the geography more expansive than Joseph or the early saints presumed?)

Because Adam left the Garden of Eden, and (by this reading) dwelt somewhere in or near Missouri, many members have concluded that the Garden of Eden must likewise be near by.

As President John Taylor wrote:

:it was stated by the Prophet Joseph Smith, in our hearing while standing on an elevated piece of ground or plateau near Adam-ondi-Ahman (Davis Co., Missouri,), where there were a number of rocks piled together, that the valley before us was the valley of Adam-ondi-Ahman; or in other words, the valley where God talked with Adam, and where he gathered his righteous posterity, as recorded in the above revelation, and that this pile of stones was an altar built by him when he offered up sacrifices, as we understand, on that occasion.{{ref|taylor1}}

===Garden of Eden: LDS statements===

Most early statements about the location of the Garden of Eden in LDS thought come via Brigham Young, but Brigham often made reference to Joseph Smith's teachings on the matter.

Brigham's history records that he told Orson Hyde (who had been to Palestine):

:You have been both to Jerusalem and Zion, and seen both. I have not seen either, for I have never been in Jackson County. Now it is a pleasant thing to think of and to know where the Garden of Eden was. Did you ever think of it? I do not think many do, for in Jackson County was the Garden of Eden. Joseph has declared this, and I am as much bound to believe that as to believe that Joseph was a prophet of God.{{ref|by1}}

This idea was a common one among 19th century members, at it seems likely that Joseph was the source of the idea (or, at the very least, the members' ''perception'' of what Joseph had told them).

'''''Heber C. Kimball''''' (1863):

:...the spot chosen for the garden of Eden was Jackson County, in the State of Missouri, where Independence now stands; it was occupied in the morn of creation by Adam and his associates who came with him for the express purpose of peopling this earth. {{ref|hck1}}

'''''George Q. Cannon''''' (1867):

:We appreciate the home that God has given us here, so fruitful in blessings [p.337] to the Saints; but we look forward to that land with indescribable feelings, because it is the place where God has said His City shall be built. It is the land where Adam, the Ancient of Days, will gather his posterity again, and where the blessings of God will descend upon them. It is the land for which the wise and learned have travelled and sought in vain. Asia has been ransacked in endeavouring to locate the Garden of Eden. Men have supposed that because the Ark rested on Ararat that the flood commenced there, or rather that it was from thence the Ark started to sail. But God in His revelations has informed us that it was on this choice land of Joseph where Adam was placed and the Garden of Eden was laid out. The spot has been designated, and we look forward with peculiar feelings to repossessing that land.{{ref|gqc1}}

'''''Wilford Woodruff''''' quoting Brigham Young (1879):

:[spelling as original diary] Again Presdet Young said Joseph the Prophet told me that the garden of Eden was in Jackson Co Missouri, & when Adam was driven out of the garden of Eden He went about 40 miles to the Place which we Named Adam Ondi Ahman, & there built an Altar of Stone & offered Sacrifize. That Altar remains to this day. I saw it as Adam left it as did many others, & through all the revolutions of the world that Altar had not been disturbed.{{ref|ww1}}

==Parallels with other religious traditions==

The early Saints' view of a Garden of Eden "local" to them has its parallels in other religious traditions.

The Garden of Eden or the primordial paradise of the race is often seen as the "center of the world," or the cosmic point around which all creation turns (sometimes called an ''axis mundi'' or ''umbilicum mundi''—the "navel" of the world).

Martin Luther warned that "we ask in vain today where and what that garden was" (155). Suarez said that knowledge of the earthly paradise was necessary to understand "all that the scriptures tell us of the condition of humanity before sin"

One student of the subject stated that during the 16th and 17th centuries the "location" of paradise was more important that any other question regarding it.{{ref|delumeau1}} And various religions have placed the Garden of Eden was in their part of the world.

Bishop Pierre-Daniel Huet (1691) a member of the French Academy, wrote of the wide variety of speculation and opinion on this subject

:[The earthly paradise] has been located in the third heaven, in the fourth, in the heaven of the moon, on the moon itself, on a mountain close to the heaven of the moon, in the middle region of the air, outside the earth, on the earth, under the earth, and in a hidden place far removed from human knowledge. It has been placed under the Arctic pole.... Some have located it... either on the banks of the Ganges or on the island of Ceylon, and have even derived the name 'India' from the word 'Eden.'... Others have located it in the Americas, others in Africa below the equator, others in the equinoctial East, others on the mountain of the moon, from which they believed the Nile to flow. Most have located it in Asia: some in Greater Armenia, others in Mesopotamia or Assyria or Persia or Babylonia or Arabia or Syria or Palestine. There have even been those who wished to honor our Europe and, in a move that strays into complete irrelevance, have located it in Hedin, a town in Artois, their reason being the similarity between the words 'Hedin' and 'Eden'" {{ref|delumeau2}}

The Bible itself seems to place the Garden of Eden at the center of the world:

:10 And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads.
:11 The name of the first is Pison: that is it which compasseth the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold;
:12 And the gold of that land is good: there is bdellium and the onyx stone.
:13 And the name of the second river is Gihon: the same is it that compasseth the whole land of Ethiopia.
:14 And the name of the third river is Hiddekel: that is it which goeth toward the east of Assyria. And the fourth river is Euphrates. ({{s||Genesis|2|10-14}})

The named rivers represent four of the great rivers of the known world, yet this description does not match any modern known configuration. It may be better to view these verses as a symbolic expression of Eden at "the center" of all that was known.

There is also a Jewish tradition that the Garden of Eden was in Jerusalem. There is a spring of water there known as the Gihon, one of the unidentified rivers of Paradise. {{b||Ezekiel|28|13}} says “You were in Eden, the garden of God,” and then parallels that in the next verse with “you were on the holy mountain of God,” generally understood as the temple mount. There is important symbolism here. If a Jewish tradition can assign the location of the Garden to its traditional headquarters—Jerusalem—it is not surprising to have a Mormon tradition assigning the location of the Garden to Jackson County, Missouri, which for a time was its church headquarters and which according to prophecy will be again some time in the future.

==Apologetic approaches==

Members and others sometimes ask how Abraham, Moses and other near eastern Bible prophets ended up in the Old World if Adam and Eden were in the Americas. A variety of approaches have been suggested for this issue:

# Some have conceptualilzed the earth as having only one land mass (e.g., Pangaea) even into historical time, which was only separated in the days of Peleg ({{s||Genesis|10|25}}).
# Those who accept a universal Noachian flood simply see Noah floating from a New World site to Ararat in the Old.
# Those who accept a "limited flood" theory see a similar process occuring whereby Noah traveled down rivers or from sea coasts with the flood's arrival. (This would, in effect, be a reversal of the Book of Mormon's Old World to New World migrations).
# Since there is evidence for human migration over the Siberia-Alaska land bridge from Old to New World, some have postulated travel in the opposite direction.
# It has been suggested that the Lord gave a ''second'' site the name of Adam-ondi-Ahman in the Americas, while the original site was located elsewhere, in the Old World (see discussion [[Garden_of_Eden_in_Missouri%3F#An_alternate_reading:_two_sites.3F|above]]). In this model, early Church leaders assumed that there was only one Adam-ondi-Ahman, when there were (in fact) two.
# Some have seen the concept of Eden as a symbolic idea which acted to "sacralize" the Americas for a new gospel dispensation, without having reference to actual geographic realities. Early members then made this concept more literal than intended.
# Some see Eden as a place which was always "separate" from the fallen world around it, and so regard questions about the present "location" of Eden as non-sensical.
# Many, perhaps most, members consider the matter of relatively little importance, and have no strong feelings about the issue at all.

It must be noted that there is little, if any, scriptural or scientific evidence to support any of the above hypotheses. The solution chosen by an individual member will probably depend mostly on their attitudes to other issues about which there is no official Church position and a variety of positions espoused by members. These issues include matters such as the issue of [[Death before the Fall]], [[Evolution]], [[Pre-Adamites]], the nature of Noah's [[Global_or_local_Flood|Flood]], the extent to which scripture ought to be interpreted literally, and related topics.

==Conclusion==

Although we have no contemporaneous record of Joseph Smith teaching explicitly that the Garden of Eden was in Missouri, that reading is consistent with LDS scripture, and there is substantial later testimony from Joseph's associates that he did teach such an idea.

Most Latter-day Saints are aware of this, though it is a relatively minor point that plays little role in LDS theology. (By contrast, the idea that the New Jerusalem—Zion—will be built in the Americas looms much larger in LDS consciousness.)

This idea perhaps strikes most non-members as odd, but not simply because the Saints have an opinion about the Garden's location—as we have seen, religions of all stripes have had a wide variety of views on the subject. What likely strikes outside American observers as strange is the idea that the Garden is local—the LDS view does not place the Garden in a never-never land, buried in distant time and far-away space. Rather, the LDS Garden is local and somewhat immediate.

Upon reflection, though, the thoughtful observer will realize that this is simply one more manifestation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints' uniqueness: rather than believing only in dead prophets, from long ago, in distant lands, in old records, the Church also embraces modern revelation, living prophets, and an on-going divine involvement with God's people. The gospel restored by Joseph Smith does not merely sacralize the past, but the present and future as well—and, it sacralizes both lofty matters and more earthly concerns like farms, hills, and geography.

It is this intrusion of the sacred into the mundane that surprises most observers—the issue of the Garden is merely one more example of a broader phenomenon.

==Endnotes==
# {{note|lds1}} {{ldspress|article=Approaching Mormon Doctrine|date=4 May 2007|url=http://www.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=970af549db852110VgnVCM100000176f620aRCRD&vgnextchannel=f5f411154963d010VgnVCM1000004e94610aRCRD}}
#{{note|hc1}} See also {{HoC1|vol=3|start=35}}
#{{note|aof1}} See {{s||A+of+F|1|10}}.
#{{note|taylor1}} {{MediationAtonement1|start=69}}
#{{note|by1}} Brigham Young in Journal History of the Church (15 March 1857); cited in {{EaR1|start=396}}
#{{note|hck1}} {{JoD10_1|start=235|author=Heber C. Kimball|title=Advancement of the Saints, etc.|date=27 June 1863}}
#{{note|gqc1}} {{JoD11_1|start=336|date=3 March 1867|title=Truth to Be Received for Its Own Sake, etc.|author=George Q. Cannon}}
#{{note|ww1}} {{WWJ1 |vol=7|start=129|date=30 March 1879}}
#{{note|delumeau1}} Jean Delumeau, ''History of Paradise. The Garden of Eden in Myth and Tradition'' (New York: Continuum, 1995), 155.
#{{note|delumeau2}} Cited by Delumeau, 162.
==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===
{{AdamWiki}}

===FAIR web site===
{{AdamFAIR}}
===External links===
{{AdamLinks}}
===Printed material===
*Jean Delumeau, ''History of Paradise. The Garden of Eden in Myth and Tradition'' (New York: Continuum, 1995).
* Alessandro Scafi, ''Mapping Paradise. A History of Heaven on Earth'' (University of Chicago Press 2006).
* {{EaR|start=394|end=397}}
{{AdamPrint}}

Garden of Eden in Missouri?

2007-12-03T20:19:15Z

BrandonHansen: /* Adam-ondi-Ahman */ wording

{{AdamPortal}}
{{question}}
==Question==
Is it true Mormons believe the original Garden of Eden was located in Missouri? What can you tell me about this?

==Introduction==

As the official LDS church website points out, "The doctrinal tenets of any religion are best understood within a broad context and thoughtful analysis is required to understand them. ... Some doctrines are more important than others and might be considered core doctrines. ... A common mistake is taking an obscure teaching that is peripheral to the Church’s purpose and placing it at the very center. For example, the precise location of the Garden of Eden is far less important than doctrine about Jesus Christ and His atoning sacrifice."{{ref|lds1}}

==LDS concepts and perspectives==

It is important to first distinguish the "Garden of Eden" (the paradasiacal location where Adam and Eve dwelt before the Fall) from Adam-ondi-Ahman. Adam-ondi-Ahman was a location in which Adam and Eve settled after their expulsion from the Garden.

===Adam-ondi-Ahman===

Prior to his death, the repentant Adam held a meeting of his faithful posterity in a valley designated "Adam-ondhi-Ahman:"

:53 Three years previous to the death of Adam, he called Seth, Enos, Cainan, Mahalaleel, Jared, Enoch, and Methuselah, who were all high priests, with the residue of his posterity who were righteous, into the valley of Adam-ondi-Ahman, and there bestowed upon them his last blessing.
:54 And the Lord appeared unto them, and they rose up and blessed Adam, and called him Michael, the prince, the archangel.
:55 And the Lord administered comfort unto Adam, and said unto him: I have set thee to be at the head; a multitude of nations shall come of thee, and thou art a prince over them forever.
:56 And Adam stood up in the midst of the congregation; and, notwithstanding he was bowed down with age, being full of the Holy Ghost, predicted whatsoever should befall his posterity unto the latest generation. ({{s||DC|107|53|56}})

LDS scripture further notes:

: Spring Hill is named by the Lord Adam-ondi-Ahman, because, said he, it is the place where Adam shall come to visit his people, or the Ancient of Days shall sit, as spoken of by Daniel the prophet.({{s||DC|116|1}}){{ref|hc1}}

It is perhaps significant the Lord named this site because of a ''future'' event—the pre-millenial assembly of Adam and his faithful descendants prior to the second coming of Christ. It has generally been presumed that "Spring Hill," Missouri is thus the Adam-ondi-Ahman of Adam's mortal meeting with his posterity (D&C 107, above) ''and'' the pre-millenial visit (D&C 116), which is certainly possible.

