FAIR - User contributions [en]

Plural marriage as a requirement for exaltation

2011-04-24T21:42:46Z

CarsonCalderwood: added a missing parenthesis

{{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}}
{{PolygamyPortal}}
=={{Criticism label}}==
Some Church leaders taught that plural marriage was a requirement for those wishing to enter the highest degree of the celestial kingdom. Because the Church does not currently practice plural marriage, critics claim this means that either the leaders were wrong, or that current members are not destined for exaltation.

{{CriticalSources}}

=={{Response label}}==
{{PolygamyRequired}}

Critics ignore that the purpose of modern prophets is to give the Saints the will of God in their particular circumstances. Wrote Joseph Smith specifically of the issue of plural marriage:

:This is the principle on which the government of heaven is conducted—by revelation adapted to the circumstances in which the children of the kingdom are placed...in obedience there is joy and peace unspotted, unalloyed; and as God has designed our happiness—and the happiness of all His creatures, he never has—He never will institute an ordinance or give a commandment to His people that is not calculated in its nature to promote that happiness which He has designed, and which will not end in the greatest amount of good and glory to those who become the recipients of his law and ordinances.{{ref|js1}}

LDS doctrine also holds that the prophet, when speaking in an official capacity, speaks on behalf of the Lord:

:whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same. ({{s||DC|1|38}})

Critics of the Church often come out of an inerrantist background, or draw on arguments first formulated by religious inerrantists or fundamentalists. In an inerrantist religion, God's instructions cannot change with circumstances—if they did, then the Biblical record would not be sufficient, on its own, to guide us. Since inerrantists require, above all, that the Bible be the sole authority, they must assume that God's requirements are always the same.

However, even the Bible gives many examples of God giving new instructions because of new circumstances, or contravening previous instructions:
* Noah (but no other prophet) was to build an Ark ({{s||Genesis|6|14}})
* Moses implemented the Passover, which was hitherto unknown ({{s||Exodus|3|12-28}})
* Jesus revoked the celebration of Passover, and modified the ordinance and its performance at the Last Supper ({{s||Matthew|26|26}}, {{s||Mark|14|22}}, {{s||Luke|22|19}})
* Hosea was commanded to marry a prostitute as a sign to Israel {{s||Hosea|1|1-3}}
* Jesus told his disciples only to preach to Israelites ({{s||Matthew|10|5-6}}, {{s||Matthew|15|24}})
* The Lord later told the prophet (Peter) to preach to all people ({{s||Acts|10|14-28}})

In each case, failure to obey carried significant penalties. Yet, when proper authority altered or rescinded a command, spiritual disaster followed those who did not obey the new instructions.

Said President John Taylor:

:Where did this commandment come from in relation to polygamy? It also came from God. It was a revelation given unto Joseph Smith from God, and was made binding upon His servants. When this system was first introduced among this people, it was one of the greatest crosses that ever was taken up by any set of men since the world stood. Joseph Smith told others; he told me, and I can bear witness of it, "that if this principle was not introduced, this Church and kingdom could not proceed." When this commandment was given, it was so far religious, and so far binding upon the Elders of this Church that it was told them if they were not prepared to enter into it, and to stem the torrent of opposition that would come in consequence of it, the keys of the kingdom would be taken from them. When I see any of our people, men or women, opposing a principle of this kind, I have years ago set them down as on the high road to apostacy, and I do to-day; I consider them apostates, and not interested in this Church and kingdom.{{ref|taylor1}}

In response to a letter "received at the office of the First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" in 1912, Charles W. Penrose of the First Presidency wrote:

:Question 4: Is plural or celestial marriage essential to a fulness of glory in the world to come?

:Answer: Celestial marriage is essential to a fulness of glory in the world to come, as explained in the revelation concerning it; but it is not stated that plural marriage is thus essential. . . . These questions are answered, so that it may not be truthfully claimed that we avoid them. . . . {{ref|penrose1}}

=={{Conclusion label}}==

To obey the Lord's commands in all things is necessary for exaltation. (Our inevitable failure to live perfectly requires the grace of Christ's atonement.) Members of the Church in, say, 1860 who refused to follow the counsel of prophets and apostles put their spiritual standing in jeopardy. Likewise, members who refuse to obey present counsel are at risk.

This does not mean that present members of the Church believe that the principle of plural marriage is false—rather, they believe that it is a principle only to be practiced when the Lord commands it for His purposes.(See {{s||Jacob|2|27-30}}.)

=={{Endnotes label}}==
#{{note|js1}} {{HoC1|vol=5|start=135}}
#{{note|taylor1}} {{JDfairwiki|author=John Taylor|title=Our Religion Is From God|date=7 April 1866|vol=11|disc=34|start=221}}
#{{note|penrose1}}Charles W. Penrose, ''Improvement Era'', vol. 15, no. 11, September 1912, 1042.

=={{Further reading label}}==

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

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

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

==={{Printed material label}}===
{{PolygamyPrint}}
{{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:Polygamy/Requirement for exaltation]]

Joseph Smith/Accusations of false prophecies

2010-05-14T04:38:11Z

CarsonCalderwood: created an alternate JS page for search term "JS false prophet" to test search engine processing of mostly duplicate pages

==Joseph Smith False Prophet information page==

{{:Joseph_Smith/Prophecies}}

Important information concerning questions about Joseph Smith false prophet, Joseph Smith false prophecies, false prophet Joseph Smith, Joe Smith false prophet, Joseph Smith prophecies, prophecies Joseph Smith, Joseph Smith, false prophet.

User:CarsonCalderwood

2010-05-14T04:30:33Z

CarsonCalderwood:

Me...http://www.calderwood.org and http://calderwood.blogspot.com

Email: wiki [at] calderwood [dot] org

http://en.fairmormon.org/index.php/FAIRwiki:Templates#Footnote_.2F_Endnote_templates

http://en.fairmormon.org/FAIRWiki:Scripture_template_how_to

http://en.fairmormon.org/Reference_templates

transclusion test....http://en.fairmormon.org/Help:Editing

[[Joseph Smith - False Prophet]]

**************************1

{{:Joseph_Smith/Prophecies}}

**************************2

{{:Prophecies}}

**************************3

{{:/Prophecies}}

User:CarsonCalderwood

2010-05-14T04:28:55Z

CarsonCalderwood:

Me...http://www.calderwood.org and http://calderwood.blogspot.com

Email: wiki [at] calderwood [dot] org

http://en.fairmormon.org/index.php/FAIRwiki:Templates#Footnote_.2F_Endnote_templates

http://en.fairmormon.org/FAIRWiki:Scripture_template_how_to

http://en.fairmormon.org/Reference_templates

transclusion test....

[[Joseph Smith - False Prophet]]

**************************1

{{:Joseph_Smith/Prophecies}}

**************************2

{{:Prophecies}}

**************************3

{{:/Prophecies}}

User:CarsonCalderwood

2010-05-14T04:25:25Z

CarsonCalderwood:

Me...http://www.calderwood.org and http://calderwood.blogspot.com

Email: wiki [at] calderwood [dot] org

http://en.fairmormon.org/index.php/FAIRwiki:Templates#Footnote_.2F_Endnote_templates

http://en.fairmormon.org/FAIRWiki:Scripture_template_how_to

http://en.fairmormon.org/Reference_templates

transclusion test....

**************************1

{{:Joseph_Smith/Prophecies}}

**************************2

{{:Prophecies}}

**************************3

{{:/Prophecies}}

User:CarsonCalderwood

2010-05-14T04:24:38Z

CarsonCalderwood:

Me...http://www.calderwood.org and http://calderwood.blogspot.com

Email: wiki [at] calderwood [dot] org

http://en.fairmormon.org/index.php/FAIRwiki:Templates#Footnote_.2F_Endnote_templates

http://en.fairmormon.org/FAIRWiki:Scripture_template_how_to

http://en.fairmormon.org/Reference_templates

transclusion test....

{{:Alpha_and_Omega}}

**************************1

{{:Joseph_Smith/Prophecies}}

**************************2

{{:Prophecies}}

**************************3

{{:/Prophecies}}

User:CarsonCalderwood

2010-05-14T04:20:55Z

CarsonCalderwood:

User talk:InProgress/Same-sex attraction

2010-03-08T20:06:16Z

CarsonCalderwood: Notes to discussion about the link needing work

Re: the following quote, ""Those commandments, if they are not adhered to, result in guilt. That guilt is painful to people. There are two solutions to that guilt. One is to disbelieve in God or hold a congress and pretend that you can change God's commandments. The other is to discontinue that kind of conduct to the best of your ability."[29]"

I tried to get a copy of the transcript since the only copy that I can find on the internet to link to is on a site we don't link to per fairwiki styleguide.

The station (KUTV) said the following: "Hi there! Unfortunately, that would be nearly impossible for us. You may want to try to contact Utah News Clips and see if they would be able to help. Their number is 801.463.0101."

Waiting for call back from UNC to see if they have any transcripts...

Affordable news clips, the other place that keeps past show transcripts said, "Thanks for your email. Unfortunately, our archives do not go back that far. The stations themselves may or may not still have it depending on the story, but their policy is that they don't give anything out unless it's subpoenaed for legal reasons. Other than that, there's really no way to do it. I get this question a lot and I never have an answer. Sorry about that. Let me know if you have any other questions."

If no one does, I recommend replacing that quote to one we can document.

Carson

Question: How can a person reaffirm their testimony when they learn disconcerting facts that may bring their testimony into doubt?

2010-03-08T06:22:00Z

CarsonCalderwood: /* Answer */ add link to mormonscholarstestify.org

{{question}}
{{nw}}
==Question==
How can a person reaffirm their testimony when they learn disconcerting facts that may bring their testimony into doubt?

==Answer==
First of all, remember that sometime in the past you received a spiritual witness to some extent about some aspect of church doctrine. Building upon this you can have the desire to reconcile your conflict.

Also, understand that there isn’t a single “disconcerting” fact that eludes the general body of church history and doctrine. There are many church historians and scholars that are considered the world’s most knowledgeable specialist in areas of church history, doctrine and scientific facts. They are fully aware and fully comfortable with their [http://mormonscholarstestify.org/ testimonies].

===Source of the Problem===
The problem at hand usually arises when a person receives a testimony and has an incorrect understanding of the church or gospel. In other words, their gospel paradigm is flawed. The individual’s testimony was a manifestation from God, through the Holy Spirit witnessing to them that the gospel of Jesus Christ is true. They did not receive a witness that their complete understanding of the gospel and how everything in the world relates to it is 100% correct.

Later, a fact is discovered that is in opposition to the paradigm they had when they received their testimony. A logical fallacy [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy (definition)] occurs when the person feels that both their paradigm and their testimony are now erroneous. In reality, their paradigm was mistaken, but their testimony (witness in the divinity of the Savior, restoration, priesthood, etc.) was correct.

===Examples===
For example, a youth in seminary gains a testimony and at the same time believes that the entire earth was immersed in water at the time of the flood as part of an earthly baptism. Later on in college he learns from history and geology many facts that make him not believe in a flood that covered the highest peak of the highest mountain on earth. He begins to doubt his testimony in the Bible because he gained it while holding this erroneous personal belief. Rather than casting his testimony aside he should consider that as an imperfect person his paradigm was incorrect and his loving Father in Heaven blessed him with a spiritual manifestation about the truthfulness of the gospel.

We also find an example of this in the scriptures. Near the end of John 6 the followers of Jesus learned some tough doctrine {{s||John|6|60-66}} and “many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.” Peter does not falter and his testimony deepens. It is even at one time certified by the Savior {{s||Matt|16|17}}.

===During Your Time of Doubt===
Keep your faith as you work out your doubt. For example, Peter did not expect the death of the Savior. After the crucifixion, Peter’s testimony is shaken. His personal paradigm did not factor in a death for his Messiah. Instead of leaving everything behind at this critical moment Peter stays in the right place (with the Saints) while in doubt and is therefore able to witness the reappearance of the Savior. Now his paradigm has shifted to a more correct understanding and his testimony has been confirmed again. Later, he is better able to handle another paradigm shift when a doctrine changes, taking the gospel to the gentiles. Furthermore, he is able to take this experience and help others, “think it not strange concerning the fiery trial which is to try you, as though some strange thing happened unto you.” {{s|1|Peter|4|12}}

===Reconciliation===
Why do some people struggle with disconcerting information when others do not? Those that do not ever struggle are definitely in the minority. That strength is most likely due to having a personal spiritual gift of faith. Sometimes, members who are not currently struggling with their own testimonies will incorrectly assume that another person’s struggles come from living an unworthy life. Although sin can be a source of doubt, it is not always the case. Rather than condemning, it would be more in line with the example of our Savior to reach out and help those in their time of need.

To reconcile your new paradigm with your previously gained testimony you must not forget the latter. Your testimony is key. Your testimony is a gift that you can fall back on if ever new information is learned that allows you to gain a more perfect understanding. As an imperfect being, one must always be willing to accept that their comprehension of the gospel or church history is flawed and therefore, an adjustment of your paradigm may be required from time to time.

==Endnotes==

''None''



==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===
{{HolyGhostwiki}}

===FAIR web site===
{{HolyGhostFAIR}}

===Videos===
{{Video:Ulrich:2005:Cognitive Dissonance}}

===External links===
{{HolyGhostLinks}}

===Printed material===
{{HolyGhostPrint}}

Question: How can a person reaffirm their testimony when they learn disconcerting facts that may bring their testimony into doubt?

2010-03-08T05:49:31Z

CarsonCalderwood: /* Reconciliation */

{{question}}
{{nw}}
==Question==
How can a person reaffirm their testimony when they learn disconcerting facts that may bring their testimony into doubt?

==Answer==
First of all, remember that sometime in the past you received a spiritual witness to some extent about some aspect of church doctrine. Building upon this you can have the desire to reconcile your conflict.

Also, understand that there isn’t a single “disconcerting” fact that eludes the general body of church history and doctrine. There are many church historians that are considered the world’s most knowledgeable specialist in areas of church history and doctrine. They are fully aware and fully comfortable with their testimony.

===Source of the Problem===
The problem at hand usually arises when a person receives a testimony and has an incorrect understanding of the church or gospel. In other words, their gospel paradigm is flawed. The individual’s testimony was a manifestation from God, through the Holy Spirit witnessing to them that the gospel of Jesus Christ is true. They did not receive a witness that their complete understanding of the gospel and how everything in the world relates to it is 100% correct.

Later, a fact is discovered that is in opposition to the paradigm they had when they received their testimony. A logical fallacy [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy (definition)] occurs when the person feels that both their paradigm and their testimony are now erroneous. In reality, their paradigm was mistaken, but their testimony (witness in the divinity of the Savior, restoration, priesthood, etc.) was correct.

===Examples===
For example, a youth in seminary gains a testimony and at the same time believes that the entire earth was immersed in water at the time of the flood as part of an earthly baptism. Later on in college he learns from history and geology many facts that make him not believe in a flood that covered the highest peak of the highest mountain on earth. He begins to doubt his testimony in the Bible because he gained it while holding this erroneous personal belief. Rather than casting his testimony aside he should consider that as an imperfect person his paradigm was incorrect and his loving Father in Heaven blessed him with a spiritual manifestation about the truthfulness of the gospel.

We also find an example of this in the scriptures. Near the end of John 6 the followers of Jesus learned some tough doctrine {{s||John|6|60-66}} and “many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.” Peter does not falter and his testimony deepens. It is even at one time certified by the Savior {{s||Matt|16|17}}.

===During Your Time of Doubt===
Keep your faith as you work out your doubt. For example, Peter did not expect the death of the Savior. After the crucifixion, Peter’s testimony is shaken. His personal paradigm did not factor in a death for his Messiah. Instead of leaving everything behind at this critical moment Peter stays in the right place (with the Saints) while in doubt and is therefore able to witness the reappearance of the Savior. Now his paradigm has shifted to a more correct understanding and his testimony has been confirmed again. Later, he is better able to handle another paradigm shift when a doctrine changes, taking the gospel to the gentiles. Furthermore, he is able to take this experience and help others, “think it not strange concerning the fiery trial which is to try you, as though some strange thing happened unto you.” {{s|1|Peter|4|12}}

===Reconciliation===
Why do some people struggle with disconcerting information when others do not? Those that do not ever struggle are definitely in the minority. That strength is most likely due to having a personal spiritual gift of faith. Sometimes, members who are not currently struggling with their own testimonies will incorrectly assume that another person’s struggles come from living an unworthy life. Although sin can be a source of doubt, it is not always the case. Rather than condemning, it would be more in line with the example of our Savior to reach out and help those in their time of need.

To reconcile your new paradigm with your previously gained testimony you must not forget the latter. Your testimony is key. Your testimony is a gift that you can fall back on if ever new information is learned that allows you to gain a more perfect understanding. As an imperfect being, one must always be willing to accept that their comprehension of the gospel or church history is flawed and therefore, an adjustment of your paradigm may be required from time to time.

==Endnotes==

''None''



==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===
{{HolyGhostwiki}}

===FAIR web site===
{{HolyGhostFAIR}}

===Videos===
{{Video:Ulrich:2005:Cognitive Dissonance}}

===External links===
{{HolyGhostLinks}}

===Printed material===
{{HolyGhostPrint}}

Question: How can a person reaffirm their testimony when they learn disconcerting facts that may bring their testimony into doubt?

2010-03-08T05:43:49Z

CarsonCalderwood: /* During Your Time Of Doubt */

{{question}}
{{nw}}
==Question==
How can a person reaffirm their testimony when they learn disconcerting facts that may bring their testimony into doubt?

==Answer==
First of all, remember that sometime in the past you received a spiritual witness to some extent about some aspect of church doctrine. Building upon this you can have the desire to reconcile your conflict.

Also, understand that there isn’t a single “disconcerting” fact that eludes the general body of church history and doctrine. There are many church historians that are considered the world’s most knowledgeable specialist in areas of church history and doctrine. They are fully aware and fully comfortable with their testimony.

===Source of the Problem===
The problem at hand usually arises when a person receives a testimony and has an incorrect understanding of the church or gospel. In other words, their gospel paradigm is flawed. The individual’s testimony was a manifestation from God, through the Holy Spirit witnessing to them that the gospel of Jesus Christ is true. They did not receive a witness that their complete understanding of the gospel and how everything in the world relates to it is 100% correct.