===An alternate reading: two sites?===

An alternate interpretation would be to conclude that the Lord has ''given'' the Adam-ondi-Ahman name to a second site (i.e., at Spring Hill, Missouri) in memorial of the first great meeting of the whole righteous human race. That first meeting, at which Adam presided, would then be a foreshadowing of the greater meeting of all the righteous prior to Christ's triumphant return in glory. This reading might better explain why D&C 116 bothers to explain why the Lord is giving the name to the site. If the site was already called Adam-ondi-Ahman, there is perhaps little need for the Lord to renew its name. One could see this as analagous to the site "Jerusalem." There is, in LDS doctrine, to be a "New Jerusalem" in the last days, built on the American continent.{{ref|aof1}} Yet, this does not mean that the "New Jerusalem" site is the same as the Jerusalem of David and Jesus in the Old World, or that the old Jerusalem has ceased to exist.

===Traditional reading may still be best===

On the other hand, the next section of the Doctrine and Covenants also seems to associate the Missouri Adam-ondi-Ahman with Adam's dwelling place in mortality:

:7 Therefore, will I not make solitary places to bud and to blossom, and to bring forth in abundance? saith the Lord.
:8 Is there not room enough on the mountains of Adam-ondi-Ahman, and on the plains of Olaha Shinehah, or the land where Adam dwelt, that you should covet that which is but the drop, and neglect the more weighty matters?
:9 Therefore, come up hither unto the land of my people, even Zion. ({{s||DC|117|7-9}})

The association of Adam-ondi-Ahman with the "land where Adam dwelt," and Adam's presence at Adam-Ondi-Ahman prior to his death have led most Latter-day Saints to conclude they are one and the same. (However, this verse raises more questions than it answers—there are no mountains of note in Missouri. So, was the geography more expansive than Joseph or the early saints presumed?)

Because Adam left the Garden of Eden, and (by this reading) dwelt somewhere in or near Missouri, many members have concluded that the Garden of Eden must likewise be near by.

As President John Taylor wrote:

:it was stated by the Prophet Joseph Smith, in our hearing while standing on an elevated piece of ground or plateau near Adam-ondi-Ahman (Davis Co., Missouri,), where there were a number of rocks piled together, that the valley before us was the valley of Adam-ondi-Ahman; or in other words, the valley where God talked with Adam, and where he gathered his righteous posterity, as recorded in the above revelation, and that this pile of stones was an altar built by him when he offered up sacrifices, as we understand, on that occasion.{{ref|taylor1}}

===Garden of Eden: LDS statements===

Most early statements about the location of the Garden of Eden in LDS thought come via Brigham Young, but Brigham often made reference to Joseph Smith's teachings on the matter.

Brigham's history records that he told Orson Hyde (who had been to Palestine):

:You have been both to Jerusalem and Zion, and seen both. I have not seen either, for I have never been in Jackson County. Now it is a pleasant thing to think of and to know where the Garden of Eden was. Did you ever think of it? I do not think many do, for in Jackson County was the Garden of Eden. Joseph has declared this, and I am as much bound to believe that as to believe that Joseph was a prophet of God.{{ref|by1}}

This idea was a common one among 19th century members, at it seems likely that Joseph was the source of the idea (or, at the very least, the members' ''perception'' of what Joseph had told them).

'''''Heber C. Kimball''''' (1863):

:...the spot chosen for the garden of Eden was Jackson County, in the State of Missouri, where Independence now stands; it was occupied in the morn of creation by Adam and his associates who came with him for the express purpose of peopling this earth. {{ref|hck1}}

'''''George Q. Cannon''''' (1867):

:We appreciate the home that God has given us here, so fruitful in blessings [p.337] to the Saints; but we look forward to that land with indescribable feelings, because it is the place where God has said His City shall be built. It is the land where Adam, the Ancient of Days, will gather his posterity again, and where the blessings of God will descend upon them. It is the land for which the wise and learned have travelled and sought in vain. Asia has been ransacked in endeavouring to locate the Garden of Eden. Men have supposed that because the Ark rested on Ararat that the flood commenced there, or rather that it was from thence the Ark started to sail. But God in His revelations has informed us that it was on this choice land of Joseph where Adam was placed and the Garden of Eden was laid out. The spot has been designated, and we look forward with peculiar feelings to repossessing that land.{{ref|gqc1}}

'''''Wilford Woodruff''''' quoting Brigham Young (1879):

:[spelling as original diary] Again Presdet Young said Joseph the Prophet told me that the garden of Eden was in Jackson Co Missouri, & when Adam was driven out of the garden of Eden He went about 40 miles to the Place which we Named Adam Ondi Ahman, & there built an Altar of Stone & offered Sacrifize. That Altar remains to this day. I saw it as Adam left it as did many others, & through all the revolutions of the world that Altar had not been disturbed.{{ref|ww1}}

==Parallels with other religious traditions==

The early Saints' view of a Garden of Eden "local" to them has its parallels in other religious traditions.

The Garden of Eden or the primordial paradise of the race is often seen as the "center of the world," or the cosmic point around which all creation turns (sometimes called an ''axis mundi'' or ''umbilicum mundi''—the "navel" of the world).

Martin Luther warned that "we ask in vain today where and what that garden was" (155). Suarez said that knowledge of the earthly paradise was necessary to understand "all that the scriptures tell us of the condition of humanity before sin"

One student of the subject stated that during the 16th and 17th centuries the "location" of paradise was more important that any other question regarding it.{{ref|delumeau1}} And various religions have placed the Garden of Eden was in their part of the world.

Bishop Pierre-Daniel Huet (1691) a member of the French Academy, wrote of the wide variety of speculation and opinion on this subject

:[The earthly paradise] has been located in the third heaven, in the fourth, in the heaven of the moon, on the moon itself, on a mountain close to the heaven of the moon, in the middle region of the air, outside the earth, on the earth, under the earth, and in a hidden place far removed from human knowledge. It has been placed under the Arctic pole.... Some have located it... either on the banks of the Ganges or on the island of Ceylon, and have even derived the name 'India' from the word 'Eden.'... Others have located it in the Americas, others in Africa below the equator, others in the equinoctial East, others on the mountain of the moon, from which they believed the Nile to flow. Most have located it in Asia: some in Greater Armenia, others in Mesopotamia or Assyria or Persia or Babylonia or Arabia or Syria or Palestine. There have even been those who wished to honor our Europe and, in a move that strays into complete irrelevance, have located it in Hedin, a town in Artois, their reason being the similarity between the words 'Hedin' and 'Eden'" {{ref|delumeau2}}

The Bible itself seems to place the Garden of Eden at the center of the world:

:10 And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads.
:11 The name of the first is Pison: that is it which compasseth the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold;
:12 And the gold of that land is good: there is bdellium and the onyx stone.
:13 And the name of the second river is Gihon: the same is it that compasseth the whole land of Ethiopia.
:14 And the name of the third river is Hiddekel: that is it which goeth toward the east of Assyria. And the fourth river is Euphrates. ({{s||Genesis|2|10-14}})

The named rivers represent four of the great rivers of the known world, yet this description does not match any modern known configuration. It may be better to view these verses as a symbolic expression of Eden at "the center" of all that was known.

There is also a Jewish tradition that the Garden of Eden was in Jerusalem. There is a spring of water there known as the Gihon, one of the unidentified rivers of Paradise. {{b||Ezekiel|28|13}} says “You were in Eden, the garden of God,” and then parallels that in the next verse with “you were on the holy mountain of God,” generally understood as the temple mount. There is important symbolism here. If a Jewish tradition can assign the location of the Garden to its traditional headquarters—Jerusalem—it is not surprising to have a Mormon tradition assigning the location of the Garden to Jackson County, Missouri, which for a time was its church headquarters and which according to prophecy will be again some time in the future.

==Apologetic approaches==

Members and others sometimes ask how Abraham, Moses and other near eastern Bible prophets ended up in the Old World if Adam and Eden were in the Americas. A variety of approaches have been suggested for this issue:

# Some have conceptualilzed the earth as having only one land mass (e.g., Pangaea) even into historical time, which was only separated in the days of Peleg ({{s||Genesis|10|25}}).
# Those who accept a universal Noachian flood simply see Noah floating from a New World site to Ararat in the Old.
# Those who accept a "limited flood" theory see a similar process occuring whereby Noah traveled down rivers or from sea coasts with the flood's arrival. (This would, in effect, be a reversal of the Book of Mormon's Old World to New World migrations).
# Since there is evidence for human migration over the Siberia-Alaska land bridge from Old to New World, some have postulated travel in the opposite direction.
# It has been suggested that the Lord gave a ''second'' site the name of Adam-ondi-Ahman in the Americas, while the original site was located elsewhere, in the Old World (see discussion [[Garden_of_Eden_in_Missouri%3F#An_alternate_reading:_two_sites.3F|above]]). In this model, early Church leaders assumed that there was only one Adam-ondi-Ahman, when there were (in fact) two.
# Some have seen the concept of Eden as a symbolic idea which acted to "sacralize" the Americas for a new gospel dispensation, without having reference to actual geographic realities. Early members then made this concept more literal than intended.
# Some see Eden as a place which was always "separate" from the fallen world around it, and so regard questions about the present "location" of Eden as non-sensical.
# Many, perhaps most, members consider the matter of relatively little importance, and have no strong feelings about the issue at all.

It must be noted that there is little, if any, scriptural or scientific evidence to support any of the above hypotheses. The solution chosen by an individual member will probably depend mostly on their attitudes to other issues about which there is no official Church position and a variety of positions espoused by members. These issues include matters such as the issue of [[Death before the Fall]], [[Evolution]], [[Pre-Adamites]], the nature of Noah's [[Global_or_local_Flood|Flood]], the extent to which scripture ought to be interpreted literally, and related topics.

==Conclusion==

Although we have no contemporaneous record of Joseph Smith teaching explicitly that the Garden of Eden was in Missouri, that reading is consistent with LDS scripture, and there is substantial later testimony from Joseph's associates that he did teach such an idea.

Most Latter-day Saints are aware of this, though it is a relatively minor point that plays little role in LDS theology. (By contrast, the idea that the New Jerusalem—Zion—will be built in the Americas looms much larger in LDS consciousness.)

This idea perhaps strikes most non-members as odd, but not simply because the Saints have an opinion about the Garden's location—as we have seen, religions of all stripes have had a wide variety of views on the subject. What likely strikes outside American observers as strange is the idea that the Garden is local—the LDS view does not place the Garden in a never-never land, buried in distant time and far-away space. Rather, the LDS Garden is local and somewhat immediate.

Upon reflection, though, the thoughtful observer will realize that this is simply one more manifestation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints' uniqueness: rather than believing only in dead prophets, from long ago, in distant lands, in old records, the Church also embraces modern revelation, living prophets, and an on-going divine involvement with God's people. The gospel restored by Joseph Smith does not merely sacralize the past, but the present and future as well—and, it sacralizes both lofty matters and more earthly concerns like farms, hills, and geography.

It is this intrusion of the sacred into the mundane that surprises most observers—the issue of the Garden is merely one more example of a broader phenomenon.

==Endnotes==
# {{note|lds1}} {{ldspress|article=Approaching Mormon Doctrine|date=4 May 2007|url=http://www.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=970af549db852110VgnVCM100000176f620aRCRD&vgnextchannel=f5f411154963d010VgnVCM1000004e94610aRCRD}}
#{{note|hc1}} See also {{HoC1|vol=3|start=35}}
#{{note|aof1}} See {{s||A+of+F|1|10}}.
#{{note|taylor1}} {{MediationAtonement1|start=69}}
#{{note|by1}} Brigham Young in Journal History of the Church (15 March 1857); cited in {{EaR1|start=396}}
#{{note|hck1}} {{JoD10_1|start=235|author=Heber C. Kimball|title=Advancement of the Saints, etc.|date=27 June 1863}}
#{{note|gqc1}} {{JoD11_1|start=336|date=3 March 1867|title=Truth to Be Received for Its Own Sake, etc.|author=George Q. Cannon}}
#{{note|ww1}} {{WWJ1 |vol=7|start=129|date=30 March 1879}}
#{{note|delumeau1}} Jean Delumeau, ''History of Paradise. The Garden of Eden in Myth and Tradition'' (New York: Continuum, 1995), 155.
#{{note|delumeau2}} Cited by Delumeau, 162.
==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===
{{AdamWiki}}

===FAIR web site===
{{AdamFAIR}}
===External links===
{{AdamLinks}}
===Printed material===
*Jean Delumeau, ''History of Paradise. The Garden of Eden in Myth and Tradition'' (New York: Continuum, 1995).
* Alessandro Scafi, ''Mapping Paradise. A History of Heaven on Earth'' (University of Chicago Press 2006).
* {{EaR|start=394|end=397}}
{{AdamPrint}}

Garden of Eden in Missouri?

2007-12-03T20:12:58Z

BrandonHansen: /* Adam-ondi-Ahman */ move colon inside quotation marks

{{AdamPortal}}
{{question}}
==Question==
Is it true Mormons believe the original Garden of Eden was located in Missouri? What can you tell me about this?

==Introduction==

As the official LDS church website points out, "The doctrinal tenets of any religion are best understood within a broad context and thoughtful analysis is required to understand them. ... Some doctrines are more important than others and might be considered core doctrines. ... A common mistake is taking an obscure teaching that is peripheral to the Church’s purpose and placing it at the very center. For example, the precise location of the Garden of Eden is far less important than doctrine about Jesus Christ and His atoning sacrifice."{{ref|lds1}}

==LDS concepts and perspectives==

It is important to first distinguish the "Garden of Eden" (the paradasiacal location where Adam and Eve dwelt before the Fall) from Adam-ondi-Ahman. Adam-ondi-Ahman was a location in which Adam and Eve settled after their expulsion from the Garden.

===Adam-ondi-Ahman===

Prior to his death, the repentant Adam held a meeting of his faithful posterity in a valley designated "Adam-ondhi-Ahman:"

:53 Three years previous to the death of Adam, he called Seth, Enos, Cainan, Mahalaleel, Jared, Enoch, and Methuselah, who were all high priests, with the residue of his posterity who were righteous, into the valley of Adam-ondi-Ahman, and there bestowed upon them his last blessing.
:54 And the Lord appeared unto them, and they rose up and blessed Adam, and called him Michael, the prince, the archangel.
:55 And the Lord administered comfort unto Adam, and said unto him: I have set thee to be at the head; a multitude of nations shall come of thee, and thou art a prince over them forever.
:56 And Adam stood up in the midst of the congregation; and, notwithstanding he was bowed down with age, being full of the Holy Ghost, predicted whatsoever should befall his posterity unto the latest generation. ({{s||DC|107|53|56}})

LDS scripture further notes that:

: Spring Hill is named by the Lord Adam-ondi-Ahman, because, said he, it is the place where Adam shall come to visit his people, or the Ancient of Days shall sit, as spoken of by Daniel the prophet.({{s||DC|116|1}}){{ref|hc1}}

It is perhaps significant that the Lord gave the name to this site because of a ''future'' event—the pre-millenial assembly of Adam and his faithful descendants prior to the second coming of Christ. It has generally been presumed that "Spring Hill," Missouri is thus the Adam-ondi-Ahman of Adam's mortal meeting with his posterity (D&C 107, above) ''and'' the pre-millenial visit (D&C 116). This is certainly possible.

===An alternate reading: two sites?===

An alternate interpretation would be to conclude that the Lord has ''given'' the Adam-ondi-Ahman name to a second site (i.e., at Spring Hill, Missouri) in memorial of the first great meeting of the whole righteous human race. That first meeting, at which Adam presided, would then be a foreshadowing of the greater meeting of all the righteous prior to Christ's triumphant return in glory. This reading might better explain why D&C 116 bothers to explain why the Lord is giving the name to the site. If the site was already called Adam-ondi-Ahman, there is perhaps little need for the Lord to renew its name. One could see this as analagous to the site "Jerusalem." There is, in LDS doctrine, to be a "New Jerusalem" in the last days, built on the American continent.{{ref|aof1}} Yet, this does not mean that the "New Jerusalem" site is the same as the Jerusalem of David and Jesus in the Old World, or that the old Jerusalem has ceased to exist.

===Traditional reading may still be best===

On the other hand, the next section of the Doctrine and Covenants also seems to associate the Missouri Adam-ondi-Ahman with Adam's dwelling place in mortality:

:7 Therefore, will I not make solitary places to bud and to blossom, and to bring forth in abundance? saith the Lord.
:8 Is there not room enough on the mountains of Adam-ondi-Ahman, and on the plains of Olaha Shinehah, or the land where Adam dwelt, that you should covet that which is but the drop, and neglect the more weighty matters?
:9 Therefore, come up hither unto the land of my people, even Zion. ({{s||DC|117|7-9}})

The association of Adam-ondi-Ahman with the "land where Adam dwelt," and Adam's presence at Adam-Ondi-Ahman prior to his death have led most Latter-day Saints to conclude they are one and the same. (However, this verse raises more questions than it answers—there are no mountains of note in Missouri. So, was the geography more expansive than Joseph or the early saints presumed?)

Because Adam left the Garden of Eden, and (by this reading) dwelt somewhere in or near Missouri, many members have concluded that the Garden of Eden must likewise be near by.

As President John Taylor wrote:

:it was stated by the Prophet Joseph Smith, in our hearing while standing on an elevated piece of ground or plateau near Adam-ondi-Ahman (Davis Co., Missouri,), where there were a number of rocks piled together, that the valley before us was the valley of Adam-ondi-Ahman; or in other words, the valley where God talked with Adam, and where he gathered his righteous posterity, as recorded in the above revelation, and that this pile of stones was an altar built by him when he offered up sacrifices, as we understand, on that occasion.{{ref|taylor1}}

===Garden of Eden: LDS statements===

Most early statements about the location of the Garden of Eden in LDS thought come via Brigham Young, but Brigham often made reference to Joseph Smith's teachings on the matter.

Brigham's history records that he told Orson Hyde (who had been to Palestine):

:You have been both to Jerusalem and Zion, and seen both. I have not seen either, for I have never been in Jackson County. Now it is a pleasant thing to think of and to know where the Garden of Eden was. Did you ever think of it? I do not think many do, for in Jackson County was the Garden of Eden. Joseph has declared this, and I am as much bound to believe that as to believe that Joseph was a prophet of God.{{ref|by1}}

This idea was a common one among 19th century members, at it seems likely that Joseph was the source of the idea (or, at the very least, the members' ''perception'' of what Joseph had told them).

'''''Heber C. Kimball''''' (1863):

:...the spot chosen for the garden of Eden was Jackson County, in the State of Missouri, where Independence now stands; it was occupied in the morn of creation by Adam and his associates who came with him for the express purpose of peopling this earth. {{ref|hck1}}

'''''George Q. Cannon''''' (1867):

:We appreciate the home that God has given us here, so fruitful in blessings [p.337] to the Saints; but we look forward to that land with indescribable feelings, because it is the place where God has said His City shall be built. It is the land where Adam, the Ancient of Days, will gather his posterity again, and where the blessings of God will descend upon them. It is the land for which the wise and learned have travelled and sought in vain. Asia has been ransacked in endeavouring to locate the Garden of Eden. Men have supposed that because the Ark rested on Ararat that the flood commenced there, or rather that it was from thence the Ark started to sail. But God in His revelations has informed us that it was on this choice land of Joseph where Adam was placed and the Garden of Eden was laid out. The spot has been designated, and we look forward with peculiar feelings to repossessing that land.{{ref|gqc1}}

'''''Wilford Woodruff''''' quoting Brigham Young (1879):

:[spelling as original diary] Again Presdet Young said Joseph the Prophet told me that the garden of Eden was in Jackson Co Missouri, & when Adam was driven out of the garden of Eden He went about 40 miles to the Place which we Named Adam Ondi Ahman, & there built an Altar of Stone & offered Sacrifize. That Altar remains to this day. I saw it as Adam left it as did many others, & through all the revolutions of the world that Altar had not been disturbed.{{ref|ww1}}

==Parallels with other religious traditions==

The early Saints' view of a Garden of Eden "local" to them has its parallels in other religious traditions.

The Garden of Eden or the primordial paradise of the race is often seen as the "center of the world," or the cosmic point around which all creation turns (sometimes called an ''axis mundi'' or ''umbilicum mundi''—the "navel" of the world).

Martin Luther warned that "we ask in vain today where and what that garden was" (155). Suarez said that knowledge of the earthly paradise was necessary to understand "all that the scriptures tell us of the condition of humanity before sin"

One student of the subject stated that during the 16th and 17th centuries the "location" of paradise was more important that any other question regarding it.{{ref|delumeau1}} And various religions have placed the Garden of Eden was in their part of the world.

Bishop Pierre-Daniel Huet (1691) a member of the French Academy, wrote of the wide variety of speculation and opinion on this subject

:[The earthly paradise] has been located in the third heaven, in the fourth, in the heaven of the moon, on the moon itself, on a mountain close to the heaven of the moon, in the middle region of the air, outside the earth, on the earth, under the earth, and in a hidden place far removed from human knowledge. It has been placed under the Arctic pole.... Some have located it... either on the banks of the Ganges or on the island of Ceylon, and have even derived the name 'India' from the word 'Eden.'... Others have located it in the Americas, others in Africa below the equator, others in the equinoctial East, others on the mountain of the moon, from which they believed the Nile to flow. Most have located it in Asia: some in Greater Armenia, others in Mesopotamia or Assyria or Persia or Babylonia or Arabia or Syria or Palestine. There have even been those who wished to honor our Europe and, in a move that strays into complete irrelevance, have located it in Hedin, a town in Artois, their reason being the similarity between the words 'Hedin' and 'Eden'" {{ref|delumeau2}}

The Bible itself seems to place the Garden of Eden at the center of the world:

:10 And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads.
:11 The name of the first is Pison: that is it which compasseth the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold;
:12 And the gold of that land is good: there is bdellium and the onyx stone.
:13 And the name of the second river is Gihon: the same is it that compasseth the whole land of Ethiopia.
:14 And the name of the third river is Hiddekel: that is it which goeth toward the east of Assyria. And the fourth river is Euphrates. ({{s||Genesis|2|10-14}})

The named rivers represent four of the great rivers of the known world, yet this description does not match any modern known configuration. It may be better to view these verses as a symbolic expression of Eden at "the center" of all that was known.

There is also a Jewish tradition that the Garden of Eden was in Jerusalem. There is a spring of water there known as the Gihon, one of the unidentified rivers of Paradise. {{b||Ezekiel|28|13}} says “You were in Eden, the garden of God,” and then parallels that in the next verse with “you were on the holy mountain of God,” generally understood as the temple mount. There is important symbolism here. If a Jewish tradition can assign the location of the Garden to its traditional headquarters—Jerusalem—it is not surprising to have a Mormon tradition assigning the location of the Garden to Jackson County, Missouri, which for a time was its church headquarters and which according to prophecy will be again some time in the future.

==Apologetic approaches==

Members and others sometimes ask how Abraham, Moses and other near eastern Bible prophets ended up in the Old World if Adam and Eden were in the Americas. A variety of approaches have been suggested for this issue:

# Some have conceptualilzed the earth as having only one land mass (e.g., Pangaea) even into historical time, which was only separated in the days of Peleg ({{s||Genesis|10|25}}).
# Those who accept a universal Noachian flood simply see Noah floating from a New World site to Ararat in the Old.
# Those who accept a "limited flood" theory see a similar process occuring whereby Noah traveled down rivers or from sea coasts with the flood's arrival. (This would, in effect, be a reversal of the Book of Mormon's Old World to New World migrations).
# Since there is evidence for human migration over the Siberia-Alaska land bridge from Old to New World, some have postulated travel in the opposite direction.
# It has been suggested that the Lord gave a ''second'' site the name of Adam-ondi-Ahman in the Americas, while the original site was located elsewhere, in the Old World (see discussion [[Garden_of_Eden_in_Missouri%3F#An_alternate_reading:_two_sites.3F|above]]). In this model, early Church leaders assumed that there was only one Adam-ondi-Ahman, when there were (in fact) two.
# Some have seen the concept of Eden as a symbolic idea which acted to "sacralize" the Americas for a new gospel dispensation, without having reference to actual geographic realities. Early members then made this concept more literal than intended.
# Some see Eden as a place which was always "separate" from the fallen world around it, and so regard questions about the present "location" of Eden as non-sensical.
# Many, perhaps most, members consider the matter of relatively little importance, and have no strong feelings about the issue at all.

It must be noted that there is little, if any, scriptural or scientific evidence to support any of the above hypotheses. The solution chosen by an individual member will probably depend mostly on their attitudes to other issues about which there is no official Church position and a variety of positions espoused by members. These issues include matters such as the issue of [[Death before the Fall]], [[Evolution]], [[Pre-Adamites]], the nature of Noah's [[Global_or_local_Flood|Flood]], the extent to which scripture ought to be interpreted literally, and related topics.

==Conclusion==

Although we have no contemporaneous record of Joseph Smith teaching explicitly that the Garden of Eden was in Missouri, that reading is consistent with LDS scripture, and there is substantial later testimony from Joseph's associates that he did teach such an idea.

Most Latter-day Saints are aware of this, though it is a relatively minor point that plays little role in LDS theology. (By contrast, the idea that the New Jerusalem—Zion—will be built in the Americas looms much larger in LDS consciousness.)

This idea perhaps strikes most non-members as odd, but not simply because the Saints have an opinion about the Garden's location—as we have seen, religions of all stripes have had a wide variety of views on the subject. What likely strikes outside American observers as strange is the idea that the Garden is local—the LDS view does not place the Garden in a never-never land, buried in distant time and far-away space. Rather, the LDS Garden is local and somewhat immediate.

Upon reflection, though, the thoughtful observer will realize that this is simply one more manifestation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints' uniqueness: rather than believing only in dead prophets, from long ago, in distant lands, in old records, the Church also embraces modern revelation, living prophets, and an on-going divine involvement with God's people. The gospel restored by Joseph Smith does not merely sacralize the past, but the present and future as well—and, it sacralizes both lofty matters and more earthly concerns like farms, hills, and geography.

It is this intrusion of the sacred into the mundane that surprises most observers—the issue of the Garden is merely one more example of a broader phenomenon.

==Endnotes==
# {{note|lds1}} {{ldspress|article=Approaching Mormon Doctrine|date=4 May 2007|url=http://www.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=970af549db852110VgnVCM100000176f620aRCRD&vgnextchannel=f5f411154963d010VgnVCM1000004e94610aRCRD}}
#{{note|hc1}} See also {{HoC1|vol=3|start=35}}
#{{note|aof1}} See {{s||A+of+F|1|10}}.
#{{note|taylor1}} {{MediationAtonement1|start=69}}
#{{note|by1}} Brigham Young in Journal History of the Church (15 March 1857); cited in {{EaR1|start=396}}
#{{note|hck1}} {{JoD10_1|start=235|author=Heber C. Kimball|title=Advancement of the Saints, etc.|date=27 June 1863}}
#{{note|gqc1}} {{JoD11_1|start=336|date=3 March 1867|title=Truth to Be Received for Its Own Sake, etc.|author=George Q. Cannon}}
#{{note|ww1}} {{WWJ1 |vol=7|start=129|date=30 March 1879}}
#{{note|delumeau1}} Jean Delumeau, ''History of Paradise. The Garden of Eden in Myth and Tradition'' (New York: Continuum, 1995), 155.
#{{note|delumeau2}} Cited by Delumeau, 162.
==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===
{{AdamWiki}}

===FAIR web site===
{{AdamFAIR}}
===External links===
{{AdamLinks}}
===Printed material===
*Jean Delumeau, ''History of Paradise. The Garden of Eden in Myth and Tradition'' (New York: Continuum, 1995).
* Alessandro Scafi, ''Mapping Paradise. A History of Heaven on Earth'' (University of Chicago Press 2006).
* {{EaR|start=394|end=397}}
{{AdamPrint}}

Garden of Eden in Missouri?