Later, a fact is discovered that is in opposition to the paradigm they had when they received their testimony. A logical fallacy [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy (definition)] occurs when the person feels that both their paradigm and their testimony are now erroneous. In reality, their paradigm was mistaken, but their testimony (witness in the divinity of the Savior, restoration, priesthood, etc.) was correct.

===Examples===
For example, a youth in seminary gains a testimony and at the same time believes that the entire earth was immersed in water at the time of the flood as part of an earthly baptism. Later on in college he learns from history and geology many facts that make him not believe in a flood that covered the highest peak of the highest mountain on earth. He begins to doubt his testimony in the Bible because he gained it while holding this erroneous personal belief. Rather than casting his testimony aside he should consider that as an imperfect person his paradigm was incorrect and his loving Father in Heaven blessed him with a spiritual manifestation about the truthfulness of the gospel.

We also find an example of this in the scriptures. Near the end of John 6 the followers of Jesus learned some tough doctrine {{s||John|6|60-66}} and “many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.” Peter does not falter and his testimony deepens. It is even at one time certified by the Savior {{s||Matt|16|17}}.

===During Your Time of Doubt===
Keep your faith as you work out your doubt. For example, Peter did not expect the death of the Savior. After the crucifixion, Peter’s testimony is shaken. His personal paradigm did not factor in a death for his Messiah. Instead of leaving everything behind at this critical moment Peter stays in the right place (with the Saints) while in doubt and is therefore able to witness the reappearance of the Savior. Now his paradigm has shifted to a more correct understanding and his testimony has been confirmed again. Later, he is better able to handle another paradigm shift when a doctrine changes, taking the gospel to the gentiles. Furthermore, he is able to take this experience and help others, “think it not strange concerning the fiery trial which is to try you, as though some strange thing happened unto you.” {{s|1|Peter|4|12}}

===Reconciliation===
Why do some people struggle with disconcerting information when others do not? Those that do not ever struggle are definitely in the minority. That strength is most likely due to having a personal spiritual gift of faith. Sometimes, members who are not currently struggling will incorrectly assume that a person’s struggles come from living an unworthy life. Although this can be a source of doubt, it is not always the case. Rather than condemning, it would be more in line with the example of our Savior to reach out and help those in their time of need.

To reconcile your new paradigm with your previously gained testimony you must not forget the latter. Your testimony is key. Your testimony is a gift that you can fall back on if ever new information is learned that allows you to gain a more perfect understanding. As an imperfect being, one must always be willing to accept that their comprehension of the gospel or church history is flawed and therefore, an adjustment of your paradigm may be required from time to time.

==Endnotes==

''None''



==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===
{{HolyGhostwiki}}

===FAIR web site===
{{HolyGhostFAIR}}

===Videos===
{{Video:Ulrich:2005:Cognitive Dissonance}}

===External links===
{{HolyGhostLinks}}

===Printed material===
{{HolyGhostPrint}}

Question: How can a person reaffirm their testimony when they learn disconcerting facts that may bring their testimony into doubt?

2010-03-08T05:40:34Z

CarsonCalderwood: /* Examples */

{{question}}
{{nw}}
==Question==
How can a person reaffirm their testimony when they learn disconcerting facts that may bring their testimony into doubt?

==Answer==
First of all, remember that sometime in the past you received a spiritual witness to some extent about some aspect of church doctrine. Building upon this you can have the desire to reconcile your conflict.

Also, understand that there isn’t a single “disconcerting” fact that eludes the general body of church history and doctrine. There are many church historians that are considered the world’s most knowledgeable specialist in areas of church history and doctrine. They are fully aware and fully comfortable with their testimony.

===Source of the Problem===
The problem at hand usually arises when a person receives a testimony and has an incorrect understanding of the church or gospel. In other words, their gospel paradigm is flawed. The individual’s testimony was a manifestation from God, through the Holy Spirit witnessing to them that the gospel of Jesus Christ is true. They did not receive a witness that their complete understanding of the gospel and how everything in the world relates to it is 100% correct.

Later, a fact is discovered that is in opposition to the paradigm they had when they received their testimony. A logical fallacy [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy (definition)] occurs when the person feels that both their paradigm and their testimony are now erroneous. In reality, their paradigm was mistaken, but their testimony (witness in the divinity of the Savior, restoration, priesthood, etc.) was correct.

===Examples===
For example, a youth in seminary gains a testimony and at the same time believes that the entire earth was immersed in water at the time of the flood as part of an earthly baptism. Later on in college he learns from history and geology many facts that make him not believe in a flood that covered the highest peak of the highest mountain on earth. He begins to doubt his testimony in the Bible because he gained it while holding this erroneous personal belief. Rather than casting his testimony aside he should consider that as an imperfect person his paradigm was incorrect and his loving Father in Heaven blessed him with a spiritual manifestation about the truthfulness of the gospel.

We also find an example of this in the scriptures. Near the end of John 6 the followers of Jesus learned some tough doctrine {{s||John|6|60-66}} and “many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.” Peter does not falter and his testimony deepens. It is even at one time certified by the Savior {{s||Matt|16|17}}.

===During Your Time Of Doubt===
Nevertheless, Peter did not expect the death of the Savior. After the crucifixion, Peter’s testimony is shaken. His personal paradigm did not factor in a death for his Messiah. Instead of leaving everything behind at this critical moment Peter stays in the right place (with the Saints) while in doubt and is therefore able to witness the reappearance of the Savior. Now his paradigm has shifted and his testimony confirmed again. Later, he is better able to handle a paradigm shift when a doctrine changes, taking the gospel to the gentiles. Furthermore, he is able to take this experience and help others, “think it not strange concerning the fiery trial which is to try you, as though some strange thing happened unto you.” {{s|1|Peter|4|12}}

===Reconciliation===
Why do some people struggle with disconcerting information when others do not? Those that do not ever struggle are definitely in the minority. That strength is most likely due to having a personal spiritual gift of faith. Sometimes, members who are not currently struggling will incorrectly assume that a person’s struggles come from living an unworthy life. Although this can be a source of doubt, it is not always the case. Rather than condemning, it would be more in line with the example of our Savior to reach out and help those in their time of need.

To reconcile your new paradigm with your previously gained testimony you must not forget the latter. Your testimony is key. Your testimony is a gift that you can fall back on if ever new information is learned that allows you to gain a more perfect understanding. As an imperfect being, one must always be willing to accept that their comprehension of the gospel or church history is flawed and therefore, an adjustment of your paradigm may be required from time to time.

==Endnotes==

''None''



==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===
{{HolyGhostwiki}}

===FAIR web site===
{{HolyGhostFAIR}}

===Videos===
{{Video:Ulrich:2005:Cognitive Dissonance}}

===External links===
{{HolyGhostLinks}}

===Printed material===
{{HolyGhostPrint}}

Question: How can a person reaffirm their testimony when they learn disconcerting facts that may bring their testimony into doubt?

2010-03-08T05:38:19Z

CarsonCalderwood: /* Source of the Problem */ add link to define work for those that might not understand it

{{question}}
{{nw}}
==Question==
How can a person reaffirm their testimony when they learn disconcerting facts that may bring their testimony into doubt?

==Answer==
First of all, remember that sometime in the past you received a spiritual witness to some extent about some aspect of church doctrine. Building upon this you can have the desire to reconcile your conflict.

Also, understand that there isn’t a single “disconcerting” fact that eludes the general body of church history and doctrine. There are many church historians that are considered the world’s most knowledgeable specialist in areas of church history and doctrine. They are fully aware and fully comfortable with their testimony.

===Source of the Problem===
The problem at hand usually arises when a person receives a testimony and has an incorrect understanding of the church or gospel. In other words, their gospel paradigm is flawed. The individual’s testimony was a manifestation from God, through the Holy Spirit witnessing to them that the gospel of Jesus Christ is true. They did not receive a witness that their complete understanding of the gospel and how everything in the world relates to it is 100% correct.

Later, a fact is discovered that is in opposition to the paradigm they had when they received their testimony. A logical fallacy [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy (definition)] occurs when the person feels that both their paradigm and their testimony are now erroneous. In reality, their paradigm was mistaken, but their testimony (witness in the divinity of the Savior, restoration, priesthood, etc.) was correct.

===Examples===
For example, a youth in seminary gains a testimony and at the same time believes that the entire earth was immersed in water at the time of the flood as part of an earthly baptism. Later on in college he learns from history and geology many facts that make him not believe in a flood that covered the highest peak of the highest mountain on earth. He begins to doubt his testimony in the Bible because he gained it while holding this erroneous personal belief. Rather than casting his testimony aside he should consider that as an imperfect person his paradigm was incorrect and his loving Father in Heaven blessed him with a spiritual manifestation about the truthfulness of the gospel.

We also find an example of this in the scriptures. Near the end of John 6 the followers of Jesus learned some tough doctrine {{s||John|6|60-66}} and “many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.” Peter does not falter and his testimony deepens. It is even at one time certified by the Savior {{s||Matt|16|17}}.

Nevertheless, Peter did not expect the death of the Savior. After the crucifixion, Peter’s testimony is shaken. His personal paradigm did not factor in a death for his Messiah. Instead of leaving everything behind at this critical moment Peter stays in the right place (with the Saints) while in doubt and is therefore able to witness the reappearance of the Savior. Now his paradigm has shifted and his testimony confirmed again. Later, he is better able to handle a paradigm shift when a doctrine changes, taking the gospel to the gentiles. Furthermore, he is able to take this experience and help others, “think it not strange concerning the fiery trial which is to try you, as though some strange thing happened unto you.” {{s|1|Peter|4|12}}

===Reconciliation===
Why do some people struggle with disconcerting information when others do not? Those that do not ever struggle are definitely in the minority. That strength is most likely due to having a personal spiritual gift of faith. Sometimes, members who are not currently struggling will incorrectly assume that a person’s struggles come from living an unworthy life. Although this can be a source of doubt, it is not always the case. Rather than condemning, it would be more in line with the example of our Savior to reach out and help those in their time of need.

To reconcile your new paradigm with your previously gained testimony you must not forget the latter. Your testimony is key. Your testimony is a gift that you can fall back on if ever new information is learned that allows you to gain a more perfect understanding. As an imperfect being, one must always be willing to accept that their comprehension of the gospel or church history is flawed and therefore, an adjustment of your paradigm may be required from time to time.

==Endnotes==

''None''



==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===
{{HolyGhostwiki}}

===FAIR web site===
{{HolyGhostFAIR}}

===Videos===
{{Video:Ulrich:2005:Cognitive Dissonance}}

===External links===
{{HolyGhostLinks}}

===Printed material===
{{HolyGhostPrint}}

Mormonism and Christianity/Martyrdom in Christian history

2009-10-10T03:07:41Z

CarsonCalderwood: Made the various century sections subsets of the response section

{{JosephSmithPortal}}
{{question}}
==Question==
Critics claim that Joseph Smith is not a martyr because, while in jail, he fought back against those who attacked him. No one questions if he died for his religion. The question therefore is, has the definition of a Christian martyr always been understood only as one who does not fight back?

===Source(s) of the Criticism===
* Jerald and Sandra Tanner, ''Utah Lighthouse Ministry'' (accessed 7 May 2003).

==Response==

The 1828 edition of Webster's ''American Dictionary of the English Language'' {{link|url=http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/search/word,martyr}} Webster defines a martyr as the following:
: One who suffers death in defense of any cause. We say, a man dies a martyr to his political principles or to the cause of liberty.

Throughout history, Christian martyrs have both accepted their fate quietly '''''and''''' resisted with evasion or violence.

The classic Protestant work on martyrs is John Foxe, ''Fox's Book of Martyrs, Or A History of the Lives, Sufferings, and Triumphant Deaths of the Primitive Protestant Martyrs'' (First published 1563). {{link|url=http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/22400}}. Italics and emphasis added in all cases.

''(Note: Foxe's work has considerable prejudice against Roman Catholicism, because this was the politically dominant faith for much of the period about which he writes. The use of these accounts is intended in no way to impugn the good-will and dedication to religious liberty held by modern Roman Catholics.)''

===Undated===

In Tunis, if ''a christian slave is caught in attempting to escape'', his limbs are all broken, and if he murders his master, he is fastened to the tail of a horse, and dragged about the streets till he expires.

[184 {{link1|url=http://www.gutenberg.org/files/22400/22400-h/22400-h.htm#Page_184}}]

===14th century===

"An account of the Persecutions of Calabria"...

These authorized persons came to St. Xist, one of the towns built by the Waldenses, and having assembled the people told them, that they should receive no injury or violence, if they would accept of preachers appointed by the pope;[108] but if they would not, they should be deprived both of their properties and lives; and that their intentions might be known, mass should be publicly said that afternoon, at which they were ordered to attend.

The people of St. Xist, instead of attending mass, ''fled into the woods'', with their families, and thus disappointed the cardinal and his coadjutors…

The cardinal having gained his point by deluding the people of one town, sent for troops of soldiers, with a view to murder those of the other. He, accordingly, despatched the soldiers into the woods, to hunt down the inhabitants of St. Xist like wild beasts, and gave them strict orders to spare neither age nor sex, but to kill all they came near. The troops entered the woods, and many fell a prey to their ferocity, before the Waldenses were properly apprised of their design. At length, however, ''they determined to sell their lives as dear as possible'', when several conflicts happened, in which the half-armed Waldenses performed prodigies of valour, and ''many were slain'' on both sides. The ''greatest part of the troops being killed'' in the different rencontres, the rest were compelled to retreat, which so enraged the cardinal, that he wrote to the viceroy of Naples for reinforcements. [107–109, {{link1|url=http://www.gutenberg.org/files/22400/22400-h/22400-h.htm#Page_107}}]

----
"Account of the Persecutions in the Valleys of Piedmont"...

A great many more of the reformed were oppressed, or put to death, by various means, till the patience of the Waldenses being tired out, ''they flew to arms in their own defence'', and formed themselves into regular bodies.

Exasperated at this, the bishop of Turin procured a number of troops and sent against them; but ''in most of the skirmishes and engagements the Waldenses were successful'', which partly arose from their being better acquainted with the passes of the valleys of Piedmont than their adversaries, and partly from the desperation with which they fought; for they well knew, if they were taken, they should not be considered as prisoners of war, but tortured to death as heretics.
…
A party of the troops found a venerable man, upwards of a hundred years of age, together with his grand-daughter, a maiden, of about eighteen, in a cave. They butchered the poor old man in the most inhuman manner, and then attempted to ravish the girl, when she started away and fled from them; but they pursuing her, ''she threw herself from a precipice and perished''.

The Waldenses, in order ''the more effectually to be able to repel force by force'', entered into a league with the protestant powers of Germany…

[110–111 {{link1|url=http://www.gutenberg.org/files/22400/22400-h/22400-h.htm#Page_110}}]

===15th century===
Finding that his [Jerom of Prague's] arrival in Constance was publicly known, and that the council intended to seize him, ''he thought it most prudent to retire''…he wrote to the emperor, and proposed his readiness to appear before the council, ''if he would give him a safe-conduct''; but this was refused. He then applied to the council, but met with an answer no less unfavourable than that from the emperor.

[154-{{link1|url=http://www.gutenberg.org/files/22400/22400-h/22400-h.htm#Page_154}}]
----
John de Trocznow (Zisca)… immediately flew to arms, declared war against the emperor and the pope, and laid siege to Pilsen with 40,000 men….Compelled to pass through a part of the country ''where the plague raged, he was seized with it'' at the castle of Briscaw[160] and departed this life, October 6, 1424.

[157, 160 {{link|url=http://www.gutenberg.org/files/22400/22400-h/22400-h.htm#Page_157}}]

===17th century===
"An Account of the Persecutions in the Valleys of Piedmont, in the Seventeenth Century"…

This armed multitude being encouraged by the Roman catholic bishops and monks, fell upon the protestants in a most furious manner. Nothing now was to be seen but the face of horror and despair, blood stained the floors of the houses, dead bodies bestrewed the streets, groans and cries were heard from all parts. ''Some armed themselves, and skirmished with the troops''; and ''many, with their families, fled to the mountains.''
…

An inhabitant of La Torre, named Giovanni Andrea Michialm, was apprended, with four of his children, three of them were hacked to pieces before him, the soldiers asking him, at the death of every child, if he would renounce his religion which he constantly refused. One of the soldiers then took up the last and youngest by the legs, and putting the same question to the father he replied as before, when the inhuman brute dashed out the child's brains. The father, however, at the same moment started from them, and ''fled'': the soldiers fired after him, but missed him; and he, by the swiftness of his heels, escaped, and hid himself in the Alps.
[122, 125-126 {{link1|url=http://www.gutenberg.org/files/22400/22400-h/22400-h.htm#Page_122}}]
----
"Further Persecutions in the Valleys of Piedmont, in the seventeenth Century"…

A soldier, attempting to ravish a young woman, named Susanna Gacquin, ''she made a stout resistance, and in the struggle pushed him''[129] ''over a precipice, when he was dashed to pieces by the fall''.

[126, 128–129.{{link1|url=http://www.gutenberg.org/files/22400/22400-h/22400-h.htm#Page_126}}]
----
The persecution continued many years, when the ''remnant of the innumerable christians'', with which Japan abounded, to the number of 37,000 souls, retired to the town and castle of Siniabara, in the island of Xinio, where they ''determined to make a stand'', to continue in their faith, and to ''defend themselves to the very last extremity''.

The Japanese army pursued the christians, and laid siege to the place. The ''christians defended themselves with great bravery'', and held out against the besiegers for the space of three months, but were at length compelled to surrender, when men, women and children, were indiscriminately murdered; and christianity, '''''in their martyrdoms''''', entirely extirpated from Japan.

[181 {{link1|url=http://www.gutenberg.org/files/22400/22400-h/22400-h.htm#Page_181}}

==Conclusion==

Clearly, non-LDS authors have seen those who suffered for their beliefs to be martyrs even if they:
# tried to escape
# escaped successfully
# were killed in trying to escape
# were killed fighting back, even if the cause was not directly related to the persecutor (e.g., death from plague)
# fought back against their persecutors
# took up arms against their persecutors
# killed their persecutors
# entered into defensive warfare against their persecutors.

It is absurd, then, to insist that Joseph Smith and Hyrum were not martyrs because they did not allow themselves to be murdered without a fight.