2007-12-03T20:12:08Z

BrandonHansen: /* Introduction */ wording

{{AdamPortal}}
{{question}}
==Question==
Is it true Mormons believe the original Garden of Eden was located in Missouri? What can you tell me about this?

==Introduction==

As the official LDS church website points out, "The doctrinal tenets of any religion are best understood within a broad context and thoughtful analysis is required to understand them. ... Some doctrines are more important than others and might be considered core doctrines. ... A common mistake is taking an obscure teaching that is peripheral to the Church’s purpose and placing it at the very center. For example, the precise location of the Garden of Eden is far less important than doctrine about Jesus Christ and His atoning sacrifice."{{ref|lds1}}

==LDS concepts and perspectives==

It is important to first distinguish the "Garden of Eden" (the paradasiacal location where Adam and Eve dwelt before the Fall) from Adam-ondi-Ahman. Adam-ondi-Ahman was a location in which Adam and Eve settled after their expulsion from the Garden.

===Adam-ondi-Ahman===

Prior to his death, the repentant Adam held a meeting of his faithful posterity in a valley designated "Adam-ondhi-Ahman":

:53 Three years previous to the death of Adam, he called Seth, Enos, Cainan, Mahalaleel, Jared, Enoch, and Methuselah, who were all high priests, with the residue of his posterity who were righteous, into the valley of Adam-ondi-Ahman, and there bestowed upon them his last blessing.
:54 And the Lord appeared unto them, and they rose up and blessed Adam, and called him Michael, the prince, the archangel.
:55 And the Lord administered comfort unto Adam, and said unto him: I have set thee to be at the head; a multitude of nations shall come of thee, and thou art a prince over them forever.
:56 And Adam stood up in the midst of the congregation; and, notwithstanding he was bowed down with age, being full of the Holy Ghost, predicted whatsoever should befall his posterity unto the latest generation. ({{s||DC|107|53|56}})

LDS scripture further notes that:

: Spring Hill is named by the Lord Adam-ondi-Ahman, because, said he, it is the place where Adam shall come to visit his people, or the Ancient of Days shall sit, as spoken of by Daniel the prophet.({{s||DC|116|1}}){{ref|hc1}}

It is perhaps significant that the Lord gave the name to this site because of a ''future'' event—the pre-millenial assembly of Adam and his faithful descendants prior to the second coming of Christ. It has generally been presumed that "Spring Hill," Missouri is thus the Adam-ondi-Ahman of Adam's mortal meeting with his posterity (D&C 107, above) ''and'' the pre-millenial visit (D&C 116). This is certainly possible.

===An alternate reading: two sites?===

An alternate interpretation would be to conclude that the Lord has ''given'' the Adam-ondi-Ahman name to a second site (i.e., at Spring Hill, Missouri) in memorial of the first great meeting of the whole righteous human race. That first meeting, at which Adam presided, would then be a foreshadowing of the greater meeting of all the righteous prior to Christ's triumphant return in glory. This reading might better explain why D&C 116 bothers to explain why the Lord is giving the name to the site. If the site was already called Adam-ondi-Ahman, there is perhaps little need for the Lord to renew its name. One could see this as analagous to the site "Jerusalem." There is, in LDS doctrine, to be a "New Jerusalem" in the last days, built on the American continent.{{ref|aof1}} Yet, this does not mean that the "New Jerusalem" site is the same as the Jerusalem of David and Jesus in the Old World, or that the old Jerusalem has ceased to exist.

===Traditional reading may still be best===

On the other hand, the next section of the Doctrine and Covenants also seems to associate the Missouri Adam-ondi-Ahman with Adam's dwelling place in mortality:

:7 Therefore, will I not make solitary places to bud and to blossom, and to bring forth in abundance? saith the Lord.
:8 Is there not room enough on the mountains of Adam-ondi-Ahman, and on the plains of Olaha Shinehah, or the land where Adam dwelt, that you should covet that which is but the drop, and neglect the more weighty matters?
:9 Therefore, come up hither unto the land of my people, even Zion. ({{s||DC|117|7-9}})

The association of Adam-ondi-Ahman with the "land where Adam dwelt," and Adam's presence at Adam-Ondi-Ahman prior to his death have led most Latter-day Saints to conclude they are one and the same. (However, this verse raises more questions than it answers—there are no mountains of note in Missouri. So, was the geography more expansive than Joseph or the early saints presumed?)

Because Adam left the Garden of Eden, and (by this reading) dwelt somewhere in or near Missouri, many members have concluded that the Garden of Eden must likewise be near by.

As President John Taylor wrote:

:it was stated by the Prophet Joseph Smith, in our hearing while standing on an elevated piece of ground or plateau near Adam-ondi-Ahman (Davis Co., Missouri,), where there were a number of rocks piled together, that the valley before us was the valley of Adam-ondi-Ahman; or in other words, the valley where God talked with Adam, and where he gathered his righteous posterity, as recorded in the above revelation, and that this pile of stones was an altar built by him when he offered up sacrifices, as we understand, on that occasion.{{ref|taylor1}}

===Garden of Eden: LDS statements===

Most early statements about the location of the Garden of Eden in LDS thought come via Brigham Young, but Brigham often made reference to Joseph Smith's teachings on the matter.

Brigham's history records that he told Orson Hyde (who had been to Palestine):

:You have been both to Jerusalem and Zion, and seen both. I have not seen either, for I have never been in Jackson County. Now it is a pleasant thing to think of and to know where the Garden of Eden was. Did you ever think of it? I do not think many do, for in Jackson County was the Garden of Eden. Joseph has declared this, and I am as much bound to believe that as to believe that Joseph was a prophet of God.{{ref|by1}}

This idea was a common one among 19th century members, at it seems likely that Joseph was the source of the idea (or, at the very least, the members' ''perception'' of what Joseph had told them).

'''''Heber C. Kimball''''' (1863):

:...the spot chosen for the garden of Eden was Jackson County, in the State of Missouri, where Independence now stands; it was occupied in the morn of creation by Adam and his associates who came with him for the express purpose of peopling this earth. {{ref|hck1}}

'''''George Q. Cannon''''' (1867):

:We appreciate the home that God has given us here, so fruitful in blessings [p.337] to the Saints; but we look forward to that land with indescribable feelings, because it is the place where God has said His City shall be built. It is the land where Adam, the Ancient of Days, will gather his posterity again, and where the blessings of God will descend upon them. It is the land for which the wise and learned have travelled and sought in vain. Asia has been ransacked in endeavouring to locate the Garden of Eden. Men have supposed that because the Ark rested on Ararat that the flood commenced there, or rather that it was from thence the Ark started to sail. But God in His revelations has informed us that it was on this choice land of Joseph where Adam was placed and the Garden of Eden was laid out. The spot has been designated, and we look forward with peculiar feelings to repossessing that land.{{ref|gqc1}}

'''''Wilford Woodruff''''' quoting Brigham Young (1879):

:[spelling as original diary] Again Presdet Young said Joseph the Prophet told me that the garden of Eden was in Jackson Co Missouri, & when Adam was driven out of the garden of Eden He went about 40 miles to the Place which we Named Adam Ondi Ahman, & there built an Altar of Stone & offered Sacrifize. That Altar remains to this day. I saw it as Adam left it as did many others, & through all the revolutions of the world that Altar had not been disturbed.{{ref|ww1}}

==Parallels with other religious traditions==

The early Saints' view of a Garden of Eden "local" to them has its parallels in other religious traditions.

The Garden of Eden or the primordial paradise of the race is often seen as the "center of the world," or the cosmic point around which all creation turns (sometimes called an ''axis mundi'' or ''umbilicum mundi''—the "navel" of the world).

Martin Luther warned that "we ask in vain today where and what that garden was" (155). Suarez said that knowledge of the earthly paradise was necessary to understand "all that the scriptures tell us of the condition of humanity before sin"

One student of the subject stated that during the 16th and 17th centuries the "location" of paradise was more important that any other question regarding it.{{ref|delumeau1}} And various religions have placed the Garden of Eden was in their part of the world.

Bishop Pierre-Daniel Huet (1691) a member of the French Academy, wrote of the wide variety of speculation and opinion on this subject

:[The earthly paradise] has been located in the third heaven, in the fourth, in the heaven of the moon, on the moon itself, on a mountain close to the heaven of the moon, in the middle region of the air, outside the earth, on the earth, under the earth, and in a hidden place far removed from human knowledge. It has been placed under the Arctic pole.... Some have located it... either on the banks of the Ganges or on the island of Ceylon, and have even derived the name 'India' from the word 'Eden.'... Others have located it in the Americas, others in Africa below the equator, others in the equinoctial East, others on the mountain of the moon, from which they believed the Nile to flow. Most have located it in Asia: some in Greater Armenia, others in Mesopotamia or Assyria or Persia or Babylonia or Arabia or Syria or Palestine. There have even been those who wished to honor our Europe and, in a move that strays into complete irrelevance, have located it in Hedin, a town in Artois, their reason being the similarity between the words 'Hedin' and 'Eden'" {{ref|delumeau2}}

The Bible itself seems to place the Garden of Eden at the center of the world:

:10 And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads.
:11 The name of the first is Pison: that is it which compasseth the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold;
:12 And the gold of that land is good: there is bdellium and the onyx stone.
:13 And the name of the second river is Gihon: the same is it that compasseth the whole land of Ethiopia.
:14 And the name of the third river is Hiddekel: that is it which goeth toward the east of Assyria. And the fourth river is Euphrates. ({{s||Genesis|2|10-14}})

The named rivers represent four of the great rivers of the known world, yet this description does not match any modern known configuration. It may be better to view these verses as a symbolic expression of Eden at "the center" of all that was known.

There is also a Jewish tradition that the Garden of Eden was in Jerusalem. There is a spring of water there known as the Gihon, one of the unidentified rivers of Paradise. {{b||Ezekiel|28|13}} says “You were in Eden, the garden of God,” and then parallels that in the next verse with “you were on the holy mountain of God,” generally understood as the temple mount. There is important symbolism here. If a Jewish tradition can assign the location of the Garden to its traditional headquarters—Jerusalem—it is not surprising to have a Mormon tradition assigning the location of the Garden to Jackson County, Missouri, which for a time was its church headquarters and which according to prophecy will be again some time in the future.

==Apologetic approaches==

Members and others sometimes ask how Abraham, Moses and other near eastern Bible prophets ended up in the Old World if Adam and Eden were in the Americas. A variety of approaches have been suggested for this issue:

# Some have conceptualilzed the earth as having only one land mass (e.g., Pangaea) even into historical time, which was only separated in the days of Peleg ({{s||Genesis|10|25}}).
# Those who accept a universal Noachian flood simply see Noah floating from a New World site to Ararat in the Old.
# Those who accept a "limited flood" theory see a similar process occuring whereby Noah traveled down rivers or from sea coasts with the flood's arrival. (This would, in effect, be a reversal of the Book of Mormon's Old World to New World migrations).
# Since there is evidence for human migration over the Siberia-Alaska land bridge from Old to New World, some have postulated travel in the opposite direction.
# It has been suggested that the Lord gave a ''second'' site the name of Adam-ondi-Ahman in the Americas, while the original site was located elsewhere, in the Old World (see discussion [[Garden_of_Eden_in_Missouri%3F#An_alternate_reading:_two_sites.3F|above]]). In this model, early Church leaders assumed that there was only one Adam-ondi-Ahman, when there were (in fact) two.
# Some have seen the concept of Eden as a symbolic idea which acted to "sacralize" the Americas for a new gospel dispensation, without having reference to actual geographic realities. Early members then made this concept more literal than intended.
# Some see Eden as a place which was always "separate" from the fallen world around it, and so regard questions about the present "location" of Eden as non-sensical.
# Many, perhaps most, members consider the matter of relatively little importance, and have no strong feelings about the issue at all.

It must be noted that there is little, if any, scriptural or scientific evidence to support any of the above hypotheses. The solution chosen by an individual member will probably depend mostly on their attitudes to other issues about which there is no official Church position and a variety of positions espoused by members. These issues include matters such as the issue of [[Death before the Fall]], [[Evolution]], [[Pre-Adamites]], the nature of Noah's [[Global_or_local_Flood|Flood]], the extent to which scripture ought to be interpreted literally, and related topics.

==Conclusion==

Although we have no contemporaneous record of Joseph Smith teaching explicitly that the Garden of Eden was in Missouri, that reading is consistent with LDS scripture, and there is substantial later testimony from Joseph's associates that he did teach such an idea.

Most Latter-day Saints are aware of this, though it is a relatively minor point that plays little role in LDS theology. (By contrast, the idea that the New Jerusalem—Zion—will be built in the Americas looms much larger in LDS consciousness.)

This idea perhaps strikes most non-members as odd, but not simply because the Saints have an opinion about the Garden's location—as we have seen, religions of all stripes have had a wide variety of views on the subject. What likely strikes outside American observers as strange is the idea that the Garden is local—the LDS view does not place the Garden in a never-never land, buried in distant time and far-away space. Rather, the LDS Garden is local and somewhat immediate.

Upon reflection, though, the thoughtful observer will realize that this is simply one more manifestation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints' uniqueness: rather than believing only in dead prophets, from long ago, in distant lands, in old records, the Church also embraces modern revelation, living prophets, and an on-going divine involvement with God's people. The gospel restored by Joseph Smith does not merely sacralize the past, but the present and future as well—and, it sacralizes both lofty matters and more earthly concerns like farms, hills, and geography.

It is this intrusion of the sacred into the mundane that surprises most observers—the issue of the Garden is merely one more example of a broader phenomenon.