==Endnotes==
#
==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===
{{DefinitionFallaciesWiki}}
{{JosephSmithWiki}}
===FAIR web site===
*{{tg|url=http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai241.html|topic=Martyrdom of Joseph and Hyrum Smith}}
*Lance Starr, "Was Joseph Smith a Martyr or a Murderer?," (Mesa, Arizona: FAIR, May 2003) {{pdflink|url=http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai241.html}}
{{JosephSmithFAIR}}

===External links===
* {{EoM|author=Joseph I. Bentley|article=Martyrdom of Joseph and Hyrum Smith|vol=2|start=860|end=862}}{{fairlink|url=http://ldsfaq.byu.edu/emmain.asp?number=113}}
*{{Ensign1|author=Reed Blake|article=Martyrdom at Carthage|date=June 1994|start=30}}{{link|url=http://library.lds.org/library/lpext.dll/ArchMagazines/Ensign/1994.htm/ensign%20june%201994.htm/martyrdom%20at%20carthage.htm?fn=document-frame.htm&f=templates&2.0}}
*{{1min|article=Was Joseph Smith Really a Martyr?|url=http://www.lightplanet.com/response/answers/martyr.htm}}
*W. John Walsh, "Was Joseph Smith a Martyr?" {{link|url=http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/response/qa/martyr_joseph.htm}}
{{JosephSmithLinks}}
===Printed material===
*{{CarthageConspiracy1|start=1}}{{NB}}
{{JosephSmithPrint}}

Mormonism and Christianity/Martyrdom in Christian history

2009-10-10T03:05:27Z

CarsonCalderwood: /* Response */

{{JosephSmithPortal}}
{{question}}
==Question==
Critics claim that Joseph Smith is not a martyr because, while in jail, he fought back against those who attacked him. No one questions if he died for his religion. The question therefore is, has the definition of a Christian martyr always been understood only as one who does not fight back?

===Source(s) of the Criticism===
* Jerald and Sandra Tanner, ''Utah Lighthouse Ministry'' (accessed 7 May 2003).

==Response==

The 1828 edition of Webster's ''American Dictionary of the English Language'' {{link|url=http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/search/word,martyr}} Webster defines a martyr as the following:
: One who suffers death in defense of any cause. We say, a man dies a martyr to his political principles or to the cause of liberty.

Throughout history, Christian martyrs have both accepted their fate quietly '''''and''''' resisted with evasion or violence.

The classic Protestant work on martyrs is John Foxe, ''Fox's Book of Martyrs, Or A History of the Lives, Sufferings, and Triumphant Deaths of the Primitive Protestant Martyrs'' (First published 1563). {{link|url=http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/22400}}. Italics and emphasis added in all cases.

''(Note: Foxe's work has considerable prejudice against Roman Catholicism, because this was the politically dominant faith for much of the period about which he writes. The use of these accounts is intended in no way to impugn the good-will and dedication to religious liberty held by modern Roman Catholics.)''

==Undated==

In Tunis, if ''a christian slave is caught in attempting to escape'', his limbs are all broken, and if he murders his master, he is fastened to the tail of a horse, and dragged about the streets till he expires.

[184 {{link1|url=http://www.gutenberg.org/files/22400/22400-h/22400-h.htm#Page_184}}]

==14th century==

"An account of the Persecutions of Calabria"...

These authorized persons came to St. Xist, one of the towns built by the Waldenses, and having assembled the people told them, that they should receive no injury or violence, if they would accept of preachers appointed by the pope;[108] but if they would not, they should be deprived both of their properties and lives; and that their intentions might be known, mass should be publicly said that afternoon, at which they were ordered to attend.

The people of St. Xist, instead of attending mass, ''fled into the woods'', with their families, and thus disappointed the cardinal and his coadjutors…

The cardinal having gained his point by deluding the people of one town, sent for troops of soldiers, with a view to murder those of the other. He, accordingly, despatched the soldiers into the woods, to hunt down the inhabitants of St. Xist like wild beasts, and gave them strict orders to spare neither age nor sex, but to kill all they came near. The troops entered the woods, and many fell a prey to their ferocity, before the Waldenses were properly apprised of their design. At length, however, ''they determined to sell their lives as dear as possible'', when several conflicts happened, in which the half-armed Waldenses performed prodigies of valour, and ''many were slain'' on both sides. The ''greatest part of the troops being killed'' in the different rencontres, the rest were compelled to retreat, which so enraged the cardinal, that he wrote to the viceroy of Naples for reinforcements. [107–109, {{link1|url=http://www.gutenberg.org/files/22400/22400-h/22400-h.htm#Page_107}}]

----
"Account of the Persecutions in the Valleys of Piedmont"...

A great many more of the reformed were oppressed, or put to death, by various means, till the patience of the Waldenses being tired out, ''they flew to arms in their own defence'', and formed themselves into regular bodies.

Exasperated at this, the bishop of Turin procured a number of troops and sent against them; but ''in most of the skirmishes and engagements the Waldenses were successful'', which partly arose from their being better acquainted with the passes of the valleys of Piedmont than their adversaries, and partly from the desperation with which they fought; for they well knew, if they were taken, they should not be considered as prisoners of war, but tortured to death as heretics.
…
A party of the troops found a venerable man, upwards of a hundred years of age, together with his grand-daughter, a maiden, of about eighteen, in a cave. They butchered the poor old man in the most inhuman manner, and then attempted to ravish the girl, when she started away and fled from them; but they pursuing her, ''she threw herself from a precipice and perished''.

The Waldenses, in order ''the more effectually to be able to repel force by force'', entered into a league with the protestant powers of Germany…

[110–111 {{link1|url=http://www.gutenberg.org/files/22400/22400-h/22400-h.htm#Page_110}}]

==15th century==
Finding that his [Jerom of Prague's] arrival in Constance was publicly known, and that the council intended to seize him, ''he thought it most prudent to retire''…he wrote to the emperor, and proposed his readiness to appear before the council, ''if he would give him a safe-conduct''; but this was refused. He then applied to the council, but met with an answer no less unfavourable than that from the emperor.

[154-{{link1|url=http://www.gutenberg.org/files/22400/22400-h/22400-h.htm#Page_154}}]
----
John de Trocznow (Zisca)… immediately flew to arms, declared war against the emperor and the pope, and laid siege to Pilsen with 40,000 men….Compelled to pass through a part of the country ''where the plague raged, he was seized with it'' at the castle of Briscaw[160] and departed this life, October 6, 1424.

[157, 160 {{link|url=http://www.gutenberg.org/files/22400/22400-h/22400-h.htm#Page_157}}]

==17th century==
"An Account of the Persecutions in the Valleys of Piedmont, in the Seventeenth Century"…

This armed multitude being encouraged by the Roman catholic bishops and monks, fell upon the protestants in a most furious manner. Nothing now was to be seen but the face of horror and despair, blood stained the floors of the houses, dead bodies bestrewed the streets, groans and cries were heard from all parts. ''Some armed themselves, and skirmished with the troops''; and ''many, with their families, fled to the mountains.''
…

An inhabitant of La Torre, named Giovanni Andrea Michialm, was apprended, with four of his children, three of them were hacked to pieces before him, the soldiers asking him, at the death of every child, if he would renounce his religion which he constantly refused. One of the soldiers then took up the last and youngest by the legs, and putting the same question to the father he replied as before, when the inhuman brute dashed out the child's brains. The father, however, at the same moment started from them, and ''fled'': the soldiers fired after him, but missed him; and he, by the swiftness of his heels, escaped, and hid himself in the Alps.
[122, 125-126 {{link1|url=http://www.gutenberg.org/files/22400/22400-h/22400-h.htm#Page_122}}]
----
"Further Persecutions in the Valleys of Piedmont, in the seventeenth Century"…

A soldier, attempting to ravish a young woman, named Susanna Gacquin, ''she made a stout resistance, and in the struggle pushed him''[129] ''over a precipice, when he was dashed to pieces by the fall''.

[126, 128–129.{{link1|url=http://www.gutenberg.org/files/22400/22400-h/22400-h.htm#Page_126}}]
----
The persecution continued many years, when the ''remnant of the innumerable christians'', with which Japan abounded, to the number of 37,000 souls, retired to the town and castle of Siniabara, in the island of Xinio, where they ''determined to make a stand'', to continue in their faith, and to ''defend themselves to the very last extremity''.

The Japanese army pursued the christians, and laid siege to the place. The ''christians defended themselves with great bravery'', and held out against the besiegers for the space of three months, but were at length compelled to surrender, when men, women and children, were indiscriminately murdered; and christianity, '''''in their martyrdoms''''', entirely extirpated from Japan.

[181 {{link1|url=http://www.gutenberg.org/files/22400/22400-h/22400-h.htm#Page_181}}

==Conclusion==

Clearly, non-LDS authors have seen those who suffered for their beliefs to be martyrs even if they:
# tried to escape
# escaped successfully
# were killed in trying to escape
# were killed fighting back, even if the cause was not directly related to the persecutor (e.g., death from plague)
# fought back against their persecutors
# took up arms against their persecutors
# killed their persecutors
# entered into defensive warfare against their persecutors.

It is absurd, then, to insist that Joseph Smith and Hyrum were not martyrs because they did not allow themselves to be murdered without a fight.

==Endnotes==
#
==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===
{{DefinitionFallaciesWiki}}
{{JosephSmithWiki}}
===FAIR web site===
*{{tg|url=http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai241.html|topic=Martyrdom of Joseph and Hyrum Smith}}
*Lance Starr, "Was Joseph Smith a Martyr or a Murderer?," (Mesa, Arizona: FAIR, May 2003) {{pdflink|url=http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai241.html}}
{{JosephSmithFAIR}}

===External links===
* {{EoM|author=Joseph I. Bentley|article=Martyrdom of Joseph and Hyrum Smith|vol=2|start=860|end=862}}{{fairlink|url=http://ldsfaq.byu.edu/emmain.asp?number=113}}
*{{Ensign1|author=Reed Blake|article=Martyrdom at Carthage|date=June 1994|start=30}}{{link|url=http://library.lds.org/library/lpext.dll/ArchMagazines/Ensign/1994.htm/ensign%20june%201994.htm/martyrdom%20at%20carthage.htm?fn=document-frame.htm&f=templates&2.0}}
*{{1min|article=Was Joseph Smith Really a Martyr?|url=http://www.lightplanet.com/response/answers/martyr.htm}}
*W. John Walsh, "Was Joseph Smith a Martyr?" {{link|url=http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/response/qa/martyr_joseph.htm}}
{{JosephSmithLinks}}
===Printed material===
*{{CarthageConspiracy1|start=1}}{{NB}}
{{JosephSmithPrint}}

Mormonism and Christianity/Martyrdom in Christian history

2009-10-10T02:41:09Z

CarsonCalderwood: /* Question */

{{JosephSmithPortal}}
{{question}}
==Question==
Critics claim that Joseph Smith is not a martyr because, while in jail, he fought back against those who attacked him. No one questions if he died for his religion. The question therefore is, has the definition of a Christian martyr always been understood only as one who does not fight back?

===Source(s) of the Criticism===
* Jerald and Sandra Tanner, ''Utah Lighthouse Ministry'' (accessed 7 May 2003).

==Response==

Throughout history, Christian martyrs have both accepted their fate quietly '''''and''''' resisted with evasion or violence.

The classic Protestant work on martyrs is John Foxe, ''Fox's Book of Martyrs, Or A History of the Lives, Sufferings, and Triumphant Deaths of the Primitive Protestant Martyrs'' (First published 1563). {{link|url=http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/22400}}. Italics and emphasis added in all cases.

''(Note: Foxe's work has considerable prejudice against Roman Catholicism, because this was the politically dominant faith for much of the period about which he writes. The use of these accounts is intended in no way to impugn the good-will and dedication to religious liberty held by modern Roman Catholics.)''

==Undated==

In Tunis, if ''a christian slave is caught in attempting to escape'', his limbs are all broken, and if he murders his master, he is fastened to the tail of a horse, and dragged about the streets till he expires.

[184 {{link1|url=http://www.gutenberg.org/files/22400/22400-h/22400-h.htm#Page_184}}]

==14th century==

"An account of the Persecutions of Calabria"...

These authorized persons came to St. Xist, one of the towns built by the Waldenses, and having assembled the people told them, that they should receive no injury or violence, if they would accept of preachers appointed by the pope;[108] but if they would not, they should be deprived both of their properties and lives; and that their intentions might be known, mass should be publicly said that afternoon, at which they were ordered to attend.

The people of St. Xist, instead of attending mass, ''fled into the woods'', with their families, and thus disappointed the cardinal and his coadjutors…

The cardinal having gained his point by deluding the people of one town, sent for troops of soldiers, with a view to murder those of the other. He, accordingly, despatched the soldiers into the woods, to hunt down the inhabitants of St. Xist like wild beasts, and gave them strict orders to spare neither age nor sex, but to kill all they came near. The troops entered the woods, and many fell a prey to their ferocity, before the Waldenses were properly apprised of their design. At length, however, ''they determined to sell their lives as dear as possible'', when several conflicts happened, in which the half-armed Waldenses performed prodigies of valour, and ''many were slain'' on both sides. The ''greatest part of the troops being killed'' in the different rencontres, the rest were compelled to retreat, which so enraged the cardinal, that he wrote to the viceroy of Naples for reinforcements. [107–109, {{link1|url=http://www.gutenberg.org/files/22400/22400-h/22400-h.htm#Page_107}}]

----
"Account of the Persecutions in the Valleys of Piedmont"...

A great many more of the reformed were oppressed, or put to death, by various means, till the patience of the Waldenses being tired out, ''they flew to arms in their own defence'', and formed themselves into regular bodies.

Exasperated at this, the bishop of Turin procured a number of troops and sent against them; but ''in most of the skirmishes and engagements the Waldenses were successful'', which partly arose from their being better acquainted with the passes of the valleys of Piedmont than their adversaries, and partly from the desperation with which they fought; for they well knew, if they were taken, they should not be considered as prisoners of war, but tortured to death as heretics.
…
A party of the troops found a venerable man, upwards of a hundred years of age, together with his grand-daughter, a maiden, of about eighteen, in a cave. They butchered the poor old man in the most inhuman manner, and then attempted to ravish the girl, when she started away and fled from them; but they pursuing her, ''she threw herself from a precipice and perished''.

The Waldenses, in order ''the more effectually to be able to repel force by force'', entered into a league with the protestant powers of Germany…

[110–111 {{link1|url=http://www.gutenberg.org/files/22400/22400-h/22400-h.htm#Page_110}}]

==15th century==
Finding that his [Jerom of Prague's] arrival in Constance was publicly known, and that the council intended to seize him, ''he thought it most prudent to retire''…he wrote to the emperor, and proposed his readiness to appear before the council, ''if he would give him a safe-conduct''; but this was refused. He then applied to the council, but met with an answer no less unfavourable than that from the emperor.

[154-{{link1|url=http://www.gutenberg.org/files/22400/22400-h/22400-h.htm#Page_154}}]
----
John de Trocznow (Zisca)… immediately flew to arms, declared war against the emperor and the pope, and laid siege to Pilsen with 40,000 men….Compelled to pass through a part of the country ''where the plague raged, he was seized with it'' at the castle of Briscaw[160] and departed this life, October 6, 1424.

[157, 160 {{link|url=http://www.gutenberg.org/files/22400/22400-h/22400-h.htm#Page_157}}]

==17th century==
"An Account of the Persecutions in the Valleys of Piedmont, in the Seventeenth Century"…

This armed multitude being encouraged by the Roman catholic bishops and monks, fell upon the protestants in a most furious manner. Nothing now was to be seen but the face of horror and despair, blood stained the floors of the houses, dead bodies bestrewed the streets, groans and cries were heard from all parts. ''Some armed themselves, and skirmished with the troops''; and ''many, with their families, fled to the mountains.''
…

An inhabitant of La Torre, named Giovanni Andrea Michialm, was apprended, with four of his children, three of them were hacked to pieces before him, the soldiers asking him, at the death of every child, if he would renounce his religion which he constantly refused. One of the soldiers then took up the last and youngest by the legs, and putting the same question to the father he replied as before, when the inhuman brute dashed out the child's brains. The father, however, at the same moment started from them, and ''fled'': the soldiers fired after him, but missed him; and he, by the swiftness of his heels, escaped, and hid himself in the Alps.
[122, 125-126 {{link1|url=http://www.gutenberg.org/files/22400/22400-h/22400-h.htm#Page_122}}]
----
"Further Persecutions in the Valleys of Piedmont, in the seventeenth Century"…

A soldier, attempting to ravish a young woman, named Susanna Gacquin, ''she made a stout resistance, and in the struggle pushed him''[129] ''over a precipice, when he was dashed to pieces by the fall''.

[126, 128–129.{{link1|url=http://www.gutenberg.org/files/22400/22400-h/22400-h.htm#Page_126}}]
----
The persecution continued many years, when the ''remnant of the innumerable christians'', with which Japan abounded, to the number of 37,000 souls, retired to the town and castle of Siniabara, in the island of Xinio, where they ''determined to make a stand'', to continue in their faith, and to ''defend themselves to the very last extremity''.

The Japanese army pursued the christians, and laid siege to the place. The ''christians defended themselves with great bravery'', and held out against the besiegers for the space of three months, but were at length compelled to surrender, when men, women and children, were indiscriminately murdered; and christianity, '''''in their martyrdoms''''', entirely extirpated from Japan.

[181 {{link1|url=http://www.gutenberg.org/files/22400/22400-h/22400-h.htm#Page_181}}

==Conclusion==

Clearly, non-LDS authors have seen those who suffered for their beliefs to be martyrs even if they:
# tried to escape
# escaped successfully
# were killed in trying to escape
# were killed fighting back, even if the cause was not directly related to the persecutor (e.g., death from plague)
# fought back against their persecutors
# took up arms against their persecutors
# killed their persecutors
# entered into defensive warfare against their persecutors.

It is absurd, then, to insist that Joseph Smith and Hyrum were not martyrs because they did not allow themselves to be murdered without a fight.

==Endnotes==
#
==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===
{{DefinitionFallaciesWiki}}
{{JosephSmithWiki}}
===FAIR web site===
*{{tg|url=http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai241.html|topic=Martyrdom of Joseph and Hyrum Smith}}
*Lance Starr, "Was Joseph Smith a Martyr or a Murderer?," (Mesa, Arizona: FAIR, May 2003) {{pdflink|url=http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai241.html}}
{{JosephSmithFAIR}}

===External links===
* {{EoM|author=Joseph I. Bentley|article=Martyrdom of Joseph and Hyrum Smith|vol=2|start=860|end=862}}{{fairlink|url=http://ldsfaq.byu.edu/emmain.asp?number=113}}
*{{Ensign1|author=Reed Blake|article=Martyrdom at Carthage|date=June 1994|start=30}}{{link|url=http://library.lds.org/library/lpext.dll/ArchMagazines/Ensign/1994.htm/ensign%20june%201994.htm/martyrdom%20at%20carthage.htm?fn=document-frame.htm&f=templates&2.0}}
*{{1min|article=Was Joseph Smith Really a Martyr?|url=http://www.lightplanet.com/response/answers/martyr.htm}}
*W. John Walsh, "Was Joseph Smith a Martyr?" {{link|url=http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/response/qa/martyr_joseph.htm}}
{{JosephSmithLinks}}
===Printed material===
*{{CarthageConspiracy1|start=1}}{{NB}}
{{JosephSmithPrint}}

Mormonism and Christianity/Martyrdom in Christian history

2009-10-10T02:39:20Z

CarsonCalderwood: /* Question */

{{JosephSmithPortal}}
{{question}}
==Question==
Critics claim that Joseph Smith is not a martyr because, while in jail, he fought back against those who attacked him. No one questions if he died for his religion. The question therefore, is the definition of a martyr such that Christian martyrs have always been understood as only those who do not fight back?

===Source(s) of the Criticism===
* Jerald and Sandra Tanner, ''Utah Lighthouse Ministry'' (accessed 7 May 2003).

==Response==

Throughout history, Christian martyrs have both accepted their fate quietly '''''and''''' resisted with evasion or violence.

The classic Protestant work on martyrs is John Foxe, ''Fox's Book of Martyrs, Or A History of the Lives, Sufferings, and Triumphant Deaths of the Primitive Protestant Martyrs'' (First published 1563). {{link|url=http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/22400}}. Italics and emphasis added in all cases.

''(Note: Foxe's work has considerable prejudice against Roman Catholicism, because this was the politically dominant faith for much of the period about which he writes. The use of these accounts is intended in no way to impugn the good-will and dedication to religious liberty held by modern Roman Catholics.)''

==Undated==

In Tunis, if ''a christian slave is caught in attempting to escape'', his limbs are all broken, and if he murders his master, he is fastened to the tail of a horse, and dragged about the streets till he expires.

[184 {{link1|url=http://www.gutenberg.org/files/22400/22400-h/22400-h.htm#Page_184}}]

==14th century==

"An account of the Persecutions of Calabria"...

These authorized persons came to St. Xist, one of the towns built by the Waldenses, and having assembled the people told them, that they should receive no injury or violence, if they would accept of preachers appointed by the pope;[108] but if they would not, they should be deprived both of their properties and lives; and that their intentions might be known, mass should be publicly said that afternoon, at which they were ordered to attend.

The people of St. Xist, instead of attending mass, ''fled into the woods'', with their families, and thus disappointed the cardinal and his coadjutors…

The cardinal having gained his point by deluding the people of one town, sent for troops of soldiers, with a view to murder those of the other. He, accordingly, despatched the soldiers into the woods, to hunt down the inhabitants of St. Xist like wild beasts, and gave them strict orders to spare neither age nor sex, but to kill all they came near. The troops entered the woods, and many fell a prey to their ferocity, before the Waldenses were properly apprised of their design. At length, however, ''they determined to sell their lives as dear as possible'', when several conflicts happened, in which the half-armed Waldenses performed prodigies of valour, and ''many were slain'' on both sides. The ''greatest part of the troops being killed'' in the different rencontres, the rest were compelled to retreat, which so enraged the cardinal, that he wrote to the viceroy of Naples for reinforcements. [107–109, {{link1|url=http://www.gutenberg.org/files/22400/22400-h/22400-h.htm#Page_107}}]

----
"Account of the Persecutions in the Valleys of Piedmont"...

A great many more of the reformed were oppressed, or put to death, by various means, till the patience of the Waldenses being tired out, ''they flew to arms in their own defence'', and formed themselves into regular bodies.

Exasperated at this, the bishop of Turin procured a number of troops and sent against them; but ''in most of the skirmishes and engagements the Waldenses were successful'', which partly arose from their being better acquainted with the passes of the valleys of Piedmont than their adversaries, and partly from the desperation with which they fought; for they well knew, if they were taken, they should not be considered as prisoners of war, but tortured to death as heretics.
…
A party of the troops found a venerable man, upwards of a hundred years of age, together with his grand-daughter, a maiden, of about eighteen, in a cave. They butchered the poor old man in the most inhuman manner, and then attempted to ravish the girl, when she started away and fled from them; but they pursuing her, ''she threw herself from a precipice and perished''.

The Waldenses, in order ''the more effectually to be able to repel force by force'', entered into a league with the protestant powers of Germany…

[110–111 {{link1|url=http://www.gutenberg.org/files/22400/22400-h/22400-h.htm#Page_110}}]

==15th century==
Finding that his [Jerom of Prague's] arrival in Constance was publicly known, and that the council intended to seize him, ''he thought it most prudent to retire''…he wrote to the emperor, and proposed his readiness to appear before the council, ''if he would give him a safe-conduct''; but this was refused. He then applied to the council, but met with an answer no less unfavourable than that from the emperor.

[154-{{link1|url=http://www.gutenberg.org/files/22400/22400-h/22400-h.htm#Page_154}}]
----
John de Trocznow (Zisca)… immediately flew to arms, declared war against the emperor and the pope, and laid siege to Pilsen with 40,000 men….Compelled to pass through a part of the country ''where the plague raged, he was seized with it'' at the castle of Briscaw[160] and departed this life, October 6, 1424.

[157, 160 {{link|url=http://www.gutenberg.org/files/22400/22400-h/22400-h.htm#Page_157}}]

==17th century==
"An Account of the Persecutions in the Valleys of Piedmont, in the Seventeenth Century"…

This armed multitude being encouraged by the Roman catholic bishops and monks, fell upon the protestants in a most furious manner. Nothing now was to be seen but the face of horror and despair, blood stained the floors of the houses, dead bodies bestrewed the streets, groans and cries were heard from all parts. ''Some armed themselves, and skirmished with the troops''; and ''many, with their families, fled to the mountains.''
…

An inhabitant of La Torre, named Giovanni Andrea Michialm, was apprended, with four of his children, three of them were hacked to pieces before him, the soldiers asking him, at the death of every child, if he would renounce his religion which he constantly refused. One of the soldiers then took up the last and youngest by the legs, and putting the same question to the father he replied as before, when the inhuman brute dashed out the child's brains. The father, however, at the same moment started from them, and ''fled'': the soldiers fired after him, but missed him; and he, by the swiftness of his heels, escaped, and hid himself in the Alps.
[122, 125-126 {{link1|url=http://www.gutenberg.org/files/22400/22400-h/22400-h.htm#Page_122}}]
----
"Further Persecutions in the Valleys of Piedmont, in the seventeenth Century"…

A soldier, attempting to ravish a young woman, named Susanna Gacquin, ''she made a stout resistance, and in the struggle pushed him''[129] ''over a precipice, when he was dashed to pieces by the fall''.

[126, 128–129.{{link1|url=http://www.gutenberg.org/files/22400/22400-h/22400-h.htm#Page_126}}]
----
The persecution continued many years, when the ''remnant of the innumerable christians'', with which Japan abounded, to the number of 37,000 souls, retired to the town and castle of Siniabara, in the island of Xinio, where they ''determined to make a stand'', to continue in their faith, and to ''defend themselves to the very last extremity''.

The Japanese army pursued the christians, and laid siege to the place. The ''christians defended themselves with great bravery'', and held out against the besiegers for the space of three months, but were at length compelled to surrender, when men, women and children, were indiscriminately murdered; and christianity, '''''in their martyrdoms''''', entirely extirpated from Japan.

[181 {{link1|url=http://www.gutenberg.org/files/22400/22400-h/22400-h.htm#Page_181}}

==Conclusion==

Clearly, non-LDS authors have seen those who suffered for their beliefs to be martyrs even if they:
# tried to escape
# escaped successfully
# were killed in trying to escape
# were killed fighting back, even if the cause was not directly related to the persecutor (e.g., death from plague)
# fought back against their persecutors
# took up arms against their persecutors
# killed their persecutors
# entered into defensive warfare against their persecutors.

It is absurd, then, to insist that Joseph Smith and Hyrum were not martyrs because they did not allow themselves to be murdered without a fight.

==Endnotes==
#
==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===
{{DefinitionFallaciesWiki}}
{{JosephSmithWiki}}
===FAIR web site===
*{{tg|url=http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai241.html|topic=Martyrdom of Joseph and Hyrum Smith}}
*Lance Starr, "Was Joseph Smith a Martyr or a Murderer?," (Mesa, Arizona: FAIR, May 2003) {{pdflink|url=http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai241.html}}
{{JosephSmithFAIR}}

===External links===
* {{EoM|author=Joseph I. Bentley|article=Martyrdom of Joseph and Hyrum Smith|vol=2|start=860|end=862}}{{fairlink|url=http://ldsfaq.byu.edu/emmain.asp?number=113}}
*{{Ensign1|author=Reed Blake|article=Martyrdom at Carthage|date=June 1994|start=30}}{{link|url=http://library.lds.org/library/lpext.dll/ArchMagazines/Ensign/1994.htm/ensign%20june%201994.htm/martyrdom%20at%20carthage.htm?fn=document-frame.htm&f=templates&2.0}}
*{{1min|article=Was Joseph Smith Really a Martyr?|url=http://www.lightplanet.com/response/answers/martyr.htm}}
*W. John Walsh, "Was Joseph Smith a Martyr?" {{link|url=http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/response/qa/martyr_joseph.htm}}
{{JosephSmithLinks}}
===Printed material===
*{{CarthageConspiracy1|start=1}}{{NB}}
{{JosephSmithPrint}}

Purpose of plural marriage

2008-08-27T01:15:49Z

CarsonCalderwood: Added a conclusion

{{PolygamyPortal}} {{Question}}

==Question==
Why would the Lord have commanded the 19th century Saints to implement plural marriage? What purpose(s) did polygamy accomplish?

''Note'': Some critics provide their own reason—they claim Joseph Smith and the Mormons implemented plural marriage because of lustful motives. That charge is addressed elsewhere.'' See: [[Polygamy because of lustful motives]]''

==Response==

The only scriptural explanation given from the Lord for approved plural marriage is found in {{scripture||Jacob|2|30}}:

:"For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things."

Here, the Lord gives only one reason for plural marriage, to raise up his people. It is often not His pattern to give reasons for His commandments. Any other "reasons" which we attach, in retrospect, to plural marriage can only be based on supposition and intellectual deduction.

It seems clear, however, in retrospect that plural marriage accomplished several things. Any or all of these things could have been intended by the Lord for the benefit of the Church and the Saints. Other benefits which we do not yet see or understand could also have been intended. We should remember the caution of 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 [have] put reasons to [commandments] and they turned out to be spectacularly wrong.{{ref|oaks1}}

Any such list as this is tentative. But, it reminds us plural marriage may have accomplished more than we sometimes appreciate. Some benefits which have been suggested include:

# It was to try (prove) His people. Polygamy stood as an Abrahamic test for the saints. The willingness to obey a commandment that was inherently distasteful to the vast majority of the members of the Church allowed members to draw close to the Lord.
# It was to "raise up" righteous seed. Specifically it allowed a relatively few righteous men to become very prolific in a time when the West was very wild and there were many unrighteous men. Children were raised in more households with a strong gospel commitment.
# It served to "set apart" his people as a peculiar people to the world. This social isolation that gave the church space to solidify itself into an identity independent of the many denominations from which the membership was derived. Sociologists have discovered that in order for a religion to successfully grow it has to be demanding and it has to experience a moderate amount of tension with its host society. The RLDS Church rejected plural marriage, and perhaps not coincidentally are now small in number and virtually indistinguishable from Protestants.
# Polygamy was part of the "restoration of all things," and a way for Mormons to feel connected with prophets like Abraham and Jacob. 19th century Mormons gained a greater appreciation for covenants that these forefathers made with God.
# Numerous family ties that were created, building a network of associations that strengthened the Church.
# Arguably polygamy affected higher natural growth rates. Ironically plural wives had fewer children than their monogamous Mormon counterparts. {{ref|keller1}}
# Polygamy created a system where a higher percentage of women and men got married compared to the national average at the time. {{ref|keller2}}
# Plural marriages increased competition in the marriage market, so the "spiritual slackers" and lower quality men had to work to improve their standing to compete. They had to clean up, try to get good jobs and treat the women with respect. It gave the women more options as to whom to marry.
# Out on the frontier in 19th century life expectancy was low and women were not as economically independent as they are today. Therefore there were many widows (and orphans coming of age) that needed to be taken care of. Some women who joined the Church abroad immigrated without their husbands, leaving them without male financial support. Furthermore Brigham instituted the most liberal divorce in the country so women (but not men!) could get out of unhappy marriages. Kathryn Daynes estimated that 30% of plural marriages came from married-before women. {{ref|daynes110}}
# Church Historian Elder Jensen observed how Mormon polygamy enabled women more freedom to earn college degrees and join national women's rights organizations at the time. {{ref|jensen1}}
# Polygamy helped integrate foreign immigrants into Mormon society. With the marriage market operating so efficiently, women were highly sought after, and so Utah men had to sometimes marry outside their preferred cultural boundaries. This provided a great way to redistribute the wealth to the immigrants families coming. {{ref|daynes97}}
# Plural marriages provided a social support network while the husbands were off on missions.

==Conclusion==

Plural marriage can be a difficult historical fact for people to understand, both members and nonmembers alike. Trying to fully understand the purposes behind such a commandment in today's mindset can also make this subject difficult. It is important to note that we do not have all the historical information surrounding the inception and implementation of the practice. Rather than trying to understand the Lord's purposes in retrospect on a limited scope, one should remember the above scripture in Jacob. Other benefits, although potentially advantageous, are not given as reasons by the Lord.

==Endnotes==

#{{note|oaks1}}Dallin H. Oaks, Interview with Associated Press, in ''Daily Herald,'' Provo, Utah, 5 June 1988.
#{{note|keller1}}David R. Keller, "And We Multiplied Exceedingly," FAIR Blog (last accessed 9 May 2008) {{link|url=http://www.fairblog.org/2008/01/21/and-we-multiplied-exceedingly/}}
#{{note|keller2}}David R. Keller, "Where the Lost Boys Go," FAIR Blog (last accessed 9 May 2008) {{link|url=http://www.fairblog.org/2008/04/27/where-the-lost-boys-go/}}
#{{note|daynes110}}{{periodical1|author=Kathryn Daynes|article=Single Men in a Polygamous Society: Male Marriage Patterns in Manti, Utah|journal=Journal of Mormon History|date=Spring 1998|vol=24|num=1|start=110}} {{link|url=http://content.lib.utah.edu/cdm4/document.php?CISOROOT=/jmh&CISOPTR=11414&CISOSHOW=11296}}
#{{note|jensen1}} Marlin K. Jensen, "Polygamy Then and Now," in LDS Newsroom, 5 May 2008 {{link|url=http://www.newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/polygamy-then-and-now}}
#{{note|daynes97}}{{periodical1|author=Kathryn Daynes|article=Single Men in a Polygamous Society: Male Marriage Patterns in Manti, Utah|journal=Journal of Mormon History|date=Spring 1998|vol=24|num=1|start=97}} {{link|url=http://content.lib.utah.edu/cdm4/document.php?CISOROOT=/jmh&CISOPTR=11414&CISOSHOW=11296}}

==Further Reading==
===FAIR wiki articles===
{{PolygamyWiki}}

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

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

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

Age of the Earth

2008-08-26T00:32:43Z

CarsonCalderwood: /* D&C 77 */ added more to the D&C explanation.

{{draft}}

{{question}}

{{SciencePortal}}
==Question==
*The Bible dictionary says the Earth is 7,000 years old. Doctrine & Covenants say the 7 seals of the Earth represent 1,000 years. Yet scientific dating places the appearance of modern humans well before 4,000 BC. Can you explain the contradiction, if there is one?


==Answer==
===Status of the Bible Dictionary===
Regarding the LDS Bible Dictionary, the Church has been explicit that it is not to be taken as a statement of revealed Church doctrine. The introduction to the Bible Dictionary includes the following statement:

:[The Bible Dictionary] is not intended as an official or revealed endorsement by the Church of the doctrinal, historical, cultural, and other matters set forth.

Robert J. Matthews, who was part of the committee in the late 1970s to create the LDS editions of the scriptures, including the study aids, said:

:The new Bible dictionary is not intended as a revealed treatment or official version of doctrinal, historical, cultural, chronological, and other matters found in the Bible.{{ref|matthews.48}}

Elder Bruce R. McConkie had this to say regarding "the Joseph Smith Translation items, the chapter headings,
Topical Guide, Bible Dictionary, footnotes, the Gazetteer, and the maps":

:None of these are perfect; they do not of themselves determine doctrine; there have been and undoubtedly now are mistakes in them. Cross-references, for instance, do not establish and never were intended to prove that parallel passages so much as pertain to the same subject. They are aids and helps only.{{ref|mcconkie.290}}

To summarize, the entry in the Bible Dictionary is not part of the canon of scripture and is not binding upon anyone.

===The scriptures do not specify the age of the Earth===
The placement of Adam at 4,000 BC has a rather long history. Perhaps the most famous attempt was made by the Irish Anglican Bishop of Ussher, who calculated the date as 4,004 (and even calculated it down to the month and day!). Such a dating, however, is not in our scriptures, even if a version of it has been included into our Bible Dictionary.

The ''Encyclopedia of Mormonism'' article "Earth," states unequivocally:

:The scriptures do not say how old the earth is, and the Church has taken no official stand on this question. Nor does the Church consider it to be a central issue for salvation.{{ref|eom.earth}}

There are varying opinions among Latter-day Saints on the age of the earth. Some believe in a "young earth," but they probably are in the minority. Many Saints accept an old earth in the billions of years.

===D&C 77===
[http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/77/6-7#6 Doctrine and Covenants 77:6–7] contains the only canonized statement specifically identifying the age of the earth:

:6 Q[uestion]. What are we to understand by the book which John saw,{{ref|rev5-1}} which was sealed on the back with seven seals?
:A[nswer]. We are to understand that it contains the revealed will, mysteries, and the works of God; the hidden things of his economy concerning this earth during the seven thousand years of its continuance, or its temporal existence.
:7 Q. What are we to understand by the seven seals with which it was sealed?
:A. We are to understand that the first seal contains the things of the first thousand years, and the second also of the second thousand years, and so on until the seventh.