==Endnotes==
# {{note|lds1}} {{ldspress|article=Approaching Mormon Doctrine|date=4 May 2007|url=http://www.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=970af549db852110VgnVCM100000176f620aRCRD&vgnextchannel=f5f411154963d010VgnVCM1000004e94610aRCRD}}
#{{note|hc1}} See also {{HoC1|vol=3|start=35}}
#{{note|aof1}} See {{s||A+of+F|1|10}}.
#{{note|taylor1}} {{MediationAtonement1|start=69}}
#{{note|by1}} Brigham Young in Journal History of the Church (15 March 1857); cited in {{EaR1|start=396}}
#{{note|hck1}} {{JoD10_1|start=235|author=Heber C. Kimball|title=Advancement of the Saints, etc.|date=27 June 1863}}
#{{note|gqc1}} {{JoD11_1|start=336|date=3 March 1867|title=Truth to Be Received for Its Own Sake, etc.|author=George Q. Cannon}}
#{{note|ww1}} {{WWJ1 |vol=7|start=129|date=30 March 1879}}
#{{note|delumeau1}} Jean Delumeau, ''History of Paradise. The Garden of Eden in Myth and Tradition'' (New York: Continuum, 1995), 155.
#{{note|delumeau2}} Cited by Delumeau, 162.
==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===
{{AdamWiki}}

===FAIR web site===
{{AdamFAIR}}
===External links===
{{AdamLinks}}
===Printed material===
*Jean Delumeau, ''History of Paradise. The Garden of Eden in Myth and Tradition'' (New York: Continuum, 1995).
* Alessandro Scafi, ''Mapping Paradise. A History of Heaven on Earth'' (University of Chicago Press 2006).
* {{EaR|start=394|end=397}}
{{AdamPrint}}

Garden of Eden in Missouri?

2007-12-03T20:06:25Z

BrandonHansen: /* Question */ wording

{{AdamPortal}}
{{question}}
==Question==
Is it true Mormons believe the original Garden of Eden was located in Missouri? What can you tell me about this?

==Introduction==

As the official website for the LDS church points out, "The doctrinal tenets of any religion are best understood within a broad context and thoughtful analysis is required to understand them. . .Some doctrines are more important than others and might be considered core doctrines. . . A common mistake is taking an obscure teaching that is peripheral to the Church’s purpose and placing it at the very center. For example, the precise location of the Garden of Eden is far less important than doctrine about Jesus Christ and His atoning sacrifice."{{ref|lds1}}

==LDS concepts and perspectives==

It is important to first distinguish the "Garden of Eden" (the paradasiacal location where Adam and Eve dwelt before the Fall) from Adam-ondi-Ahman. Adam-ondi-Ahman was a location in which Adam and Eve settled after their expulsion from the Garden.

===Adam-ondi-Ahman===

Prior to his death, the repentant Adam held a meeting of his faithful posterity in a valley designated "Adam-ondhi-Ahman":

:53 Three years previous to the death of Adam, he called Seth, Enos, Cainan, Mahalaleel, Jared, Enoch, and Methuselah, who were all high priests, with the residue of his posterity who were righteous, into the valley of Adam-ondi-Ahman, and there bestowed upon them his last blessing.
:54 And the Lord appeared unto them, and they rose up and blessed Adam, and called him Michael, the prince, the archangel.
:55 And the Lord administered comfort unto Adam, and said unto him: I have set thee to be at the head; a multitude of nations shall come of thee, and thou art a prince over them forever.
:56 And Adam stood up in the midst of the congregation; and, notwithstanding he was bowed down with age, being full of the Holy Ghost, predicted whatsoever should befall his posterity unto the latest generation. ({{s||DC|107|53|56}})

LDS scripture further notes that:

: Spring Hill is named by the Lord Adam-ondi-Ahman, because, said he, it is the place where Adam shall come to visit his people, or the Ancient of Days shall sit, as spoken of by Daniel the prophet.({{s||DC|116|1}}){{ref|hc1}}

It is perhaps significant that the Lord gave the name to this site because of a ''future'' event—the pre-millenial assembly of Adam and his faithful descendants prior to the second coming of Christ. It has generally been presumed that "Spring Hill," Missouri is thus the Adam-ondi-Ahman of Adam's mortal meeting with his posterity (D&C 107, above) ''and'' the pre-millenial visit (D&C 116). This is certainly possible.

===An alternate reading: two sites?===

An alternate interpretation would be to conclude that the Lord has ''given'' the Adam-ondi-Ahman name to a second site (i.e., at Spring Hill, Missouri) in memorial of the first great meeting of the whole righteous human race. That first meeting, at which Adam presided, would then be a foreshadowing of the greater meeting of all the righteous prior to Christ's triumphant return in glory. This reading might better explain why D&C 116 bothers to explain why the Lord is giving the name to the site. If the site was already called Adam-ondi-Ahman, there is perhaps little need for the Lord to renew its name. One could see this as analagous to the site "Jerusalem." There is, in LDS doctrine, to be a "New Jerusalem" in the last days, built on the American continent.{{ref|aof1}} Yet, this does not mean that the "New Jerusalem" site is the same as the Jerusalem of David and Jesus in the Old World, or that the old Jerusalem has ceased to exist.

===Traditional reading may still be best===

On the other hand, the next section of the Doctrine and Covenants also seems to associate the Missouri Adam-ondi-Ahman with Adam's dwelling place in mortality:

:7 Therefore, will I not make solitary places to bud and to blossom, and to bring forth in abundance? saith the Lord.
:8 Is there not room enough on the mountains of Adam-ondi-Ahman, and on the plains of Olaha Shinehah, or the land where Adam dwelt, that you should covet that which is but the drop, and neglect the more weighty matters?
:9 Therefore, come up hither unto the land of my people, even Zion. ({{s||DC|117|7-9}})

The association of Adam-ondi-Ahman with the "land where Adam dwelt," and Adam's presence at Adam-Ondi-Ahman prior to his death have led most Latter-day Saints to conclude they are one and the same. (However, this verse raises more questions than it answers—there are no mountains of note in Missouri. So, was the geography more expansive than Joseph or the early saints presumed?)

Because Adam left the Garden of Eden, and (by this reading) dwelt somewhere in or near Missouri, many members have concluded that the Garden of Eden must likewise be near by.

As President John Taylor wrote:

:it was stated by the Prophet Joseph Smith, in our hearing while standing on an elevated piece of ground or plateau near Adam-ondi-Ahman (Davis Co., Missouri,), where there were a number of rocks piled together, that the valley before us was the valley of Adam-ondi-Ahman; or in other words, the valley where God talked with Adam, and where he gathered his righteous posterity, as recorded in the above revelation, and that this pile of stones was an altar built by him when he offered up sacrifices, as we understand, on that occasion.{{ref|taylor1}}

===Garden of Eden: LDS statements===

Most early statements about the location of the Garden of Eden in LDS thought come via Brigham Young, but Brigham often made reference to Joseph Smith's teachings on the matter.

Brigham's history records that he told Orson Hyde (who had been to Palestine):

:You have been both to Jerusalem and Zion, and seen both. I have not seen either, for I have never been in Jackson County. Now it is a pleasant thing to think of and to know where the Garden of Eden was. Did you ever think of it? I do not think many do, for in Jackson County was the Garden of Eden. Joseph has declared this, and I am as much bound to believe that as to believe that Joseph was a prophet of God.{{ref|by1}}

This idea was a common one among 19th century members, at it seems likely that Joseph was the source of the idea (or, at the very least, the members' ''perception'' of what Joseph had told them).

'''''Heber C. Kimball''''' (1863):

:...the spot chosen for the garden of Eden was Jackson County, in the State of Missouri, where Independence now stands; it was occupied in the morn of creation by Adam and his associates who came with him for the express purpose of peopling this earth. {{ref|hck1}}

'''''George Q. Cannon''''' (1867):

:We appreciate the home that God has given us here, so fruitful in blessings [p.337] to the Saints; but we look forward to that land with indescribable feelings, because it is the place where God has said His City shall be built. It is the land where Adam, the Ancient of Days, will gather his posterity again, and where the blessings of God will descend upon them. It is the land for which the wise and learned have travelled and sought in vain. Asia has been ransacked in endeavouring to locate the Garden of Eden. Men have supposed that because the Ark rested on Ararat that the flood commenced there, or rather that it was from thence the Ark started to sail. But God in His revelations has informed us that it was on this choice land of Joseph where Adam was placed and the Garden of Eden was laid out. The spot has been designated, and we look forward with peculiar feelings to repossessing that land.{{ref|gqc1}}

'''''Wilford Woodruff''''' quoting Brigham Young (1879):

:[spelling as original diary] Again Presdet Young said Joseph the Prophet told me that the garden of Eden was in Jackson Co Missouri, & when Adam was driven out of the garden of Eden He went about 40 miles to the Place which we Named Adam Ondi Ahman, & there built an Altar of Stone & offered Sacrifize. That Altar remains to this day. I saw it as Adam left it as did many others, & through all the revolutions of the world that Altar had not been disturbed.{{ref|ww1}}

==Parallels with other religious traditions==

The early Saints' view of a Garden of Eden "local" to them has its parallels in other religious traditions.

The Garden of Eden or the primordial paradise of the race is often seen as the "center of the world," or the cosmic point around which all creation turns (sometimes called an ''axis mundi'' or ''umbilicum mundi''—the "navel" of the world).

Martin Luther warned that "we ask in vain today where and what that garden was" (155). Suarez said that knowledge of the earthly paradise was necessary to understand "all that the scriptures tell us of the condition of humanity before sin"

One student of the subject stated that during the 16th and 17th centuries the "location" of paradise was more important that any other question regarding it.{{ref|delumeau1}} And various religions have placed the Garden of Eden was in their part of the world.

Bishop Pierre-Daniel Huet (1691) a member of the French Academy, wrote of the wide variety of speculation and opinion on this subject

:[The earthly paradise] has been located in the third heaven, in the fourth, in the heaven of the moon, on the moon itself, on a mountain close to the heaven of the moon, in the middle region of the air, outside the earth, on the earth, under the earth, and in a hidden place far removed from human knowledge. It has been placed under the Arctic pole.... Some have located it... either on the banks of the Ganges or on the island of Ceylon, and have even derived the name 'India' from the word 'Eden.'... Others have located it in the Americas, others in Africa below the equator, others in the equinoctial East, others on the mountain of the moon, from which they believed the Nile to flow. Most have located it in Asia: some in Greater Armenia, others in Mesopotamia or Assyria or Persia or Babylonia or Arabia or Syria or Palestine. There have even been those who wished to honor our Europe and, in a move that strays into complete irrelevance, have located it in Hedin, a town in Artois, their reason being the similarity between the words 'Hedin' and 'Eden'" {{ref|delumeau2}}

The Bible itself seems to place the Garden of Eden at the center of the world:

:10 And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads.
:11 The name of the first is Pison: that is it which compasseth the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold;
:12 And the gold of that land is good: there is bdellium and the onyx stone.
:13 And the name of the second river is Gihon: the same is it that compasseth the whole land of Ethiopia.
:14 And the name of the third river is Hiddekel: that is it which goeth toward the east of Assyria. And the fourth river is Euphrates. ({{s||Genesis|2|10-14}})

The named rivers represent four of the great rivers of the known world, yet this description does not match any modern known configuration. It may be better to view these verses as a symbolic expression of Eden at "the center" of all that was known.

There is also a Jewish tradition that the Garden of Eden was in Jerusalem. There is a spring of water there known as the Gihon, one of the unidentified rivers of Paradise. {{b||Ezekiel|28|13}} says “You were in Eden, the garden of God,” and then parallels that in the next verse with “you were on the holy mountain of God,” generally understood as the temple mount. There is important symbolism here. If a Jewish tradition can assign the location of the Garden to its traditional headquarters—Jerusalem—it is not surprising to have a Mormon tradition assigning the location of the Garden to Jackson County, Missouri, which for a time was its church headquarters and which according to prophecy will be again some time in the future.

==Apologetic approaches==

Members and others sometimes ask how Abraham, Moses and other near eastern Bible prophets ended up in the Old World if Adam and Eden were in the Americas. A variety of approaches have been suggested for this issue:

# Some have conceptualilzed the earth as having only one land mass (e.g., Pangaea) even into historical time, which was only separated in the days of Peleg ({{s||Genesis|10|25}}).
# Those who accept a universal Noachian flood simply see Noah floating from a New World site to Ararat in the Old.
# Those who accept a "limited flood" theory see a similar process occuring whereby Noah traveled down rivers or from sea coasts with the flood's arrival. (This would, in effect, be a reversal of the Book of Mormon's Old World to New World migrations).
# Since there is evidence for human migration over the Siberia-Alaska land bridge from Old to New World, some have postulated travel in the opposite direction.
# It has been suggested that the Lord gave a ''second'' site the name of Adam-ondi-Ahman in the Americas, while the original site was located elsewhere, in the Old World (see discussion [[Garden_of_Eden_in_Missouri%3F#An_alternate_reading:_two_sites.3F|above]]). In this model, early Church leaders assumed that there was only one Adam-ondi-Ahman, when there were (in fact) two.
# Some have seen the concept of Eden as a symbolic idea which acted to "sacralize" the Americas for a new gospel dispensation, without having reference to actual geographic realities. Early members then made this concept more literal than intended.
# Some see Eden as a place which was always "separate" from the fallen world around it, and so regard questions about the present "location" of Eden as non-sensical.
# Many, perhaps most, members consider the matter of relatively little importance, and have no strong feelings about the issue at all.

It must be noted that there is little, if any, scriptural or scientific evidence to support any of the above hypotheses. The solution chosen by an individual member will probably depend mostly on their attitudes to other issues about which there is no official Church position and a variety of positions espoused by members. These issues include matters such as the issue of [[Death before the Fall]], [[Evolution]], [[Pre-Adamites]], the nature of Noah's [[Global_or_local_Flood|Flood]], the extent to which scripture ought to be interpreted literally, and related topics.

==Conclusion==

Although we have no contemporaneous record of Joseph Smith teaching explicitly that the Garden of Eden was in Missouri, that reading is consistent with LDS scripture, and there is substantial later testimony from Joseph's associates that he did teach such an idea.

Most Latter-day Saints are aware of this, though it is a relatively minor point that plays little role in LDS theology. (By contrast, the idea that the New Jerusalem—Zion—will be built in the Americas looms much larger in LDS consciousness.)