Like many passages in scripture, this one is open to some interpretation. A literal reading has led some to conclude that the Earth is 7,000 years old. But other take a more symbolic or figurative interpretation that the 1,000-year dispensations are figurative in the sense of "large spans of time." This follows the Hebrew use of "thousand" ('''elef''), which sometimes meant a literal one thousand, and other times was more generically used to indicate "a large amount."

Furthermore, the phrase "temporal existence" allows for, if not implies, an existence prior to that. The chronological extent of the earth's creative period is not detailed out specifically in scripture. The could quite possibly be a transition from the creative process to temporal existence thus allowing for a new period in the earth's history and thus the 7000 years.

==Conclusion==
The language in our scriptures from which such dating of the "age of the earth" is drawn is not intended to provide the kinds of scientific information that some people insist on having. The best answer to questions about the date of Adam or the age of the earth is simply that we have no revealed knowledge on the topic. It is also important to bear in mind that having or not having such information is not crucial for our salvation.

==Endnotes==

#{{note|matthews.48}}Robert J. Matthews, "Using the New Bible Dictionary in the LDS Edition," ''Ensign'', June 1982, p. 48.
#{{note|mcconkie.290}}Bruce R. McConkie, "The Bible–A Sealed Book" in ''Sermons and Writings of Bruce R. McConkie'', p. 290.
#{{note|eom.earth}}Morris S. Petersen, [http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Earth "Earth,"] ''Encyclopedia of Mormonism''
#{{note|rev5-1}}The passage is referring to the book seen in [http://scriptures.lds.org/en/rev/5/1#1 Revelation 5:1].

==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===
*[[Death before the Fall]]

===FAIR web site===
*Trent D. Stephens, [http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/2003_Evolution_and_Latter-day_Saint_Theology.html Evolution and Latter-day Saint Theology: The Tree of Life and DNA], FAIR Conference, 2003.

===External links===

===Printed material===

Purpose of plural marriage

2008-08-21T22:12:20Z

CarsonCalderwood: /* Response */

{{PolygamyPortal}} {{Question}} {{draft}}

==Question==
Why would the Lord have commanded the 19th century Saints to implement plural marriage? What purpose(s) did polygamy accomplish?

''Note'': Some critics provide their own reason—they claim Joseph Smith and the Mormons implemented plural marriage because of lustful motives. That charge is addressed elsewhere.'' See: [[Polygamy because of lustful motives]]''

==Response==

The only scriptural explanation given from the Lord for approved plural marriage is found in {{scripture||Jacob|2|30}}:

:"For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things."

Here, the Lord gives only one reason for plural marriage, to raise up his people. It is often not His pattern to give reasons for His commandments. Any other "reasons" which we attach, in retrospect, to plural marriage can only be based on supposition and intellectual deduction.

It seems clear, however, in retrospect that plural marriage accomplished several things. Any or all of these things could have been intended by the Lord for the benefit of the Church and the Saints. Other benefits which we do not yet see or understand could also have been intended. We should remember the caution of 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 [have] put reasons to [commandments] and they turned out to be spectacularly wrong.{{ref|oaks1}}

Any such list as this is tentative. But, it reminds us plural marriage may have accomplished more than we sometimes appreciate. Some benefits which have been suggested include:

# It was to try (prove) His people. Polygamy stood as an Abrahamic test for the saints. The willingness to obey a commandment that was inherently distasteful to the vast majority of the members of the Church allowed members to draw close to the Lord.
# It was to "raise up" righteous seed. Specifically it allowed a relatively few righteous men to become very prolific in a time when the West was very wild and there were many unrighteous men. Children were raised in more households with a strong gospel commitment.
# It served to "set apart" his people as a peculiar people to the world. This social isolation that gave the church space to solidify itself into an identity independent of the many denominations from which the membership was derived. Sociologists have discovered that in order for a religion to successfully grow it has to be demanding and it has to experience a moderate amount of tension with its host society. The RLDS Church rejected plural marriage, and perhaps not coincidentally are now small in number and virtually indistinguishable from Protestants.
# Polygamy was part of the "restoration of all things," and a way for Mormons to feel connected with prophets like Abraham and Jacob. 19th century Mormons gained a greater appreciation for covenants that these forefathers made with God.
# Numerous family ties that were created, building a network of associations that strengthened the Church.
# Arguably polygamy affected higher natural growth rates. Ironically plural wives had fewer children than their monogamous Mormon counterparts. {{ref|keller1}}
# Polygamy created a system where a higher percentage of women and men got married compared to the national average at the time. {{ref|keller2}}
# Plural marriages increased competition in the marriage market, so the "spiritual slackers" and lower quality men had to work to improve their standing to compete. They had to clean up, try to get good jobs and treat the women with respect. It gave the women more options as to whom to marry.
# Out on the frontier in 19th century life expectancy was low and women were not as economically independent as they are today. Therefore there were many widows (and orphans coming of age) that needed to be taken care of. Some women who joined the Church abroad immigrated without their husbands, leaving them without male financial support. Furthermore Brigham instituted the most liberal divorce in the country so women (but not men!) could get out of unhappy marriages. Kathryn Daynes estimated that 30% of plural marriages came from married-before women. {{ref|daynes110}}
# Church Historian Elder Jensen observed how Mormon polygamy enabled women more freedom to earn college degrees and join national women's rights organizations at the time. {{ref|jensen1}}
# Polygamy helped integrate foreign immigrants into Mormon society. With the marriage market operating so efficiently, women were highly sought after, and so Utah men had to sometimes marry outside their preferred cultural boundaries. This provided a great way to redistribute the wealth to the immigrants families coming. {{ref|daynes97}}
# Plural marriages provided a social support network while the husbands were off on missions.

==Endnotes==

#{{note|oaks1}}Dallin H. Oaks, Interview with Associated Press, in ''Daily Herald,'' Provo, Utah, 5 June 1988.
#{{note|keller1}}David R. Keller, "And We Multiplied Exceedingly," FAIR Blog (last accessed 9 May 2008) {{link|url=http://www.fairblog.org/2008/01/21/and-we-multiplied-exceedingly/}}
#{{note|keller2}}David R. Keller, "Where the Lost Boys Go," FAIR Blog (last accessed 9 May 2008) {{link|url=http://www.fairblog.org/2008/04/27/where-the-lost-boys-go/}}
#{{note|daynes110}}{{periodical1|author=Kathryn Daynes|article=Single Men in a Polygamous Society: Male Marriage Patterns in Manti, Utah|journal=Journal of Mormon History|date=Spring 1998|vol=24|num=1|start=110}} {{link|url=http://content.lib.utah.edu/cdm4/document.php?CISOROOT=/jmh&CISOPTR=11414&CISOSHOW=11296}}
#{{note|jensen1}} Marlin K. Jensen, "Polygamy Then and Now," in LDS Newsroom, 5 May 2008 {{link|url=http://www.newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/polygamy-then-and-now}}
#{{note|daynes97}}{{periodical1|author=Kathryn Daynes|article=Single Men in a Polygamous Society: Male Marriage Patterns in Manti, Utah|journal=Journal of Mormon History|date=Spring 1998|vol=24|num=1|start=97}} {{link|url=http://content.lib.utah.edu/cdm4/document.php?CISOROOT=/jmh&CISOPTR=11414&CISOSHOW=11296}}

==Further Reading==
===FAIR wiki articles===
{{PolygamyWiki}}

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

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

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

Purpose of plural marriage

2008-08-21T22:11:31Z

CarsonCalderwood: added jacob 2:30 scripture

{{PolygamyPortal}} {{Question}} {{draft}}

==Question==
Why would the Lord have commanded the 19th century Saints to implement plural marriage? What purpose(s) did polygamy accomplish?

''Note'': Some critics provide their own reason—they claim Joseph Smith and the Mormons implemented plural marriage because of lustful motives. That charge is addressed elsewhere.'' See: [[Polygamy because of lustful motives]]''

==Response==

The only scriptural explanation given from the Lord for approved plural marriage is found in {{scripture||Jacob|2|30}}:

:"For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things."

Here, the Lord gives only one reason for plural marriage. It is often not His pattern to give reasons for His commandments. Any "reasons" which we attach, in retrospect, to plural marriage can only be based on supposition and intellectual deduction.

It seems clear, however, in retrospect that plural marriage accomplished several things. Any or all of these things could have been intended by the Lord for the benefit of the Church and the Saints. Other benefits which we do not yet see or understand could also have been intended. We should remember the caution of 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 [have] put reasons to [commandments] and they turned out to be spectacularly wrong.{{ref|oaks1}}

Any such list as this is tentative. But, it reminds us plural marriage may have accomplished more than we sometimes appreciate. Some benefits which have been suggested include:

# It was to try (prove) His people. Polygamy stood as an Abrahamic test for the saints. The willingness to obey a commandment that was inherently distasteful to the vast majority of the members of the Church allowed members to draw close to the Lord.
# It was to "raise up" righteous seed. Specifically it allowed a relatively few righteous men to become very prolific in a time when the West was very wild and there were many unrighteous men. Children were raised in more households with a strong gospel commitment.
# It served to "set apart" his people as a peculiar people to the world. This social isolation that gave the church space to solidify itself into an identity independent of the many denominations from which the membership was derived. Sociologists have discovered that in order for a religion to successfully grow it has to be demanding and it has to experience a moderate amount of tension with its host society. The RLDS Church rejected plural marriage, and perhaps not coincidentally are now small in number and virtually indistinguishable from Protestants.
# Polygamy was part of the "restoration of all things," and a way for Mormons to feel connected with prophets like Abraham and Jacob. 19th century Mormons gained a greater appreciation for covenants that these forefathers made with God.
# Numerous family ties that were created, building a network of associations that strengthened the Church.
# Arguably polygamy affected higher natural growth rates. Ironically plural wives had fewer children than their monogamous Mormon counterparts. {{ref|keller1}}
# Polygamy created a system where a higher percentage of women and men got married compared to the national average at the time. {{ref|keller2}}
# Plural marriages increased competition in the marriage market, so the "spiritual slackers" and lower quality men had to work to improve their standing to compete. They had to clean up, try to get good jobs and treat the women with respect. It gave the women more options as to whom to marry.
# Out on the frontier in 19th century life expectancy was low and women were not as economically independent as they are today. Therefore there were many widows (and orphans coming of age) that needed to be taken care of. Some women who joined the Church abroad immigrated without their husbands, leaving them without male financial support. Furthermore Brigham instituted the most liberal divorce in the country so women (but not men!) could get out of unhappy marriages. Kathryn Daynes estimated that 30% of plural marriages came from married-before women. {{ref|daynes110}}
# Church Historian Elder Jensen observed how Mormon polygamy enabled women more freedom to earn college degrees and join national women's rights organizations at the time. {{ref|jensen1}}
# Polygamy helped integrate foreign immigrants into Mormon society. With the marriage market operating so efficiently, women were highly sought after, and so Utah men had to sometimes marry outside their preferred cultural boundaries. This provided a great way to redistribute the wealth to the immigrants families coming. {{ref|daynes97}}
# Plural marriages provided a social support network while the husbands were off on missions.

==Endnotes==

#{{note|oaks1}}Dallin H. Oaks, Interview with Associated Press, in ''Daily Herald,'' Provo, Utah, 5 June 1988.
#{{note|keller1}}David R. Keller, "And We Multiplied Exceedingly," FAIR Blog (last accessed 9 May 2008) {{link|url=http://www.fairblog.org/2008/01/21/and-we-multiplied-exceedingly/}}
#{{note|keller2}}David R. Keller, "Where the Lost Boys Go," FAIR Blog (last accessed 9 May 2008) {{link|url=http://www.fairblog.org/2008/04/27/where-the-lost-boys-go/}}
#{{note|daynes110}}{{periodical1|author=Kathryn Daynes|article=Single Men in a Polygamous Society: Male Marriage Patterns in Manti, Utah|journal=Journal of Mormon History|date=Spring 1998|vol=24|num=1|start=110}} {{link|url=http://content.lib.utah.edu/cdm4/document.php?CISOROOT=/jmh&CISOPTR=11414&CISOSHOW=11296}}
#{{note|jensen1}} Marlin K. Jensen, "Polygamy Then and Now," in LDS Newsroom, 5 May 2008 {{link|url=http://www.newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/polygamy-then-and-now}}
#{{note|daynes97}}{{periodical1|author=Kathryn Daynes|article=Single Men in a Polygamous Society: Male Marriage Patterns in Manti, Utah|journal=Journal of Mormon History|date=Spring 1998|vol=24|num=1|start=97}} {{link|url=http://content.lib.utah.edu/cdm4/document.php?CISOROOT=/jmh&CISOPTR=11414&CISOSHOW=11296}}

==Further Reading==
===FAIR wiki articles===
{{PolygamyWiki}}

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

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

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

Conflation of 1824-25 revival?

2008-05-28T23:42:27Z

CarsonCalderwood:

{{draft}}

==Criticism==

Since there was a religious revival in Palmyra, New York in 1824-25 which matches the details of Joseph Smith's official Church history, he must have mistakenly mixed this event in with his narrative about what happened in 1820. The strongest piece of evidence that an error occurred is the autobiographical statement of the Prophet's mother that she joined the Presbyterian church after Alvin Smith died in late 1823 (Joseph Smith said she joined in 1820).

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

Wesley Walters.

==Response==

There are several problems with this argument. The most serious one is that Lucy Mack Smith did NOT say in her autobiography that she joined the Presbyterian church after her son Alvin died. The original manuscript of the autobiography (including the crossed-out portion) actually says:

*Alvin Smith died (19 November 1823).
*"lamentation and mourning filled the whole neighborhood".
*Those from Alvin's immediate circle felt "more than usual grief".
*The funeral and the interment took place.
*"The circumstances of [Alvin's] death aroused the neighborhood to the subject of religion".
*The Smith family "could not be comforted" because of Alvin's loss.
*"About this time there was a great revival in religion and the whole neighborhood was very much aroused to the subject and we among the rest flocked to the meetinghouse to see if there was a word of comfort for us that might relieve our overcharged feelings."
*One man was laboring in the area "to effect a union of all the churches that all denominations might be agreed to worship God with one mind and one heart".
*Lucy Mack Smith thought that this idea "looked right" and tried to persuade her husband to "join with them" (i.e., the unionized group of "all denominations").
*Lucy Mack Smith "wished" to join herself with this group.
*All the Smith children were "inclined" to join this group except Joseph (who refused from the first to attend the meetings).
*Joseph told his mother that he did not wish to prevent her or any member of the Smith family from attending any church meeting or "joining any church" that they liked but stated his own desire not to go with them. Joseph also stated that if they did join any church they would not be with them long because of "the wickedness of their hearts".
*Father Smith attended one meeting of the unionized church group but declined thereafter. He said that he did not object if Mother Smith and the children wanted to attend these meetings or join with the group.

There are several observations that will help to clarify the meaning of this text:

'''OBSERVATION #1''' - Alvin's funeral was conducted by a Presbyterian clergyman named Benjamin B. Stockton (''Deseret News'', 20 January 1894). This detail raises the strong possibility that someone in the Smith household had an affiliation with the Presbyterian church by November 1823. Indeed, in one of William Smith's recountings of Church history he seems very clearly to say that his mother and some of his siblings were members of the Presbyterian church at the time of Alvin's funeral (see ''Zion’s Ensign'', vol. 5, no. 3, 13 January 1894). And in another recounting he states that they had this affiliation in the year 1820 (see ''Saints’ Herald'', vol. 30, no. ----, 16 June 1883, 388).

'''OBSERVATION #2''' - Lucy Mack Smith does not say in her autobiography that she actually joined with the religious group that was composed of "all the churches". She only says that she desired to join with them.

'''OBSERVATION #3''' - In an earlier portion of Lucy Mack Smith's autobiography she provides the timeframe for when she formally joined herself to a church. She says, “I concluded that my mind would be easier if I were baptized and I found a minister who was willing to baptize me and leave me free from membership in any church after which I pursued the same course until my oldest son [Alvin] attained his 22nd year” - which took place on 11 February 1820.

'''OBSERVATION #4''' - The "great revival in religion" that is mentioned in Mother Smith's autobiography appears to take place not long after Alvin's death in November 1823. In fact, it seems that it was Alvin's death that instigated this particular event. A disparity in timeframes (a one-year gap) calls any perceived connection between this event and Palmyra's 1824-25 revival into doubt. A ministerial eyewitness says that nothing much like a recognizable revival even took place in the village of Palmyra until December 1824 (''The Methodist Magazine'', vol. 8, no. 4, April 1825). Mother Smith does not mention any conversions during the December 1823 '''denomination-welding''' event which she describes while the December 1824 revival garnered more than 150 converts who joined themselves with various '''separate churches'''.

'''OBSERVATION #5''' - Joseph Smith's comments to his mother about joining "any" church are significant. He said that taking such an action would be a mistake because of what was in the hearts of the adherents. During the First Vision the Lord told Joseph that the hearts of the members of the Christian denominations were far from Him (1832 account). Joseph also told his mother that if she did decide to join one of the churches she would not be long with them. This make perfect sense when it is remembered that just a few months prior to this time Joseph had informed his family that an angel had told him about golden plates and indicated that God was about to reveal "a more perfect knowledge of the plan of salvation and the redemption of the human family" (Lucy Mack Smith, ''History of Joseph Smith'', rev. ed. [Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1996], chapter 18).

==Conclusion==

Like in so many other cases, the facts of the documents do not support the conclusions of the critics. Joseph Smith said that his mother and siblings were members of the Presbyterian church in 1820 when he had the First Vision and the writings of his mother and brother support that statement. Joseph Smith was not in a state of confusion or bent on deception when he recorded the occurrences of his past. Readers of the Prophet's history can have confidence in what is presented before them.

==Endnotes==

''None''



==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===

===FAIR web site===
*FAIR Topical Guide:

===External links===

===Printed material===

Moroni's promise of the Book of Mormon

2008-04-03T21:56:58Z

CarsonCalderwood: /* Prayer as a means for determining truth */ Offset quote

{{draft}}

==Criticism==
Critics have made a variety of attacks Moroni's promise ([http://scriptures.lds.org/moro/10/3#5 Moroni 10:3–5]):
*They claim that praying about the Book of Mormon is not an objective standard for determining if the book is true or not, and should therefore not be trusted.
*They claim that many people have read and prayed about the Book of Mormon and have either received no answer, or an answer from God that it is false.

===Source(s) of the criticism===
''These sources insist one should '''not''' pray for answers about the Book of Mormon:''
*John Ankerberg and John Weldon, ''Everything You Ever Wanted to Know about Mormonism'' (Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 1992),273–4, 299–300.
*Bill McKeever and Eric Johnson, ''Questions to Ask Your Mormon Friend'' (Minneapolis, Minn.: Bethany House, 1994), 65–70.
*Mark J. Cares, ''Speaking the Truth In Love to Mormons'' (Milwaukee, Wis. : Northwestern Pub. House, 1993), 116–20, 211–2.
*James White, ''Letters to a Mormon Elder'' (Southbridge, MA: Crowne, 1990), 131–134.

==Response==
===Prayer as a means for determining truth===
Non-Mormons often claim that the Bible is the only true "yardstick" for determining truth. Ironically, the Bible refutes this, and clearly shows that the Holy Spirit, or the Spirit of Truth will lead us to all truth ([http://scriptures.lds.org/en/john/14/26#26 John 14:26], [http://scriptures.lds.org/en/john/15/26#26 John 15:26], [http://scriptures.lds.org/en/1_jn/5/6#6 John 5:6]). By claiming the Bible as the only source of truth, non-LDS are in fact minimizing the power of prayer and the role of the Holy Ghost.

The LDS believe that the most significant verse of scripture, the scripture which has had the greatest impact on the history of the world is found in [http://scriptures.lds.org/en/james/1/5-6#5 James 1:5–6]"
:"If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed."

This verse led a young man, Joseph Smith to follow that counsel–to offer a humble prayer of faith, being willing to accept the answer, no matter how difficult to accept that answer might be. That prayer led to the beginning of the restoration of the gospel.

Through Joseph Smith, the Lord has revealed other keys to prayer. One is that we are to "study it out" in our minds, then go before the Lord and ask for confirmation that our decision is correct. We are then instructed that if we our decision is correct, we will feel the fruits of the Spirit, and if incorrect, we will have a "stupor of thought". Thus, serious seekers of truth cannot fully claim they have studied the Book of Mormon until they have read it in its entirety. The LDS encourage critical analysis of the Book of Mormon, specifically by prayerfully asking if anyone could have fabricated the book. Everyone who asks himself that question with every page will find, somewhere between the first page and the last, that the answer is 'no'–that the Book of Mormon is true. The Book of Mormon is convincing evidence of the restoration of the gospel through Joseph Smith.

===What about those who pray and don't receive a confirmation the Book of Mormon is true?===

==Conclusion==

==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===
* [[Cognitive dissonance]]
{{HolyGhostWiki}}

===FAIR web site===
{{HolyGhostFAIR}}

===External links===
{{HolyGhostLinks}}

===Printed material===
{{HolyGhostPrint}}

Moroni's promise of the Book of Mormon

2008-04-03T21:48:36Z

CarsonCalderwood: /* Prayer as a means for determining truth */ added additional versus and spelling correction

{{draft}}

==Criticism==
Critics have made a variety of attacks Moroni's promise ([http://scriptures.lds.org/moro/10/3#5 Moroni 10:3–5]):
*They claim that praying about the Book of Mormon is not an objective standard for determining if the book is true or not, and should therefore not be trusted.
*They claim that many people have read and prayed about the Book of Mormon and have either received no answer, or an answer from God that it is false.

===Source(s) of the criticism===
''These sources insist one should '''not''' pray for answers about the Book of Mormon:''
*John Ankerberg and John Weldon, ''Everything You Ever Wanted to Know about Mormonism'' (Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 1992),273–4, 299–300.
*Bill McKeever and Eric Johnson, ''Questions to Ask Your Mormon Friend'' (Minneapolis, Minn.: Bethany House, 1994), 65–70.
*Mark J. Cares, ''Speaking the Truth In Love to Mormons'' (Milwaukee, Wis. : Northwestern Pub. House, 1993), 116–20, 211–2.
*James White, ''Letters to a Mormon Elder'' (Southbridge, MA: Crowne, 1990), 131–134.

==Response==
===Prayer as a means for determining truth===
Non-Mormons often claim that the Bible is the only true "yardstick" for determining truth. Ironically, the Bible refutes this, and clearly shows that the Holy Spirit, or the Spirit of Truth will lead us to all truth ([http://scriptures.lds.org/en/john/14/26#26 John 14:26], [http://scriptures.lds.org/en/john/15/26#26 John 15:26], [http://scriptures.lds.org/en/1_jn/5/6#6 John 5:6]). By claiming the Bible as the only source of truth, non-LDS are in fact minimizing the power of prayer and the role of the Holy Ghost.

The LDS believe that the most significant verse of scripture, the scripture which has had the greatest impact on the history of the world is found in [http://scriptures.lds.org/en/james/1/5-6#5 James 1:5–6] "If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed." This verse led a young man, Joseph Smith to follow that counsel–to offer a humble prayer of faith, being willing to accept the answer, no matter how difficult to accept that answer might be. That prayer led to the beginning of the restoration of the gospel.

Through Joseph Smith, the Lord has revealed other keys to prayer. One is that we are to "study it out" in our minds, then go before the Lord and ask for confirmation that our decision is correct. We are then instructed that if we our decision is correct, we will feel the fruits of the Spirit, and if incorrect, we will have a "stupor of thought". Thus, serious seekers of truth cannot fully claim they have studied the Book of Mormon until they have read it in its entirety. The LDS encourage critical analysis of the Book of Mormon, specifically by prayerfully asking if anyone could have fabricated the book. Everyone who asks himself that question with every page will find, somewhere between the first page and the last, that the answer is 'no'–that the Book of Mormon is true. The Book of Mormon is convincing evidence of the restoration of the gospel through Joseph Smith.

===What about those who pray and don't receive a confirmation the Book of Mormon is true?===

==Conclusion==

==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===
* [[Cognitive dissonance]]
{{HolyGhostWiki}}

===FAIR web site===
{{HolyGhostFAIR}}

===External links===
{{HolyGhostLinks}}

===Printed material===
{{HolyGhostPrint}}

Multiple accounts of the First Vision/1832/Struggle with Satan not mentioned

2008-03-12T15:33:06Z

CarsonCalderwood:

{{FirstVisionPortal}}

==Criticism==

Joseph Smith says in the official Church history account of the First Vision that directly before the theophany occurred he had a struggle with Satan. But this struggle is not mentioned in his 1832 recital of the experience. Since this story element is not present in the earliest known written account of the event, but shows up in later retellings, it is evidence that this visionary tale evolved over time - by becoming more dramatic and elaborate.

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

* Mormon Apologetics and Discussion Board (January 2007).

==Response==

The following timeline displays the 'struggle' material found in First Vision recitals that were produced during the Prophet's lifetime. The corresponding text from the 1832 document is also provided for purposes of comparison.

Several observations about the information presented below may prove useful.

* It is obvious that Joseph Smith did not mention the 'struggle' element of the First Vision story every time he rehearsed it - even after the official Church history account was written down (1838) and published (1842). He opted not to speak about that aspect of the story in the Wentworth Letter (1842), in a speech given before the Saints at the Nauvoo Temple (1843), and also when he conducted an interview with a non-Mormon newspaper editor (1843). Yet, he did briefly refer to that part of the story in a subsequent private conversation with a convert (1844).

* A careful comparison of texts indicates that the Prophet's Wentworth Letter was likely constructed by utilizing the content of Orson Pratt’s ''Interesting Account'' pamphlet. But even though Elder Pratt’s account refers directly to the 'struggle' theme, Joseph Smith chose not to include it within the Wentworth Letter.

* Even after Joseph Smith revealed details about his 'struggle' with the Adversary he did not include some of them in subsequent accounts. For instance, in 1835 he told of hearing somebody walking up behind him but this detail didn't ever appear again in the known recitals. Gathering darkness and the dread of sudden destruction are mentioned in the official 1838 rendering of events but then it disappears and is not seen in any later sources which were produced during the Prophet's lifetime.

'''September–November 1832'''
:"I cried unto the Lord for mercy. . . and while in the attitude of calling upon the Lord . . . a pillar of fire [or] light above the brightness of the sun at noonday came down from above and rested upon me and I was filled with the Spirit of God".

'''9 November 1835'''
:"I called on the Lord for the first time in the place above stated, or in other words, I made a fruitless attempt to pray. My tongue seemed to be swollen in my mouth, so that I could not utter. I heard a noise behind me like some one walking towards me. I strove again to pray, but could not. The noise of walking seemed to draw nearer. I sprang upon my feet and looked round, but saw no person or thing that was calculated to produce the noise of walking. I kneeled again, my mouth was opened and my tongue loosed. I called on the Lord in mighty prayer. A pillar of fire appeared above my head, which presently rested down upon me and filled me with unspeakable joy".

'''2 May 1838'''
:"I kneeled down and began to offer up the desires of my heart to God, I had scarcely done so, when immediately I was seized upon by some power which entirely overcame me and had such astonishing influence over me as to bind my tongue so that I could not speak. Thick darkness gathered around me and it seemed to me for a time as if I were doomed to sudden destruction. But exerting all my powers to call upon God to deliver me out of the power of this enemy which had seized upon me, and at the very moment when I was ready to sink into despair and abandon myself to destruction, not to an imaginary ruin but to the power of some actual being from the unseen world who had such a marvelous power as I had never before felt in any being, just at this moment of great alarm I saw a pillar of light exactly over my head above the brightness of the sun, which descended gradually until it fell upon me. It no sooner appeared than I found myself delivered from the enemy which held me bound".

'''September 1840'''
:"He therefore, retired to a secret place in a grove, but a short distance from his father's house, and knelt down, and began to call upon the Lord. At first, he was severely tempted by the powers of darkness, which endeavored to overcome him; but he continued to seek for deliverance, until darkness gave way from his mind, and he was enabled to pray in feverency of the spirit, and in faith. And while thus pouring out his soul, anxiously desiring an answer from God, he at length, saw a very bright and glorious light in the heavens above; which, at first, seemed to be a considerable distance. He continued praying, while the light appeared to be gradually descending towards him".

'''June 1841'''
:"He, therefore, retired to a secret place, in a grove, but a short distance from his father's house, and knelt down and began to call upon the Lord. At first, he was severely tempted by the powers of darkness, which endeavored to overcome him. The adversary benighted his mind with doubts, and brought to his soul all kinds of improper pictures and tried to hinder him in his efforts and the accomplishment of his goal. However, the overflowing mercy of God came to buoy him up, and gave new impulse and momentum to his dwindling strength. Soon the dark clouds disappeared, and light and peace filled his troubled heart. And again he called upon the Lord with renewed faith and spiritual strength. At this sacred moment his mind was caught away from the natural objects with which he was surrounded, and he was enwrapped in a heavenly vision".

'''1 March 1842'''
:"I retired to a secret place in a grove and began to call upon the Lord, while fervently engaged in supplication my mind was taken away from the objects with which I was surrounded, and I was enwrapped in a heavenly vision".

'''11 June 1843'''
:"he went into the grove & enquired of the Lord which of all the sects were right".

'''29 August 1843'''
:"I kneeled down, and prayed, saying, O Lord, what Church shall I join? Directly I saw a light".

'''24 May 1844'''
:"Went into the Wood to pray, kneels himself down, his tongue was close[d,] cleave[t]h to his roof—could utter not a word, felt easier after awhile—saw a fire toward heaven came near and nearer. . . . the fire drew nigher, rested upon the tree, enveloped him[, and] comforted [him]".

==Conclusion==

The 'struggle' motif is absent from the first known self-written account of the Prophet's visionary experience (1832) but it is also absent from his self-written Wentworth Letter account (1842). It is clear from the available documentary evidence that the Prophet did not feel constrained by the arbitrary rule of his modern critics that he must include every aspect of his First Vision story in every single retelling of it, and no reasonable person should be bothered that he doesn't.

==Endnotes==

''None''

==Further reading==

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

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

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

===Printed material===
{{FirstVisionPrint}}

Multiple accounts of the First Vision/1832/Different age provided

2008-03-12T15:31:58Z

CarsonCalderwood:

{{FirstVisionPortal}}
{{draft}}

==Criticism==

In Joseph Smith's 1832 First Vision recital he said that he was "in the 16th year of [his] age" when the manifestation took place but when he created the 1838 account he changed this information to say that he was "in [his] fifteenth year." This is evidence that the Prophet's story evolved over time, and was thus a fabrication to begin with.

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

* Richard Abanes, ''One Nation Under Gods: A History of the Mormon Church'' (New York: Four Walls Eight Windows, 2003), 16.

==Response==

The 'one-year-off-the mark' dating anomaly of the 1832 First Vision account can best be understood by taking a look at all of the dates and time frame indicators that are provided within the document. It can then be seen that the farther back in time Joseph Smith goes, the more inexact his dating scheme becomes.

Notice that the date of the First Vision is an above-the-line insertion, meaning that it was not placed in the text initially but was added at a later time than the creation of the main text.

('''17 years back in time''')
::"at the age of about ten years my father Joseph Smith Sr. moved to Palmyra" [23 Dec. 1815 – 23 Dec. 1816]
('''15 years back in time''')
::"At about the age of twelve years my mind become seriously impressed" [23 Dec. 1817 – 23 Dec. 1818]
('''12 years back in time''')
::"from the age of twelve years to fifteen I pondered many things in my heart" [23 Dec. 1817 – 23 Dec. 1821]

::"while in <the> attitude of calling upon the Lord <in the 16th year of my age> a pillar of fire" [23 Dec. 1820 – 23 Dec. 1821]

::"for many days"

::"about that time"

::"after many days"

('''7 years back in time''')
::"when I was seventeen years of age I called again upon the Lord . . . [and an] angel [appeared]. . . . it was on the 22d day of Sept. AD 1822"

('''5 years back in time''')
::"the plates [I] obtained them not until I was twenty one years of age"

::"in this year I was married . . . 18th [of] January AD 1827"

::"on the 22d day of Sept of this same year I obtained the plates"

::"in December following we moved to Susquehanna"

Particular attention should be focused on the fact that even though Joseph Smith correctly stated that he was "seventeen years of age" when the angel Moroni appeared to him on 22 September 1823, he got the time of that manifestation wrong by one year. A clue as to why this incorrect date was placed by the Prophet in this historical account can be found right in the 1832 document itself. Near the beginning of the narrative Joseph writes: “being in indigent circumstances [we] were obliged to labor hard for the support of a large family having nine children. And as it required the exertions of all that were able to render any assistance for the support of the family therefore we were deprived of the benefit of an education. Suffice it to say [that] I was merely instructed in reading and writing and '''the ground <rules> of arithmetic''' which constituted my whole literary acquirements”. Elder Orson Pratt once asked rhetorical questions of the Prophet to illustrate his meager level of formal education: "Had you been to college? No. Had you studied in any seminary of learning? No. Did you know how to read? Yes. How to write? Yes. '''Did you understand much about arithmetic? No'''. About grammar? No. Did you understand all the branches of education which are generally taught in our common schools? No." (''Journal of Discourses'', 7:220-21). And when Elder Pratt wrote specifically about the First Vision he was even more specific about the level of the Prophet's math skills, saying that he had "'''a very limited understanding of the elementary rules of arithmetic'''." (Orson Pratt, ''An Interesting Account of Several Remarkable Visions'' [Edinburgh, Scotland: Ballantyne and Hughes, 1840], ---).

The 1832 history is not the only one where the Prophet made a dating mistake that was one year off the mark. He did the same thing when he created the 1838 Church history, but this time he got the year of his own brother's death wrong. He erroneously remembered that it was 1824 instead of 1823. The significant thing about this particular dating blunder is that four years after the Prophet recorded the initial information he came to the realization that it was not correct and had his scribe, Willard Richards, make the appropriate adjustment. Perhaps the problem with the date was brought to the Prophet's attention by a member of his own family after the information had been printed and made available for public perusal [publication in May 1842; correction in December 1842].

'''Initial Manuscript Record (2 May 1838)'''
:"Alvin (who is now dead)"

:"In the year Eighteen hundred and twenty four my fathers family met with a great affliction by the death of my eldest brother Alvin."

'''Publication ( 15 March 1842 / 2 May 1842)'''
:"Alvin, (who is now dead)" (''Times and Seasons'', vol. 3, no. 10, 15 March 1842, 727).

:"In the year eighteen hundred and twenty-four my father's family met with a great affliction by the death of my eldest brother Alvin." (''Times and Seasons'', vol. 3, no. 13, 2 May 1842, 772).

'''Post-Publication Manuscript Correction (2 December 1842)'''
:"Alvin (who <died Nov. 19th: 1823 in the 25 year of his age.> is now dead)" [the last three words are stricken out]

:"In the year Eighteen hundred and twenty four my fathers family met with a great affliction by the death of my eldest brother Alvin." [this year designation was not corrected by Willard Richards - whose editorial additions and notes end before this point in the manuscript]

A similar type of dating correction scenario, as mentioned above, may have taken place in connection with the 1832 history. Oliver Cowdery claimed that he had the Prophet's help in creating his December 1834 Church history article and despite the fact that he had the erroneously-dated 1832 document sitting in front of him [see paper on this subject] he provided the correct year for the Prophet's First Vision - "'''in''' the 15th year of his life" (i.e., between 23 December 1819 and 23 December 1820). And just nine months later the Prophet himself was telling a non-Mormon that the First Vision took place when he was "about 14 years old" (Joseph Smith diary, 9 November 1835).

==Conclusion==

It is perfectly understandable that since Joseph Smith possessed meager math skills his dating schemes were slightly off when he recorded his reminiscences of the past, many years after-the-fact. There is nothing nefarious in Joseph Smith correcting his own slight mathematical miscalculations. Once the date of the First Vision was correctly established it remained steady throughout many subsequent recitals.

==Endnotes==

''None''

==Further reading==

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

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

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

===Printed material===
{{FirstVisionPrint}}

Joseph Smith's First Vision/Persecution

2008-03-12T15:17:37Z

CarsonCalderwood:

{{FirstVisionPortal}}
{{draft}}

==Criticism==

Joseph Smith's 1832 First Vision account does not say that he was persecuted for relating his spiritual manifestation to others. Since this story element does not appear until the 1838 account, this stands as evidence that the Prophet's story evolved over time—probably to add a sense of drama.