This idea perhaps strikes most non-members as odd, but not simply because the Saints have an opinion about the Garden's location—as we have seen, religions of all stripes have had a wide variety of views on the subject. What likely strikes outside American observers as strange is the idea that the Garden is local—the LDS view does not place the Garden in a never-never land, buried in distant time and far-away space. Rather, the LDS Garden is local and somewhat immediate.

Upon reflection, though, the thoughtful observer will realize that this is simply one more manifestation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints' uniqueness: rather than believing only in dead prophets, from long ago, in distant lands, in old records, the Church also embraces modern revelation, living prophets, and an on-going divine involvement with God's people. The gospel restored by Joseph Smith does not merely sacralize the past, but the present and future as well—and, it sacralizes both lofty matters and more earthly concerns like farms, hills, and geography.

It is this intrusion of the sacred into the mundane that surprises most observers—the issue of the Garden is merely one more example of a broader phenomenon.

==Endnotes==
# {{note|lds1}} {{ldspress|article=Approaching Mormon Doctrine|date=4 May 2007|url=http://www.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=970af549db852110VgnVCM100000176f620aRCRD&vgnextchannel=f5f411154963d010VgnVCM1000004e94610aRCRD}}
#{{note|hc1}} See also {{HoC1|vol=3|start=35}}
#{{note|aof1}} See {{s||A+of+F|1|10}}.
#{{note|taylor1}} {{MediationAtonement1|start=69}}
#{{note|by1}} Brigham Young in Journal History of the Church (15 March 1857); cited in {{EaR1|start=396}}
#{{note|hck1}} {{JoD10_1|start=235|author=Heber C. Kimball|title=Advancement of the Saints, etc.|date=27 June 1863}}
#{{note|gqc1}} {{JoD11_1|start=336|date=3 March 1867|title=Truth to Be Received for Its Own Sake, etc.|author=George Q. Cannon}}
#{{note|ww1}} {{WWJ1 |vol=7|start=129|date=30 March 1879}}
#{{note|delumeau1}} Jean Delumeau, ''History of Paradise. The Garden of Eden in Myth and Tradition'' (New York: Continuum, 1995), 155.
#{{note|delumeau2}} Cited by Delumeau, 162.
==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===
{{AdamWiki}}

===FAIR web site===
{{AdamFAIR}}
===External links===
{{AdamLinks}}
===Printed material===
*Jean Delumeau, ''History of Paradise. The Garden of Eden in Myth and Tradition'' (New York: Continuum, 1995).
* Alessandro Scafi, ''Mapping Paradise. A History of Heaven on Earth'' (University of Chicago Press 2006).
* {{EaR|start=394|end=397}}
{{AdamPrint}}

User:BrandonHansen

2007-12-03T20:05:36Z

BrandonHansen: stick something up there

I'm a Mechanical Engineer in Houston, TX.

Talk:Mormonism and the nature of God/Polytheism

2007-12-03T20:04:53Z

BrandonHansen: References and a conclusion

== References and a conclusion ==

I went through the article and cleaned up some messy wording/spelling/grammar, but it still needs a lot of work. As a whole, it feels argumentative and there is a significant lack of references. I particularly do not like the second paragraph of the conclusion, but I was (as of yet) unable to come up with something better. --[[User:BrandonHansen|Brandon]] 13:04, 3 December 2007 (MST)

Mormonism and the nature of God/Polytheism

2007-12-03T20:02:54Z

BrandonHansen: /* Conclusion */ wording

{{GodPortal}}
{{question}}
{{GermanWiki|http://www.de.fairmormon.org/index.php/Polytheismus}}

==Question==

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

===Source(s) of the Criticism===

* {{50Questions}}

==Response==

Almost invariably when someone claims Mormons are polytheists, they are not seeking a clear explanation of Mormon thought on the nature of God, but are simply using a word with negative connotations in our religious culture as a club to intimidate or confuse others.

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

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

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

The facts that the LDS do not believe the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are one in [[Godhead and the Trinity|substance]], and believe in [[Deification of man|deification/theosis]] (that humans may eventually become deified and become partakers in the divine nature), could be used to paint Mormons as in some sense polytheists.

When we examine the technical terminology above, though, it becomes clear that a key point of demarcation is worship v. acknowledgment of existence. If members of the Church worshiped an extensive pantheon like the Greeks or Romans, then the label would be appropriate. However, in the context of doctrinal differences over the relationship among the Father, Son and Holy Ghost or the doctrine of deification (which is a profoundly Christian doctrine and not just a Mormon one), use of the word "polytheistic" as a pejorative is both inaccurate and inappropriate.

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

===Are Christians monotheists?===

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

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


===Human deification and monotheism===

The New Testament has language indicating human beings can and should eventually become one with Jesus just as he is one with his Father. Building on this concept, there is abundant evidence of deification being taught by various Christians. If belief in theosis makes one a polytheist, many Christians would have to be so labeled - including such figures as C. S. Lewis and John Calvin. Clearly, this is not the way in which the term "polytheist," is normally used, but critics of the Church are often willing to be inconsistent if the Church can be made to look alien or "unChristian."

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

==Conclusion==

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

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

==Endnotes==
''None''

==Further reading==

William O. Nelson, “Is the LDS View of God Consistent with the Bible?” ''Ensign'', July 1987, ---.

===FAIR wiki articles===

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

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

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

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

===Printed material===
{{GodPrint}}

Mormonism and the nature of God/Polytheism

2007-12-03T20:00:41Z

BrandonHansen: /* Human deification and monotheism */ spelling, wording

{{GodPortal}}
{{question}}
{{GermanWiki|http://www.de.fairmormon.org/index.php/Polytheismus}}

==Question==

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

===Source(s) of the Criticism===

* {{50Questions}}

==Response==

Almost invariably when someone claims Mormons are polytheists, they are not seeking a clear explanation of Mormon thought on the nature of God, but are simply using a word with negative connotations in our religious culture as a club to intimidate or confuse others.

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

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

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

The facts that the LDS do not believe the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are one in [[Godhead and the Trinity|substance]], and believe in [[Deification of man|deification/theosis]] (that humans may eventually become deified and become partakers in the divine nature), could be used to paint Mormons as in some sense polytheists.

When we examine the technical terminology above, though, it becomes clear that a key point of demarcation is worship v. acknowledgment of existence. If members of the Church worshiped an extensive pantheon like the Greeks or Romans, then the label would be appropriate. However, in the context of doctrinal differences over the relationship among the Father, Son and Holy Ghost or the doctrine of deification (which is a profoundly Christian doctrine and not just a Mormon one), use of the word "polytheistic" as a pejorative is both inaccurate and inappropriate.

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

===Are Christians monotheists?===

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

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


===Human deification and monotheism===

The New Testament has language indicating human beings can and should eventually become one with Jesus just as he is one with his Father. Building on this concept, there is abundant evidence of deification being taught by various Christians. If belief in theosis makes one a polytheist, many Christians would have to be so labeled - including such figures as C. S. Lewis and John Calvin. Clearly, this is not the way in which the term "polytheist," is normally used, but critics of the Church are often willing to be inconsistent if the Church can be made to look alien or "unChristian."

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

==Conclusion==

Latter-day Saints are not polytheists in any reasonable sense of the term that does not also exclude most other Christians who deny the Modalist heresy.

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

However, trying to reduce LDS thought to a simple term or "slogan" will distort the doctrine.

==Endnotes==
''None''

==Further reading==

William O. Nelson, “Is the LDS View of God Consistent with the Bible?” ''Ensign'', July 1987, ---.

===FAIR wiki articles===

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

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

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

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

===Printed material===
{{GodPrint}}

Mormonism and the nature of God/Polytheism

2007-12-03T19:58:31Z

BrandonHansen: /* Are Christians monotheists? */ rmv extra lines

{{GodPortal}}
{{question}}
{{GermanWiki|http://www.de.fairmormon.org/index.php/Polytheismus}}

==Question==

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

===Source(s) of the Criticism===

* {{50Questions}}

==Response==

Almost invariably when someone claims Mormons are polytheists, they are not seeking a clear explanation of Mormon thought on the nature of God, but are simply using a word with negative connotations in our religious culture as a club to intimidate or confuse others.

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

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

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

The facts that the LDS do not believe the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are one in [[Godhead and the Trinity|substance]], and believe in [[Deification of man|deification/theosis]] (that humans may eventually become deified and become partakers in the divine nature), could be used to paint Mormons as in some sense polytheists.

When we examine the technical terminology above, though, it becomes clear that a key point of demarcation is worship v. acknowledgment of existence. If members of the Church worshiped an extensive pantheon like the Greeks or Romans, then the label would be appropriate. However, in the context of doctrinal differences over the relationship among the Father, Son and Holy Ghost or the doctrine of deification (which is a profoundly Christian doctrine and not just a Mormon one), use of the word "polytheistic" as a pejorative is both inaccurate and inappropriate.

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

===Are Christians monotheists?===

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

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


===Human deification and monotheism===

In addition, the New Testament has language indicating that human beings can and should eventually become one with Jesus just as he is one
with his Father. Flowing from that idea one finds all over the place the idea of deification taught by various Christians. If belief in theosis makes one a polytheist, many Christians would have to be so labaled: including such figures as C. S. Lewis and John Calvin. Clearly, this is not the way in which the term "polytheist," is normally used, but critics of the Church are often willing to be inconsistent if the Church can be made to look alien or "unChristian."

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

==Conclusion==

Latter-day Saints are not polytheists in any reasonable sense of the term that does not also exclude most other Christians who deny the Modalist heresy.

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

However, trying to reduce LDS thought to a simple term or "slogan" will distort the doctrine.

==Endnotes==
''None''

==Further reading==

William O. Nelson, “Is the LDS View of God Consistent with the Bible?” ''Ensign'', July 1987, ---.

===FAIR wiki articles===

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

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

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

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

===Printed material===
{{GodPrint}}

Mormonism and the nature of God/Polytheism

2007-12-03T19:58:15Z

BrandonHansen: /* Are Christians monotheists? */ comment out poorly written section; wording

{{GodPortal}}
{{question}}
{{GermanWiki|http://www.de.fairmormon.org/index.php/Polytheismus}}

==Question==

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

===Source(s) of the Criticism===

* {{50Questions}}

==Response==

Almost invariably when someone claims Mormons are polytheists, they are not seeking a clear explanation of Mormon thought on the nature of God, but are simply using a word with negative connotations in our religious culture as a club to intimidate or confuse others.

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

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

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

The facts that the LDS do not believe the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are one in [[Godhead and the Trinity|substance]], and believe in [[Deification of man|deification/theosis]] (that humans may eventually become deified and become partakers in the divine nature), could be used to paint Mormons as in some sense polytheists.

When we examine the technical terminology above, though, it becomes clear that a key point of demarcation is worship v. acknowledgment of existence. If members of the Church worshiped an extensive pantheon like the Greeks or Romans, then the label would be appropriate. However, in the context of doctrinal differences over the relationship among the Father, Son and Holy Ghost or the doctrine of deification (which is a profoundly Christian doctrine and not just a Mormon one), use of the word "polytheistic" as a pejorative is both inaccurate and inappropriate.

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

===Are Christians monotheists?===

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

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



===Human deification and monotheism===

In addition, the New Testament has language indicating that human beings can and should eventually become one with Jesus just as he is one
with his Father. Flowing from that idea one finds all over the place the idea of deification taught by various Christians. If belief in theosis makes one a polytheist, many Christians would have to be so labaled: including such figures as C. S. Lewis and John Calvin. Clearly, this is not the way in which the term "polytheist," is normally used, but critics of the Church are often willing to be inconsistent if the Church can be made to look alien or "unChristian."

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

==Conclusion==

Latter-day Saints are not polytheists in any reasonable sense of the term that does not also exclude most other Christians who deny the Modalist heresy.

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

However, trying to reduce LDS thought to a simple term or "slogan" will distort the doctrine.

==Endnotes==
''None''

==Further reading==

William O. Nelson, “Is the LDS View of God Consistent with the Bible?” ''Ensign'', July 1987, ---.

===FAIR wiki articles===

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

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

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

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

===Printed material===
{{GodPrint}}

Mormonism and the nature of God/Polytheism

2007-12-03T19:53:19Z

BrandonHansen: /* Response */ spelling, wording

{{GodPortal}}
{{question}}
{{GermanWiki|http://www.de.fairmormon.org/index.php/Polytheismus}}

==Question==

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

===Source(s) of the Criticism===

* {{50Questions}}

==Response==

Almost invariably when someone claims Mormons are polytheists, they are not seeking a clear explanation of Mormon thought on the nature of God, but are simply using a word with negative connotations in our religious culture as a club to intimidate or confuse others.

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

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

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

The facts that the LDS do not believe the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are one in [[Godhead and the Trinity|substance]], and believe in [[Deification of man|deification/theosis]] (that humans may eventually become deified and become partakers in the divine nature), could be used to paint Mormons as in some sense polytheists.

When we examine the technical terminology above, though, it becomes clear that a key point of demarcation is worship v. acknowledgment of existence. If members of the Church worshiped an extensive pantheon like the Greeks or Romans, then the label would be appropriate. However, in the context of doctrinal differences over the relationship among the Father, Son and Holy Ghost or the doctrine of deification (which is a profoundly Christian doctrine and not just a Mormon one), use of the word "polytheistic" as a pejorative is both inaccurate and inappropriate.

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

===Are Christians monotheists?===

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

One of the chief objections by Jews and Muslims is that Christians are polytheists. Most brands of Christians insist on the divinity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. In addition, the very word that those who crafted the great ecumenical creeds used to describe the deity of Jesus and also his Father and
the Holy Spirit is trinity, which means three. And they insisted that they should not be confounded. To do that is modalism, which was one of the primary heresies that led to the formation of the ecumenical creeds and various confessions. Modalism often insists that the one God merely ''appears'' to us in three different way—that is as Father, Son and Holy Spirit. This is exactly what the creeds deny.

Christians of almost all brands have tried to stress that the three persons are one. But how? In "essence," whatever that is? Or in a social group where they are united in purpose and so forth, even though they have independent centers of consciousness?

===Human deification and monotheism===

In addition, the New Testament has language indicating that human beings can and should eventually become one with Jesus just as he is one
with his Father. Flowing from that idea one finds all over the place the idea of deification taught by various Christians. If belief in theosis makes one a polytheist, many Christians would have to be so labaled: including such figures as C. S. Lewis and John Calvin. Clearly, this is not the way in which the term "polytheist," is normally used, but critics of the Church are often willing to be inconsistent if the Church can be made to look alien or "unChristian."

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

==Conclusion==

Latter-day Saints are not polytheists in any reasonable sense of the term that does not also exclude most other Christians who deny the Modalist heresy.

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

However, trying to reduce LDS thought to a simple term or "slogan" will distort the doctrine.

==Endnotes==
''None''

==Further reading==

William O. Nelson, “Is the LDS View of God Consistent with the Bible?” ''Ensign'', July 1987, ---.

===FAIR wiki articles===

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

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

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

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

===Printed material===
{{GodPrint}}

Mormonism and the nature of God/Polytheism

2007-12-03T19:46:24Z

BrandonHansen: /* Question */ Improve wording

{{GodPortal}}
{{question}}
{{GermanWiki|http://www.de.fairmormon.org/index.php/Polytheismus}}

==Question==

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

===Source(s) of the Criticism===

* {{50Questions}}

==Response==

Almost invariably when someone claims that Mormons are polytheists, they are not seeking a clear explanation of Mormon thought on the nature of God, but are simply using a word with negative connotations in our religious culture as a club to intimdate or confuse others.

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

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

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

The fact that the LDS do not believe that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are one in [[Godhead and the Trinity|substance]], and the fact that the Saints believe in [[Deification of man|deification/theosis]] (that humans may eventually become deified and become partakers in the divine nature), could be used to paint Mormons as in some sense polytheists.

But when we examine the technical terminology above, it becomes clear that a key point of demarcation is worship v. acknowledgement of existence. If members of the Church worshiped an extensive pantheon like the Greeks or Romans, then the label would be appropriate. But in the context of doctrinal differences over the relationship among the Father, Son and Holy Ghost or the doctrine of deification (which is a profoundly Christian doctrine and not just a Mormon one), use of the word "polytheistic" as a pejorative is both inaccurate and inappropriate.

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

===Are Christians monotheists?===

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

One of the chief objections by Jews and Muslims is that Christians are polytheists. Most brands of Christians insist on the divinity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. In addition, the very word that those who crafted the great ecumenical creeds used to describe the deity of Jesus and also his Father and
the Holy Spirit is trinity, which means three. And they insisted that they should not be confounded. To do that is modalism, which was one of the primary heresies that led to the formation of the ecumenical creeds and various confessions. Modalism often insists that the one God merely ''appears'' to us in three different way—that is as Father, Son and Holy Spirit. This is exactly what the creeds deny.

Christians of almost all brands have tried to stress that the three persons are one. But how? In "essence," whatever that is? Or in a social group where they are united in purpose and so forth, even though they have independent centers of consciousness?

===Human deification and monotheism===

In addition, the New Testament has language indicating that human beings can and should eventually become one with Jesus just as he is one
with his Father. Flowing from that idea one finds all over the place the idea of deification taught by various Christians. If belief in theosis makes one a polytheist, many Christians would have to be so labaled: including such figures as C. S. Lewis and John Calvin. Clearly, this is not the way in which the term "polytheist," is normally used, but critics of the Church are often willing to be inconsistent if the Church can be made to look alien or "unChristian."

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

==Conclusion==

Latter-day Saints are not polytheists in any reasonable sense of the term that does not also exclude most other Christians who deny the Modalist heresy.

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

However, trying to reduce LDS thought to a simple term or "slogan" will distort the doctrine.

==Endnotes==
''None''

==Further reading==

William O. Nelson, “Is the LDS View of God Consistent with the Bible?” ''Ensign'', July 1987, ---.

===FAIR wiki articles===

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

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

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

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

===Printed material===
{{GodPrint}}

Repudiated ideas about race

2007-09-07T18:05:51Z

BrandonHansen: /* Is interracial marriage condemned? */ rmv repeated word

{{draft}}
{{RacePortal}}
==Repudiated ideas==

Although there is much we do not know about the ban, some past ideas have been rejected by the current leaders of the Church. These include:

===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}}
{{nw}}

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

Brigham Young and Adam-God theory

2007-09-07T17:56:07Z

BrandonHansen: /* Conclusion */ reword for clarity

{{CreationPortal}}
==Criticism==
Critics accuse Brigham Young of teaching that Adam, the first man, was actually God the Father. Since this teaching runs counter to the story told in Genesis and commonly accepted by Christians, critics accuse Brigham of being a false prophet. Also, because modern Latter-day Saints do not believe Brigham's "Adam-God" teachings, critics accuse Mormons of either changing their teachings or rejecting teachings of prophets they find uncomfortable or unsupportable.

==Response==

===Origins===
Brigham Young gave over 1,500 sermons that were recorded by transcribers. Many of these were published in the ''Journal of Discourses'', the ''Deseret Evening News'', and other Church publications. In about 20 of these he brought up the subject of God the Father's relationship to Adam. Most of his comments fit easily into current LDS doctrine, while a few of them have engendered some controversy.

He made the best known, and probably earliest, controversial statement in a sermon given on 9 April 1852:

:Now hear it, O inhabitants of the earth, Jew and Gentile, Saint and sinner! When our father Adam came into the garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him. He helped to make and organize this world. He is MICHAEL, the Archangel, the ANCIENT OF DAYS! about whom holy men have written and spoken—He is our FATHER and our GOD, and the only God with whom WE have to do. Every man upon the earth, professing Christians or non-professing, must hear it, and will know it sooner or later. They came here, organized the raw material, and arranged in their order the herbs of the field, the trees, the apple, the peach, the plum, the pear, and every other fruit that is desirable and good for man; the seed was brought from another sphere, and planted in this earth. The thistle, the thorn, the brier, and the obnoxious weed did not appear until after the earth was cursed. When Adam and Eve had eaten of the forbidden fruit, their bodies became mortal from its effects, and therefore their offspring were mortal.{{ref|by1}}
Based on these remarks, and others like them, it is evident that Brigham Young's understanding of the relationship between God and Adam was different from the one that has been accepted by most Mormons.

The historical record indicates that some contemporary Latter-day Saints took Brigham's teachings at face value and attempted to incorporate the doctrine into mainstream LDS teachings. This response was far from universal, however, and lost steam after the turn of the 20th century.

Adam-God eventually was incorporated into the teaching of some polygamous Mormon offshoot sects, who consider it a doctrine whose absence in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is proof that the Church is in apostasy.

As far as can be determined, none of Brigham Young's successors in the presidency of the Church continued this teaching, and by the presidency of Joseph F. Smith (1901–18) there were active moves to censure small groups that taught Adam-God.

One of the earliest statements from the Church rejecting Adam-God teachings was made by Charles W. Penrose in 1902:

:The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has never formulated or adopted any theory concerning the subject treated upon by President Young as to Adam.{{ref|penrose1}}

In October 1976 general conference, Spencer W. Kimball declared the Church's official position on Adam-God:

:We warn you against the dissemination of doctrines which are not according to the Scriptures and which are alleged to have been taught by some of the General Authorities of past generations. Such, for instance, is the Adam-God theory. We denounce that theory and hope that everyone will be cautioned against this and other kinds of false doctrine.{{ref|kimball1}}

===Apologetic approaches===
There have been a number of attempts to explain Brigham Young's comments and harmonize them with mainstream LDS thought.

*The most well-known is the approach taken by Joseph Fielding Smith that Brigham was speaking of Adam in the context of him being the presiding priesthood holder over all the human family, and therefore "our Father and our God", similar to how Moses was called a god to Aaron and Pharaoh ([http://scriptures.lds.org/ex/4/16#16 Exodus 4:16]; [http://scriptures.lds.org/ex/7/1#1 7:1]). Smith wrote:
::President Brigham Young was thoroughly acquainted with the doctrine of the Church. He studied the ''Doctrine and Covenants'' and many times quoted from it the particular passages concerning the relationship of Adam to Jesus Christ. He knew perfectly that Adam was subordinate and obedient to Jesus Christ. He knew perfectly that Adam had been placed at the head of the human family by commandment of the Father, and this doctrine he taught during the many years of his ministry. When he said Adam was the only god with whom we have to do, he evidently had in mind this passage given by revelation through Joseph Smith: [quotes [http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/78/15-16#15 D&C 78:15–16]].{{ref|jfs1}}
:It is difficult to reconcile President Smith's explanation with all of Brigham's Adam-God sermons and how the Saints in Brigham's day understood them. This explanation is perhaps the most widely-known, but it suffers from the lack a full analysis of all of Brigham's statments on Adam-God.
*A related approach is that scribal limitations and transmission errors resulted in unclear transcripts that do not convey Brigham Young's original meaning. Some feel, however, that this possibility cannot fully account for all the statements he made on this subject.
*LDS researcher Elden Watson, editor of the multi-volume ''Brigham Young Addresses'', believes that Brigham used the term "Adam" as a name-title for both God the Father ("Adam Sr.") and the man Adam ("Adam Jr."), comparable to the way "Elias" is used as a title meaning "forerunner" and applied to various people (see [http://scriptures.lds.org/bde/elias LDS Bible Dictionary]). According to Watson, the reason modern readers miss this is our failure to take into account all of Brigham's sermons in context.{{ref|watson1}} Watson has the advantage of being more familiar with Brigham Young's sermons than perhaps any other living researcher. However, his theory has not been widely accepted, partly because it is not widely known, and partly because Brigham never directly explained his Adam-God teachings in the way Watson interprets them.
*Another approach, championed by LDS researcher Van Hale, is that Brigham Young believed and taught Adam-God, but that he was mistaken.{{ref|hale1}} Prophets are human beings and like anyone may misunderstand complex doctrinal subjects, especially ones on which there has been little or no revelation. Elder Bruce R. McConkie also took this position in a letter he wrote in 1981:
::Yes, President Young did teach that Adam was the father of our spirits, and all the related things that the cultists ascribe to him. This, however, is not true. He expressed views that are out of harmony with the gospel. But, be it known, Brigham Young also taught accurately and correctly, the status and position of Adam in the eternal scheme of things. What I am saying is that Brigham Young, contradicted Brigham Young, and the issue becomes one of which Brigham Young we will believe. The answer is we will believe the expressions that accord with the teachings in the Standard Works.{{ref|mcconkie1}}
*A final explanation is that Brigham Young believed and taught Adam-God, and what he taught was possibly true, but he didn't see fit to explain all he knew or didn't live long enough to develop the teaching into something that could be reconciled with LDS scripture and presented as official doctrine. In this view, we simply don't know what Brigham Young meant, and modern leaders have warned us about accepting traditional explanations of Adam-God, so we should just leave that belief "on the shelf" until the Lord sees fit to reveal more about it. BYU professor Stephen E. Robinson wrote:
::Yet another way in which anti-Mormon critics often misrepresent LDS doctrine is in the presentation of anomalies as though they were the doctrine of the Church. Anomalies occur in every field of human endeavor, even in science. An anomaly is something unexpected that cannot be explained by the existing laws or theories, but which does not constitute evidence for changing the laws and theories. An anomaly is a glitch.... A classic example of an anomaly in the LDS tradition is the so-called "Adam-God theory." During the latter half of the nineteenth century Brigham Young made some remarks about the relationship between Adam and God that the Latter-day Saints have never been able to understand. The reported statements conflict with LDS teachings before and after Brigham Young, as well as with statements of President Young himself during the same period of time. So how do Latter-day Saints deal with the phenomenon? We don't; we simply set it aside. It is an anomaly. On occasion my colleagues and I at Brigham Young University have tried to figure out what Brigham Young might have actually said and what it might have meant, but the attempts have always failed. The reported statements simply do not compute—we cannot make sense out of them. This is not a matter of believing it or disbelieving it; we simply don't know what "it" is. If Brigham Young were here we could ask him what he actually said and what he meant by it, but he is not here.... For the Latter-day Saints, however, the point is moot, since whatever Brigham Young said, true or false, was never presented to the Church for a sustaining vote. It was not then and is not now a doctrine of the Church, and...the Church has merely set the phenomenon aside as an anomaly.{{ref|robinson1}}

==Conclusion==
Regardless of which approach the reader prefers to accept, the Church's official position on Adam-God is clear: As popularly understood, Adam-God (i.e., "Adam, the first man, was God the Father") is not the doctrine of the Church.

==Endnotes==
#{{note|by1}}{{JoD1|author=Brigham Young|title=Discourse|date=9 April 1852|start=50|end=51}} (Emphasis in the original.)
#{{note|penrose1}}{{IE1|author=Charles W. Penrose|article=Our Father Adam|date=September 1902|start=873}} reprinted in {{MS|author=Charles W. Penrose|article=Our Father Adam|vol=?|date=11 December 1902|start=785|end=790}} (this paragraph from p. 789).
#{{note|kimball1}}{{Ensign1|author=Spencer W. Kimball|article=Our Own Liahona|date=November 1976|start=77}}{{link|url=http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/1976.htm/ensign%20november%201976.htm/our%20own%20liahona%20.htm}}
#{{note|jfs1}}{{DoS|vol=1|start=98|end=99}}
#{{note|watson1}}Elden Watson, "Different Thoughts #7: Adam-God" {{link|url=http://eldenwatson.net/7AdamGod.htm}}
#{{note|hale1}}Van Hale, "What About the Adam-God Theory?," Mormon Miscellaneous response series #3 (n.p., 1982).{{link|url=http://www.lightplanet.com/response/adam-god.htm}}
#{{note|mcconkie1}}Bruce R. McConkie, letter to Eugene England, (19 February 1981): 6.
#{{note|robinson1}}{{aremormonschristians|start=18|end=21}} {{link|url=http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/response/general/christians/ser2.htm}}{{GL1|url=http://gospelink.com/library/doc?doc_id=263969}}

==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===
{{AdamWiki}}

===FAIR web site===
{{AdamFAIR}}

===External links===
{{AdamLinks}}

===Printed material===
{{AdamPrint}}

Mormonism and doctrine/Repudiated concepts/Blood atonement

2007-09-07T16:36:21Z

BrandonHansen: +source section

==Criticism==
Critics claim that during the administration of Brigham Young apostates were secretly put to death. They claim this is in line with the teachings of LDS leaders at the time that apostasy was the unforgivable sin, and that the only thing an apostate could do to redeem himself was to give his own life, willingly or unwillingly.