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

*

==Response==

Joseph Smith made some remarks in his 1832 First Vision account that have a marked degree of relevance to the argument being put forward by his critics. In relation to the period of time between the First Vision and the appearance of the Book of Mormon angel he said,

*"I could find none that would believe the heavenly vision nevertheless I pondered these things in my heart"
*"there were many things which transpired that cannot be written"
*"my father's family have suffered '''many persecutions''' and afflictions"

Since it is explicitly stated by Joseph Smith that nobody believed his story, it would be unreasonable to assume that all of the responses to it were friendly in nature. In fact, the Prophet says right in this text that before the Book of Mormon angel visited him his family was persecuted and afflicted for some unspecified reason(s). He did not elaborate upon the nature of the "many persecutions" that took place against his family because—as far as this particular document was concerned—he had elected not to write down "many things which transpired."

The following documentary evidence from the 1838 First Vision experience strengthens the argument that the 1832 text is referring to some type of persecution that took place because of Joseph's initial spiritual experience.

*Back "then" (i.e., between 1820 and 1823) Joseph's mind was engaged in "serious reflection" over the notion that he had been the recipient of "the bitterst persecution and reviling" by adherents of religion, simply because he had spoken about his First Vision.
*Persecution over the vision was also heaped upon Joseph Smith by "irreligious" persons.
*His words were treated not only lightly but also with great contempt.
*It was implied that he was a liar.
*He was told that his experience originated with the Devil.
*People became prejudiced against him. They spoke "all manner of evil against [him] falsely". He was "hated".
*The persecution increased over time and even became "severe".
*Some people tried to get Joseph Smith to "deny" his vision.
*The Prophet relates: "I was led to say in my heart, 'Why persecute me for telling the truth?'"

This 1838 description corresponds very well with the "many persecutions and afflictions" that are mentioned in the 1832 account. It also matches closely with the 1832 statements that nobody would believe Joseph's story and he reflected upon this adverse situation in his heart.

It should be pointed out that even though the 'persecution' theme is very pronounced in the 1838 account it is a piece of the story that was not always mentioned or emphasized in subsequent retelling (both published and verbal).

:*It is missing in Orson Pratt's 1840 missionary tract called ''An Interesting Account of Several Remarkable Visions''.
:*It is missing in the Prophet's 1842 Wentworth Letter recital.
:*It shows up again in David White's 1843 newspaper interview with the Prophet where an interesting insight is provided about the reason for the pronounced negative reaction by some of those who heard the story. The Prophet said, "When I went home and told the people that I had a revelation, and that all the churches were corrupt, they persecuted me, and they have persecuted me ever since."
:*Rejection, but no outright persecution, is mentioned in Alexander Neibaur's 1844 diary notes. There Joseph is said to have “told the Methodist priest [about the experience], [but he] said this was not a[n] age for God to reveal Himself in vision[. The priest said that] revelation ha[d] ceased with the New Testament.”

This last example is especially significant because it is an obvious reference to the Methodist minister who is spoken of in the 1838 ''History of the Church'' account. The 1844 rehearsal of events is less detailed but it is, nevertheless, the same exact story. The 1844 document clearly demonstrates that Joseph Smith did not always include an equal amount of story elements in his recitals of the First Vision. Critics of this manifestation should, therefore, not expect any such thing when they scrutinize the pertinent documents. If an element of the story was not known by one particular audience it cannot be automatically assumed that it was not known by another.

==Conclusion==

The Prophet's 1832 history of the Restoration talks about persecution in very close proximity to the First Vision recital. The persecution is situated squarely between the First Vision experience and the angel Moroni visitations. The documentary evidence presented above demonstrates conclusively that Joseph Smith did not see anything wrong with telling the basic elements of his First Vision story and either giving a passing reference to other elements or leaving them out altogether. Regardless, it was still a record of the very same experience that took place at the Smith homestead near Palmyra, New York.

==Endnotes==

''None''

==Further reading==

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

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

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

===Printed material===
{{FirstVisionPrint}}

Multiple accounts of the First Vision/1832/Doesn't mention a revival

2008-03-12T15:16:30Z

CarsonCalderwood:

{{FirstVisionPortal}}

==Criticism==

A religious revival is not mentioned in Joseph Smith's handwritten 1832 First Vision account. Since this detail does not show up in the narrative until the 1838 'official text' it provides evidence that the First Vision story evolved over time and became more elaborate.

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

*Richard Abanes, ''One Nation Under Gods: A History of the Mormon Church'' (New York: Four Walls Eight Windows, 2003), 16-17.

==Response==

Critics of Joseph Smith claim that no revival is mentioned in the 1832 First Vision account because the actual word 'revival'—or something similar—is not found within the text. But they have failed to notice a distinct pattern of words that demonstrate a definite link between the various First Vision accounts.

'''7 March 1832'''
:On 7 March 1832 (just a few months before Joseph Smith penned his 1832 First Vision account) some Mormon missionaries in Pennsylvania were saying that during Joseph’s youth he had repented of his sins but was “not attached himself to any party of Christians, owing to the numerous divisions among them,” and so he resorted to prayer.{{ref|fn1}}

'''September—November 1832'''
:"At about the age of twelve years my mind became seriously impressed with regard to the all important concerns for the welfare of my immortal soul, which led me to searching the scriptures, believing as I was taught that they contained the word of God. Thus applying myself to them, and my intimate acquaintance with those of different denominations, led me to marvel exceedingly. For I discovered that they did not adorn their profession by a holy walk and godly conversation agreeable to what I found contained in that sacred depository. This was a grief to my soul. Thus, from the age of twelve years to fifteen I pondered many things in my heart concerning the situation of the world of mankind the contentions and divisions the wickedness and abominations and the darkness which pervaded the minds of mankind. My mind became excedingly distressed, for I became convicted of my sins. And by searching the scriptures I found that mankind did not come unto the Lord but that they had apostatized from the true and living faith. And there was no society or denomination that built upon the gospel of Jesus Christ as recorded in the New Testament. And I felt to mourn for my own sins and for the sins of the world. For I learned in the scriptures that . . . . [A]nd when I considered all these things, and that that Being seeketh such to worship Him as worship Him in spirit and in truth, therefore I cried unto the Lord for mercy for there was none else to whom I could go and obtain mercy."{{ref|fn2}}

'''December 1834'''
*During "the 15th year of [Joseph Smith's] life" there was "a great awakening, or excitement raised on the subject of religion" in Palmyra, New York and its "vicinity."
*There was "much enquiry for the word of life"
*"in common with others, [Joseph Smith's] mind became awakened"
*"For a length of time the reformation seemed to move in a harmonious manner"
*"but, as the excitement ceased . . . a general struggle was made by the leading characters of the different sects, for proselytes"
*"Large additions were made to the Methodist, Presbyterian, and Baptist churches"
*"Then strife seemed to take the place of that apparent union and harmony . . . and a cry—I am right—you are wrong—was introduced"; "all professed to be the true church"
*"In this general strife for followers, [Joseph Smith's] mother, one sister, and two of his natural brothers, were persuaded to unite with the Presbyterians"
*This circumstance gave Joseph "further reflection"
*He received "strong solicitations to unite with one of those different societies"
*But "seeing the apparent proselyting disposition manifested with equal warmth from each, [Joseph Smith's] mind was led to more seriously contemplate the importance of a move of this kind"
*His "spirit was not at rest day nor night"
*Joseph did not want to "profess godliness without its benign influence upon [his] heart" [i.e., 'repenting of sins' theme]
*He also did not want to "unite with a society professing to be built upon the only sure foundation, and that profession be a vain one"
*Joseph Smith felt that there would be "serious consequences of moving hastily, in a course fraught with eternal realities"
*He believed that "amid so many [denominations], some must be built upon the sand"
*"In this situation where could he go?"
*Joseph spent time "reflecting" on a passage of scripture
*He had a strong "degree of determination . . . relative to obtaining a certainty of the things of God"{{ref|fn3}}

'''9 November 1835'''
:"being wrought up in my mind, respecting the subject of religion and looking at the different systems taught the children of men, I knew not who was right or who was wrong and I considered it of the first importance that I should be right, in matters that involve eternal consequ[e]nces; being thus perplexed in mind . . . . information was what I most desired at this time, and with a fixed determination to obtain it"{{ref|fn4}}

'''2 May 1838'''
:“multitudes united themselves to the different religious parties, which created no small stir and division among the people, Some crying, ‘Lo here’ and some ‘Lo there’. Some were contending for the Methodist faith, Some for the Presbyterian, and some for the Baptist . . . . a scene of great confusion and bad feeling ensued; Priest contending against priest, and convert against convert . . . a strife of words and a contest about opinions”; “so great was the confusion and strife amongst the different denominations”; “the cry and tumult were so great and incessant"; “war of words, and tumult of opinions”; “the contests of these parties of religionists”{{ref|fn5}}

When the September—November 1832 First Vision account is compared with subsequent recitals (especially 1838), and one partial previous rendition, it appears that they are all telling the same story: Prior to the First Vision event there were contentions and divisions among the different religious denominations in connection with a revival. It seems, therefore, that the Prophet's handwritten 1832 account does indeed make a passing reference to revival activity.

There are several other phrases in the Prophet's 1832 account that can be interpreted as references to revivals. For instance, Joseph Smith said that when he was "about the age of twelve years" (23 December 1817—23 December 1818) he became seriously concerned about the welfare of his soul. Why did these feelings arise at this point in time? Possibly because there was a Methodist camp-meeting/revival from June 19th through the 22nd, 1818 held in Palmyra, New York.{{ref|fn6}}

Joseph Smith pointed to a time period "from the age of twelve years to fifteen" (i.e., between 23 December 1817 and 23 December 1821) when he –

*applied himself to studying the scriptures
*noticed the hypocrisy of some persons who claimed to be religious
*pondered the "contentions and divisions" among men [revival imagery seen in other First Vision accounts]
*pondered the "wickedness and abominations" and "darkness" of mankind
*was grieved by what he saw around him; felt to mourn for the sins of the world
*became "exceedingly distressed" because he felt "convicted of [his] sins" and felt to "mourn" for them
*did not recognize any religious denomination that followed the biblical pattern completely
*determined that God wanted to be worshiped in truth
*decided to pray

Some of the themes enumerated above can be matched with the Prophet's other descriptions of things that happened during the revival activity of Palmyra and its vicinity. This matching of themes tends to support the argument that the 1832 text does indeed refer to revival activity.

:('''1832''') "the scriptures . . . they contained the word of God"; ('''1834''') "that record called the word of God"
:('''1832''') "I became convicted of my sins"; ('''1834''') "arouse the sinner to look about him for safety"
:('''1832''') "that Being seeketh such to worship Him as worship Him in spirit and in truth"; ('''1834''') "All professed to be the true church"
:('''1832''') "society or denomination that built upon the gospel of Jesus Christ as recorded in the New Testament"; ('''1834''') "a society professing to be built upon the only sure foundation"
:('''1832''') "those of different denominations . . . they did not adorn their profession by a holy walk and godly conversation"; ('''1834''') "they were certainly hypocritical"
:('''1832''') "my mind became exceedingly distressed"; ('''1838''') "my mind was called up to serious reflection and great uneasiness"
:('''1832''') "the darkness which pervaded the minds of mankind"; ('''1838''') "At length I came to the conclusion that I must either remain in darkness" or pray

The phrase “I cried unto the Lord for mercy” in Joseph Smith's 1832 First Vision account also has a strong ring of revivalism to it. Rev. George Peck recounted the happenings at a Methodist camp meeting held on 4 July 1816 in Plymouth, New York. He said that “There was an unbroken roar of fervent supplication all over the ground, while the awful voice of the preacher resounded.” One person then fell to the ground and cried for mercy.{{ref|fn7}}

==Conclusion==

The claim that there is no reference to a religious revival in Joseph Smith's 1832 First Vision account cannot be taken too seriously once a comparison of historical texts is carried out. The 'contentions and divisions' that are spoken of in the revival material of the 1838 text are matched by the very same terms in the 1832 recital.

==Endnotes==

#{{note|fn1}}''The Fredonia Censor'', vol. 11, no. 50, 7 March 1832.
#{{note|fn2}} Joseph Smith, 1832 vision account; found in {{PWJS|start=1|end=2}}; from MS Joseph Smith, "A History of the Life of Joseph Smith," in Joseph Smith Letterbook 1, pp. 1-6, Joseph Smith Collection, LDS Church Archives, Salt Lake City. {{link1|url=http://deseretbook.com/personalwritings/4}}
#{{note|fn3}} {{MA|vol=1|num=3|date=December 1834|start=42|end=43}}
#{{note|fn4}} Joseph Smith, Journal entry, 9 November 1835; found in {{PWJS1|start=22}} from MS Joseph Smith Journal, 1835-36, 193 pp., Joseph Smith Collection, LDS Church Archives, Salt Lake City. {{link1|url=http://deseretbook.com/personalwritings/6}}
#{{note|fn5}}{{s||JS-H|1|5-6}}
#{{note|fn6}}E. Latimer, ''The Three Brothers: Sketches of the Lives of Rev. Aurora Seager, Rev. Micah Seager, Rev. Schuyler Seager, D.D.'' (New York: Phillips and Hunt, 1880), 21–22, citing the Aurora Seager diary. This revival was never mentioned in the Palmyra newspapers.
#{{note|fn7}}George Peck, ''The Life and Times of Rev. George Peck'' (New York: Nelson and Philips, 1874), chapter 2.

==Further reading==

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

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

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

===Printed material===
{{FirstVisionPrint}}

Multiple accounts of the First Vision/1832/Only one Personage appears

2008-03-12T15:15:14Z

CarsonCalderwood:

{{FirstVisionPortal}}

==Criticism==

Critics claim that in the 1832 account of the First Vision—which is in the handwriting of Joseph Smith—it only says that Jesus Christ made an appearance to the Prophet; the Father is missing. Since this is the earliest known written account of the First Vision critics believe it stands as evidence that the story evolved and became more elaborate over time.

===Source(s) of the criticism===
* Richard Abanes, ''Becoming Gods: A Closer Look at 21st-Century Mormonism'' (Harvest House Publishers: 2005).
* Isaiah Bennett, ''Inside Mormonism: What Mormons Really Believe'' (Catholic Answers: 1999).
* Grant Palmer, ''An Insider's View of Mormon Origins'' (Salt Lake City, Utah: Signature Books, 2002).
* Jerald and Sandra Tanner, ''The Case Against Mormonism'', 2 vols., (Salt Lake City, 1967), 1:120–128.
* Jerald and Sandra Tanner, ''Changing World of Mormonism'' (Salt Lake City: 1980), 164.
* Dan Vogel, "The Earliest Mormon Concept of God," in ''Line Upon Line: Essays on Mormon Doctrine'', edited by Gary James Bergera, (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1989), 17–33.

==Response==

The theophany portion of the 1832 account does not specifically indicate that the Father appeared to Joseph Smith together with Jesus Christ. The relevant text (in its original form) reads as follows:

:"a piller of fire light above the brightness of the sun at noon day c[a]me down from above and rested upon me and I was filled with the spirit of god and the <Lord> opened the heavens upon me and I saw the Lord and he spake unto me saying Joseph <my son> thy sins are forgiven thee. go thy <way> walk in my statutes and keep my commandments behold I am the Lord of glory I was crucifyed for the world that all those who believe on my name may have Eternal life <behold> the world lieth in sin and at this time and none doeth good no not one they have turned asside from the gospel and keep not <my> commandments they draw near to me with their lips while their hearts are far from me and mine anger is kindling against the inhabitants of the earth to visit them acording to th[e]ir ungodliness and to bring to pass that which <hath> been spoken by the mouth of the prophets and Ap[o]stles behold and lo I come quickly as it [is] written of me in the cloud <clothed> in the glory of my Father."{{ref|1832account}}

Even though the Savior makes a direct reference to the Father there is no indication in this portion of the 1832 document that God appeared to Joseph Smith alongside His Son.

The critics have, however, failed to notice a very significant phrase located in the introductory paragraph of the Prophet's historical narrative. There he indicates that the 1832 document is . . .

:"A History of the life of Joseph Smith Jr. an account of his marvilous experience and of all the mighty acts which he doeth in the name of Jesus Ch[r]ist the son of the living God of whom he beareth record and also an account of the rise of the church of Christ in the eve of time according as the Lord brough<t> [it] forth and established [it] by his hand <'''firstly'''> he receiving the testamony from on high '''secondly''' the ministering of Angels '''thirdly''' the reception of the holy Priesthood by the ministring of Aangels to adminster the letter of the Gospel—<—the Law and commandments as they were given unto him—>and the ordinencs, '''forthly''' a confirmation and reception of the high Priesthood after the holy order of the son of the living God."

This paragraph not only introduces the document with a heavy emphasis on the Son of God but it also chronologically outlines four inaugural events of the Restoration.

:::FIRST: Reception of "the testimony from on high" - First Vision
:::SECOND: The "ministering of angels" - Moroni visitations
:::THIRD: Reception of the Holy Priesthood to administer the letter of the gospel - Aaronic
:::FOURTH: Reception of the High Priesthood after the order of the Son - Melchizedek

The significant phrase in the introductory paragraph is the one associated with the First Vision -- "receiving the testimony from on high" (spelling standardized). When this phrase is placed in conjunction with the Prophet's 1835 and 1838 accounts of the First Vision it becomes obvious that the 1832 phraseology closely corresponds with the words spoken by God the Father when He introduced His Son in the Sacred Grove.

;(1832 ACCOUNT):“firstly . . . receiving the testimony from on high”
;(1835 ACCOUNT):“He [God the Father] testified unto me that Jesus Christ is the Son of God”
;(1838 ACCOUNT):"[He] said...This is my beloved Son”

The Father's identification of Jesus Christ as His Son was His "testimony" of Him.

Critics have objected that -- in their minds -- the phrase "from on high" cannot be so easily equated with God the Father. But there is a sizable amount of corroborating evidence for this idea. Consider the following points of connection.