===Source(s) of the Criticism===
*"Achilles" [pen name for Samuel D. Sirrine], ''The Destroying Angels of Mormondom; or a Sketch of the Life of Orrin Porter Rockwell, the Late Danite Chief''. {{ref|destroyingangels}}
*William Hall, ''Abominations of Mormonism Exposed; Containing Many Facts and Doctrines Concerning That Singular People, During Seven Year's Membership with Them; From 1840 to 1847''.{{ref|abominations}}

==Response==
Despite a number of rhetorical statements by LDS leaders in the late 1850s, there is no evidence that anyone was "blood atoned" at the orders of Brigham Young or any other general authority. Contemporary claims for such actions uniformly come from anti-Mormon books and newspapers with lurid titles such as ''The Destroying Angels of Mormondom''{{ref|destroyingangels}} and ''Abominations of Mormonism Exposed''.{{ref|abominations}}

The First Presidency issued an official declaration on the matter of killing apostates, as a form of blood atonement, in 1889. This declaration reads, in part:

:Notwithstanding all the stories told about the killing of apostates, no case of this kind has ever occurred, and of course has never been established against the Church we represent. Hundreds of seceders from the Church have continuously resided and now live in this territory, many of whom have amassed considerable wealth, though bitterly opposed to the Mormon faith and people. Even those who made it their business to fabricate the vilest falsehoods, and to render them plausible by culling isolated passages from old sermons without the explanatory context, and have suffered no opportunity to escape them of vilifying and blackening the characters of the people, have remained among those whom they have thus persistently calumniated until the present day, without receiving the slightest personal injury.

:We denounce as entirely untrue the allegation which has been made, that our Church favors or believes in the killing of persons who leave the Church or apostatize from its doctrines. We would view a punishment of this character for such an act with the utmost horror; it is abhorrent to us and is in direct opposition to the fundamental principles of our creed.{{ref|dec1}}

===Specific claims===
This section will respond to specific examples of people purportedly "blood atoned."

====Thomas Coleman (or Colbourn)====
Thomas Coleman (referred to as "Colbourn" in some sources) was a black Mormon employed by Brigham Young at the Salt Lake House hotel. In 1866, Coleman was apparently discovered talking discreetly with a woman he was believed to be courting, and the men who discovered them together killed him and mutilated his body. A label was placed on his body: "Notice to all niggers! Leave white women alone!!!"{{ref|unionvedette}} His death was purportedly covered up by an all-Mormon grand jury.

The difficulty here is that "blood atonement" was supposedly applied to ''endowed Mormons who apostatized.'' While Coleman may have been a Mormon, he definitely wasn't an endowed member, nor was he an apostate. Assuming the reported circumstances of his death are true, they are a tragic example of racism, one all too common in that time period.

==Conclusion==
While one is no doubt able to dig up examples of blood being shed by those of the LDS faith, accusations are unsupported which seek to establish these as activities promoted, condoned, or concealed by the LDS church or its leaders generally.

==Endnotes==
#{{note|destroyingangels}}"Achilles" [pen name for Samuel D. Sirrine], ''The Destroying Angels of Mormondom; or a Sketch of the Life of Orrin Porter Rockwell, the Late Danite Chief,'' (San Francisco, 1878).
#{{note|abominations}}William Hall, ''Abominations of Mormonism Exposed; Containing Many Facts and Doctrines Concerning That Singular People, During Seven Year's Membership with Them; From 1840 to 1847'' (Cincinnati, 1852).
#{{note|dec1}}Offical Declaration, 12 December 1889, signed by the First Presidency (Wilford Woodruff, George Q. Cannon, and Joseph F. Smith), the Quorum of the Twelve (Lorenzo Snow, Franklin D. Richards, Brigham Young Jr., Moses Thatcher, Francis M. Lyman, John Henry Smith, George Teasdale, Heber J. Grant, John W. Taylor, M.W. Merrill, A.H. Lund, and Abraham H. Cannon), and counselors (John W. Young and Daniel H. Wells).
#{{note|unionvedette}}''Union Vedette,'' (13 December 1866): page 3. A scan of the article is available {{link|url=http://udn.lib.utah.edu/cgi-bin/docviewer.exe?CISOROOT=/vedette&CISOPTR=21317&CISOSHOW=21320&CISOSHOW2=21340 here}}

==Further reading==

===FAIR web site===
*FAIR Topical Guide: Blood atonement {{fairlink|url=http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai048.html}}
*Michael Parker, "Did Brigham Young Say that He Would Kill an Adulterous Wife with a Javelin?" {{fairlink|url=http://www.fairlds.org/apol/misc/misc35.html}}

Mormonism and doctrine/Repudiated concepts/Blood atonement

2007-09-07T16:33:38Z

BrandonHansen: +conclusion

==Criticism==
Critics claim that during the administration of Brigham Young apostates were secretly put to death. They claim this is in line with the teachings of LDS leaders at the time that apostasy was the unforgivable sin, and that the only thing an apostate could do to redeem himself was to give his own life, willingly or unwillingly.

==Response==
Despite a number of rhetorical statements by LDS leaders in the late 1850s, there is no evidence that anyone was "blood atoned" at the orders of Brigham Young or any other general authority. Contemporary claims for such actions uniformly come from anti-Mormon books and newspapers with lurid titles such as ''The Destroying Angels of Mormondom''{{ref|destroyingangels}} and ''Abominations of Mormonism Exposed''.{{ref|abominations}}

The First Presidency issued an official declaration on the matter of killing apostates, as a form of blood atonement, in 1889. This declaration reads, in part:

:Notwithstanding all the stories told about the killing of apostates, no case of this kind has ever occurred, and of course has never been established against the Church we represent. Hundreds of seceders from the Church have continuously resided and now live in this territory, many of whom have amassed considerable wealth, though bitterly opposed to the Mormon faith and people. Even those who made it their business to fabricate the vilest falsehoods, and to render them plausible by culling isolated passages from old sermons without the explanatory context, and have suffered no opportunity to escape them of vilifying and blackening the characters of the people, have remained among those whom they have thus persistently calumniated until the present day, without receiving the slightest personal injury.

:We denounce as entirely untrue the allegation which has been made, that our Church favors or believes in the killing of persons who leave the Church or apostatize from its doctrines. We would view a punishment of this character for such an act with the utmost horror; it is abhorrent to us and is in direct opposition to the fundamental principles of our creed.{{ref|dec1}}

===Specific claims===
This section will respond to specific examples of people purportedly "blood atoned."

====Thomas Coleman (or Colbourn)====
Thomas Coleman (referred to as "Colbourn" in some sources) was a black Mormon employed by Brigham Young at the Salt Lake House hotel. In 1866, Coleman was apparently discovered talking discreetly with a woman he was believed to be courting, and the men who discovered them together killed him and mutilated his body. A label was placed on his body: "Notice to all niggers! Leave white women alone!!!"{{ref|unionvedette}} His death was purportedly covered up by an all-Mormon grand jury.

The difficulty here is that "blood atonement" was supposedly applied to ''endowed Mormons who apostatized.'' While Coleman may have been a Mormon, he definitely wasn't an endowed member, nor was he an apostate. Assuming the reported circumstances of his death are true, they are a tragic example of racism, one all too common in that time period.

==Conclusion==
While one is no doubt able to dig up examples of blood being shed by those of the LDS faith, accusations are unsupported which seek to establish these as activities promoted, condoned, or concealed by the LDS church or its leaders generally.

==Endnotes==
#{{note|destroyingangels}}"Achilles" [pen name for Samuel D. Sirrine], ''The Destroying Angels of Mormondom; or a Sketch of the Life of Orrin Porter Rockwell, the Late Danite Chief,'' (San Francisco, 1878).
#{{note|abominations}}William Hall, ''Abominations of Mormonism Exposed; Containing Many Facts and Doctrines Concerning That Singular People, During Seven Year's Membership with Them; From 1840 to 1847'' (Cincinnati, 1852).
#{{note|dec1}}Offical Declaration, 12 December 1889, signed by the First Presidency (Wilford Woodruff, George Q. Cannon, and Joseph F. Smith), the Quorum of the Twelve (Lorenzo Snow, Franklin D. Richards, Brigham Young Jr., Moses Thatcher, Francis M. Lyman, John Henry Smith, George Teasdale, Heber J. Grant, John W. Taylor, M.W. Merrill, A.H. Lund, and Abraham H. Cannon), and counselors (John W. Young and Daniel H. Wells).
#{{note|unionvedette}}''Union Vedette,'' (13 December 1866): page 3. A scan of the article is available {{link|url=http://udn.lib.utah.edu/cgi-bin/docviewer.exe?CISOROOT=/vedette&CISOPTR=21317&CISOSHOW=21320&CISOSHOW2=21340 here}}

==Further reading==

===FAIR web site===
*FAIR Topical Guide: Blood atonement {{fairlink|url=http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai048.html}}
*Michael Parker, "Did Brigham Young Say that He Would Kill an Adulterous Wife with a Javelin?" {{fairlink|url=http://www.fairlds.org/apol/misc/misc35.html}}

Mormonism and doctrine/Repudiated concepts/Blood atonement

2007-09-07T16:22:48Z

BrandonHansen: /* Response */ typos

==Criticism==
Critics claim that during the administration of Brigham Young apostates were secretly put to death. They claim this is in line with the teachings of LDS leaders at the time that apostasy was the unforgivable sin, and that the only thing an apostate could do to redeem himself was to give his own life, willingly or unwillingly.

==Response==
Despite a number of rhetorical statements by LDS leaders in the late 1850s, there is no evidence that anyone was "blood atoned" at the orders of Brigham Young or any other general authority. Contemporary claims for such actions uniformly come from anti-Mormon books and newspapers with lurid titles such as ''The Destroying Angels of Mormondom''{{ref|destroyingangels}} and ''Abominations of Mormonism Exposed''.{{ref|abominations}}

The First Presidency issued an official declaration on the matter of killing apostates, as a form of blood atonement, in 1889. This declaration reads, in part:

:Notwithstanding all the stories told about the killing of apostates, no case of this kind has ever occurred, and of course has never been established against the Church we represent. Hundreds of seceders from the Church have continuously resided and now live in this territory, many of whom have amassed considerable wealth, though bitterly opposed to the Mormon faith and people. Even those who made it their business to fabricate the vilest falsehoods, and to render them plausible by culling isolated passages from old sermons without the explanatory context, and have suffered no opportunity to escape them of vilifying and blackening the characters of the people, have remained among those whom they have thus persistently calumniated until the present day, without receiving the slightest personal injury.

:We denounce as entirely untrue the allegation which has been made, that our Church favors or believes in the killing of persons who leave the Church or apostatize from its doctrines. We would view a punishment of this character for such an act with the utmost horror; it is abhorrent to us and is in direct opposition to the fundamental principles of our creed.{{ref|dec1}}

===Specific claims===
This section will respond to specific examples of people purportedly "blood atoned."

====Thomas Coleman (or Colbourn)====
Thomas Coleman (referred to as "Colbourn" in some sources) was a black Mormon employed by Brigham Young at the Salt Lake House hotel. In 1866, Coleman was apparently discovered talking discreetly with a woman he was believed to be courting, and the men who discovered them together killed him and mutilated his body. A label was placed on his body: "Notice to all niggers! Leave white women alone!!!"{{ref|unionvedette}} His death was purportedly covered up by an all-Mormon grand jury.

The difficulty here is that "blood atonement" was supposedly applied to ''endowed Mormons who apostatized.'' While Coleman may have been a Mormon, he definitely wasn't an endowed member, nor was he an apostate. Assuming the reported circumstances of his death are true, they are a tragic example of racism, one all too common in that time period.



==Endnotes==
#{{note|destroyingangels}}"Achilles" [pen name for Samuel D. Sirrine], ''The Destroying Angels of Mormondom; or a Sketch of the Life of Orrin Porter Rockwell, the Late Danite Chief,'' (San Francisco, 1878).
#{{note|abominations}}William Hall, ''Abominations of Mormonism Exposed; Containing Many Facts and Doctrines Concerning That Singular People, During Seven Year's Membership with Them; From 1840 to 1847'' (Cincinnati, 1852).
#{{note|dec1}}Offical Declaration, 12 December 1889, signed by the First Presidency (Wilford Woodruff, George Q. Cannon, and Joseph F. Smith), the Quorum of the Twelve (Lorenzo Snow, Franklin D. Richards, Brigham Young Jr., Moses Thatcher, Francis M. Lyman, John Henry Smith, George Teasdale, Heber J. Grant, John W. Taylor, M.W. Merrill, A.H. Lund, and Abraham H. Cannon), and counselors (John W. Young and Daniel H. Wells).
#{{note|unionvedette}}''Union Vedette,'' (13 December 1866): page 3. A scan of the article is available {{link|url=http://udn.lib.utah.edu/cgi-bin/docviewer.exe?CISOROOT=/vedette&CISOPTR=21317&CISOSHOW=21320&CISOSHOW2=21340 here}}

==Further reading==

===FAIR web site===
*FAIR Topical Guide: Blood atonement {{fairlink|url=http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai048.html}}
*Michael Parker, "Did Brigham Young Say that He Would Kill an Adulterous Wife with a Javelin?" {{fairlink|url=http://www.fairlds.org/apol/misc/misc35.html}}