:*'''3 Ne. 11:3, 5-7 - between April and June 1828'''
The Father's "voice . . . came out of heaven" [i.e., 'from on high'] and testified of His "Beloved Son."
:*'''D&C 20:16 - April 1830'''
Joseph Smith stated, "the Lord God has spoken it; and we . . . have heard . . . the words of the glorious Majesty on high."
:*'''Matthew, Mark, Luke, 1 Peter - between 8 March 1831 and 24 March 1832'''
There are five New Testament scriptures (which Joseph Smith would have been familiar with from his work on the JST) that have distinct parallels to the First Vision story. Jesus Christ's Old World disciples heard the Father's voice come "from heaven" (Mt. 3:17; Mk. 1:11; Lk. 3:22; 2 Pt. 1:17-18) [i.e, 'from on high'] or "out of the cloud" (Mt. 17:5) [i.e., 'from on high'] and in each of these instances the Father testified of His Son and employed the same phraseology that Joseph Smith said He utilized during the First Vision.
:*'''JST John 1:18/19 - between 20 November 1831 and 16 February 1832'''
"And no man hath seen God at any time, except he [i.e., God the Father] hath borne record of the Son."
:*'''1832 First Vision account - between 22 September 1832 and 27 November 1832'''
"receiving the testimony from on high"
:*'''D&C 93:15 - 6 May 1833'''
Mention is made of the Father's voice being heard "out of heaven."
:*'''Patriarchal Blessing - 9 December 1834'''
When the Prophet received his Patriarchal Blessing on 9 December 1834 he was reminded by the Patriarch (his father) that during his "youth" he had "heard [God's] voice from on high."

This chronological evidence points to the conclusion that Joseph Smith likely equated the voice "from on high" with God the Father both before and after he penned his 1832 First Vision account.

Since it can be concluded from the above documentary evidence that Joseph Smith did indeed make an oblique reference to the appearance of the Father in his 1832 history the question becomes—Why did the Prophet construct the 1832 narrative in the manner that he did (so as to exclude explicit mention of the Father's appearance)? A careful analysis of the 1832 First Vision text reveals that it was deliberately constructed on the framework of many scriptural citations. The apostle Stephen's view of both the Father and the Son is clearly utilized by the Prophet in one section of the 1832 text but, more importantly, Joseph Smith told the actual theophany portion of this narrative in language that very closely corresponds to the apostle Paul's vision of Jesus Christ ({{s||Acts|26||}}).{{ref|fair2006}} .

Paul did not report that he saw the Father alongside the Son, and so it is logical that this is the reason why Joseph Smith did not explicitly mention the Father's appearance in his text either. The Prophet's strong sense of connection with Paul's visionary experience is referred to by him right in his 1838 First Vision account. The context of this connection is the persecution experienced by both men for speaking publicly about a heavenly manifestation. Joseph Smith relates in his 1838 history that he was informed by a clergyman that his vision was "all of the devil." This piece of information may help to explain why the Prophet chose to couch his first known written account of his vision in heavy biblical language and imagery. He may have hoped that by doing this his story would have a better chance of being accepted amongst a populace that was steeped in biblical content.

It is interesting to note that the scribe for the material which directly precedes and follows after the 1832 First Vision narrative - Frederick G. Williams - never mentioned anything about Joseph Smith's story evolving over time and becoming more elaborate with the so-called 'addition' of the Father. Williams was a resident of Quincy, Illinois when the First Vision account which explicitly refers to the Father was published in Nauvoo, Illinois on 1 April 1842. It is known that Williams was with the Prophet in Nauvoo shortly before his death on 10 October 1842 but during the intervening six months there is no known objection by Frederick to the content of the printed text. Why not? Williams was the person who wrote down the words in the introductory remarks of the 1832 document that talk of Joseph Smith receiving "the testimony from on high" during the First Vision. And it is known that Frederick was accompanying four LDS missionaries who, in November 1830, were teaching the citizens of Painesville, Ohio that Joseph Smith had seen "God" personally (see the [[1830 statement about seeing "God"]]). Williams was a member of the First Presidency of the Church on 9 November 1835 when Joseph Smith was teaching a non-Mormon that there were two personages who appeared during the First Vision (see Joseph Smith diary, 9 November 1835). Frederick probably never drew attention to a so-called 'discrepancy' between what Joseph Smith taught in 1832, 1835, 1838, and 1842 because he knew that there wasn't one; he knew that the words of the Father spoken during the vision were referred to right in the text that he had written down in 1832.

Oliver Cowdery is another person who was in a position to know if the Prophet's First Vision story had changed over time by the addition of the Father. But he never mentioned any such 'discrepancy'. Cowdery had possession of the 1832 First Vision account when he wrote and published a series of Church history letters in December 1834 and February 1835 and so he was fully aware of the explicit mention of Christ's appearance and he also would have known of the introductory remark which refers to "the testimony from on high" being delivered during this event. Cowdery became the Associate or Assistant President of the entire Church on 5 December 1834 (''Encyclopedia of Mormonism'', 1653), and thus he would have been in the highest office of Church authority when the Prophet was teaching about one year later that two personages appeared during the First Vision (Joseph Smith diary, 9 November 1835).

Both Fredrick G. Williams and Oliver Cowdery had reason to feel animosity toward Joseph Smith and the Church since they were both excommunicated in the late 1830's. But neither of these men - even after their reinstatements into full fellowship - ever pointed to any 'creative editing' of the Prophet's First Vision story to sound more impressive and dramatic.

==Conclusion==

The Father is not explicitly mentioned as making an appearance in the theophany portion of the 1832 First Vision account because Joseph Smith patterned that part of his narrative after the vision of Jesus Christ experienced by the apostle Paul. The words spoken by the Father during His First Vision appearance are, however, referred to in the introductory paragraph of the 1832 text.

The critics have not been careful in their analysis of this early Mormon historical document.

==Endnotes==
#{{note|1832account}} {{PWJS|start=9|end=20}}{{link|url=http://deseretbook.com/personalwritings/4 Direct}} [PRECISE page numbering is needed; the words "emphasis added" need to be inserted after a ";" and space after the numbering designation.]
#{{note|fair2006}} See the 2006 FAIR Conference address entitled "Revised or Unaltered? Joseph Smith's Foundational Stories" and its accompanying slides. {{lf}}

==Further reading==

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

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

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

===Printed material===
{{FirstVisionPrint}}

Doctrine and Covenants/Lectures on Faith/Removed

2008-03-03T19:25:06Z

CarsonCalderwood: /* Criticism */

==Criticism==

Critics argue that the Lectures on Faith was removed from the Doctrine and Covenants without general church membership consent.

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

* Jerald and Sandra Tanner, ''Mormonism—Shadow or Reality?'' (Utah Lighthouse Ministry, 1987), 166-67.

==Response==
===History===

The Lectures were published in 1835 as the Doctrine portion of The Doctrine and Covenants of the Church of the Latter Day Saints. The Lectures were suggested to be added to this version of the D&C by a committee appointed on September 24, 1834 by a general assembly of the church to arrange the doctrines and revelations of the church into a single volume. That committee consisted of Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, Sidney Rigdon, and Frederick G. Williams. The general body of the church accepted the committee's compilation on August 17, 1835 as "the doctrine and covenants of their faith, by a unanimous vote." {{ref|HOC1}}

===Authorship===

The authorship of the Lectures on Faith is not entirely known. Recent authorship studies ascribe the wording of the lectures "mainly to Sidney Rigdon," with Joseph Smith substantially involved, and others perhaps having some influence. {{ref|BYU1}} Willard Richards writes in his history that Joseph was "busily engaged" in November in making "preparations for the School for the Elders, wherein they might be more perfectly instructed in the great things of God." {{ref|HOC2}} Furthermore, in January 1835 Joseph was engaged in "preparing the lectures on theology for publication." {{ref|HOC3}}

===Removal from the D&C===

The Church removed the Lectures from the Doctrine and Covenants in the 1921 edition with an explanation that the Lectures "were never presented to nor accepted by the Church as being otherwise than theological lectures or lessons". {{ref|D&C1}} This is in contrast to the remaining pages of the original Doctrine and Covenants which are officially recognized as divine revelation given specifically to the church.

Joseph Fielding Smith said the following concerning their removal:

: a) They were not received as revelations by the prophet Joseph Smith.
: b) They are instructions relative to the general subject of faith. They are explanations of this principle but not doctrine.
: c) They are not complete as to their teachings regarding the Godhead. More complete instructions on the point of doctrine are given in section 130 of the 1876 and all subsequent editions of the Doctrine and Covenants.
: d) It was thought by Elder James E. Talmage, chairman, and other members of the committee who were responsible for their omission that to avoid confusion and contention on this vital point of belief, it would be better not to have them bound in the same volume as the commandments or revelations which make up the Doctrine and Covenants. {{ref|Fitz1}}

===Current Use of the Lectures===

Bruce R. McConkie wrote regarding the lectures, "They were not themselves classed as revelations, but in them is to be found some of the best lesson material ever prepared on the Godhead; on the character, perfections, and attributes of God; on faith, miracles, and sacrifice. They can be studied with great profit by all gospel scholars." {{ref|MD1}} The 1990 republication of the lectures signals the desire of some LDS scholars to stimulate interest in their historical and doctrinal significance for the Church.

==Conclusion==

While the Lectures on Faith were at one time included in the Doctrine and Covenants, they were subsequently removed (along with other items [http://en.fairmormon.org/Doctrine_and_Covenants_textual_changes D&C Textual Changes]) that were not considered official revelation and binding doctrine by the church.

==Endnotes==
#{{note| }} {{HoC | vol=2|start=243|end=246 }}
#{{note| }} http://ldsfaq.byu.edu/emmain.asp?number=219
#{{note| }} {{HoC | vol=2|start=169|end=170 }}
#{{note| }} {{HoC1 | vol=2|start=180 }}
#{{note| }} Doctrine and Covenants, 1921 edition's introduction.
#{{note| }} As told to John William Fitzgerald, ''A Study of the Doctrine and Covenants'', M.A. Thesis, Brigham Young University, page 344. http://patriot.lib.byu.edu/u?/MTAF,31813
#{{note| }} {{MD1 | entry=439| start=439}}

==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===
*[[Godhead and the Trinity]]
{{DCWiki}}

===FAIR web site===
*{{TG|topic=Lectures on Faith|url=http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai171.html}}
*{{TG|topic=Changes in D&C|url=http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai287.html}}

===External links===
{{DCLinks}}

===Printed material===
{{DCPrint}}
[http://www.example.com link title]

Doctrine and Covenants/Lectures on Faith/Removed

2008-02-28T22:46:41Z

CarsonCalderwood: /* Conclusion */

==Criticism==

Critics argue that the Lectures on Faith was removed without general church membership consent.

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

* Jerald and Sandra Tanner, ''Mormonism—Shadow or Reality?'' (Utah Lighthouse Ministry, 1987), 166-67.

==Response==
===History===

The Lectures were published in 1835 as the Doctrine portion of The Doctrine and Covenants of the Church of the Latter Day Saints. The Lectures were suggested to be added to this version of the D&C by a committee appointed on September 24, 1834 by a general assembly of the church to arrange the doctrines and revelations of the church into a single volume. That committee consisted of Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, Sidney Rigdon, and Frederick G. Williams. The general body of the church accepted the committee's compilation on August 17, 1835 as "the doctrine and covenants of their faith, by a unanimous vote." {{ref|HOC1}}

===Authorship===

The authorship of the Lectures on Faith is not entirely known. Recent authorship studies ascribe the wording of the lectures "mainly to Sidney Rigdon," with Joseph Smith substantially involved, and others perhaps having some influence. {{ref|BYU1}} Willard Richards writes in his history that Joseph was "busily engaged" in November in making "preparations for the School for the Elders, wherein they might be more perfectly instructed in the great things of God." {{ref|HOC2}} Furthermore, in January 1835 Joseph was engaged in "preparing the lectures on theology for publication." {{ref|HOC3}}

===Removal from the D&C===

The Church removed the Lectures from the Doctrine and Covenants in the 1921 edition with an explanation that the Lectures "were never presented to nor accepted by the Church as being otherwise than theological lectures or lessons". {{ref|D&C1}} This is in contrast to the remaining pages of the original Doctrine and Covenants which are officially recognized as divine revelation given specifically to the church.

Joseph Fielding Smith said the following concerning their removal:

: a) They were not received as revelations by the prophet Joseph Smith.
: b) They are instructions relative to the general subject of faith. They are explanations of this principle but not doctrine.
: c) They are not complete as to their teachings regarding the Godhead. More complete instructions on the point of doctrine are given in section 130 of the 1876 and all subsequent editions of the Doctrine and Covenants.
: d) It was thought by Elder James E. Talmage, chairman, and other members of the committee who were responsible for their omission that to avoid confusion and contention on this vital point of belief, it would be better not to have them bound in the same volume as the commandments or revelations which make up the Doctrine and Covenants. {{ref|Fitz1}}

===Current Use of the Lectures===

Bruce R. McConkie wrote regarding the lectures, "They were not themselves classed as revelations, but in them is to be found some of the best lesson material ever prepared on the Godhead; on the character, perfections, and attributes of God; on faith, miracles, and sacrifice. They can be studied with great profit by all gospel scholars." {{ref|MD1}} The 1990 republication of the lectures signals the desire of some LDS scholars to stimulate interest in their historical and doctrinal significance for the Church.

==Conclusion==

While the Lectures on Faith were at one time included in the Doctrine and Covenants, they were subsequently removed (along with other items [http://en.fairmormon.org/Doctrine_and_Covenants_textual_changes D&C Textual Changes]) that were not considered official revelation and binding doctrine by the church.

==Endnotes==
#{{note| }} {{HoC | vol=2|start=243|end=246 }}
#{{note| }} http://ldsfaq.byu.edu/emmain.asp?number=219
#{{note| }} {{HoC | vol=2|start=169|end=170 }}
#{{note| }} {{HoC1 | vol=2|start=180 }}
#{{note| }} Doctrine and Covenants, 1921 edition's introduction.
#{{note| }} As told to John William Fitzgerald, ''A Study of the Doctrine and Covenants'', M.A. Thesis, Brigham Young University, page 344. http://patriot.lib.byu.edu/u?/MTAF,31813
#{{note| }} {{MD1 | entry=439| start=439}}

==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===
*[[Godhead and the Trinity]]
{{DCWiki}}

===FAIR web site===
*{{TG|topic=Lectures on Faith|url=http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai171.html}}
*{{TG|topic=Changes in D&C|url=http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai287.html}}

===External links===
{{DCLinks}}

===Printed material===
{{DCPrint}}
[http://www.example.com link title]

Doctrine and Covenants/Lectures on Faith/Removed

2008-02-28T18:21:59Z

CarsonCalderwood: /* Conclusion */

==Criticism==

Critics argue that the Lectures on Faith was removed without general church membership consent.

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

* Jerald and Sandra Tanner, ''Mormonism—Shadow or Reality?'' (Utah Lighthouse Ministry, 1987), 166-67.

==Response==
===History===

The Lectures were published in 1835 as the Doctrine portion of The Doctrine and Covenants of the Church of the Latter Day Saints. The Lectures were suggested to be added to this version of the D&C by a committee appointed on September 24, 1834 by a general assembly of the church to arrange the doctrines and revelations of the church into a single volume. That committee consisted of Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, Sidney Rigdon, and Frederick G. Williams. The general body of the church accepted the committee's compilation on August 17, 1835 as "the doctrine and covenants of their faith, by a unanimous vote." {{ref|HOC1}}

===Authorship===

The authorship of the Lectures on Faith is not entirely known. Recent authorship studies ascribe the wording of the lectures "mainly to Sidney Rigdon," with Joseph Smith substantially involved, and others perhaps having some influence. {{ref|BYU1}} Willard Richards writes in his history that Joseph was "busily engaged" in November in making "preparations for the School for the Elders, wherein they might be more perfectly instructed in the great things of God." {{ref|HOC2}} Furthermore, in January 1835 Joseph was engaged in "preparing the lectures on theology for publication." {{ref|HOC3}}

===Removal from the D&C===

The Church removed the Lectures from the Doctrine and Covenants in the 1921 edition with an explanation that the Lectures "were never presented to nor accepted by the Church as being otherwise than theological lectures or lessons". {{ref|D&C1}} This is in contrast to the remaining pages of the original Doctrine and Covenants which are officially recognized as divine revelation given specifically to the church.

Joseph Fielding Smith said the following concerning their removal:

: a) They were not received as revelations by the prophet Joseph Smith.
: b) They are instructions relative to the general subject of faith. They are explanations of this principle but not doctrine.
: c) They are not complete as to their teachings regarding the Godhead. More complete instructions on the point of doctrine are given in section 130 of the 1876 and all subsequent editions of the Doctrine and Covenants.
: d) It was thought by Elder James E. Talmage, chairman, and other members of the committee who were responsible for their omission that to avoid confusion and contention on this vital point of belief, it would be better not to have them bound in the same volume as the commandments or revelations which make up the Doctrine and Covenants. {{ref|Fitz1}}

===Current Use of the Lectures===

Bruce R. McConkie wrote regarding the lectures, "They were not themselves classed as revelations, but in them is to be found some of the best lesson material ever prepared on the Godhead; on the character, perfections, and attributes of God; on faith, miracles, and sacrifice. They can be studied with great profit by all gospel scholars." {{ref|MD1}} The 1990 republication of the lectures signals the desire of some LDS scholars to stimulate interest in their historical and doctrinal significance for the Church.

==Conclusion==

While the Lectures on Faith were originally added to the Doctrine and Covenants, they were subsequently removed (along with other items [http://en.fairmormon.org/Doctrine_and_Covenants_textual_changes D&C Textual Changes]) that were not considered official revelation and binding doctrine by the church.

==Endnotes==
#{{note| }} {{HoC | vol=2|start=243|end=246 }}
#{{note| }} http://ldsfaq.byu.edu/emmain.asp?number=219
#{{note| }} {{HoC | vol=2|start=169|end=170 }}
#{{note| }} {{HoC1 | vol=2|start=180 }}
#{{note| }} Doctrine and Covenants, 1921 edition's introduction.
#{{note| }} As told to John William Fitzgerald, ''A Study of the Doctrine and Covenants'', M.A. Thesis, Brigham Young University, page 344. http://patriot.lib.byu.edu/u?/MTAF,31813
#{{note| }} {{MD1 | entry=439| start=439}}

==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===
*[[Godhead and the Trinity]]
{{DCWiki}}

===FAIR web site===
*{{TG|topic=Lectures on Faith|url=http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai171.html}}
*{{TG|topic=Changes in D&C|url=http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai287.html}}

===External links===
{{DCLinks}}

===Printed material===
{{DCPrint}}
[http://www.example.com link title]

Doctrine and Covenants/Lectures on Faith/Removed

2008-02-28T18:21:23Z

CarsonCalderwood: /* Conclusion */

==Criticism==

Critics argue that the Lectures on Faith was removed without general church membership consent.

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

* Jerald and Sandra Tanner, ''Mormonism—Shadow or Reality?'' (Utah Lighthouse Ministry, 1987), 166-67.

==Response==
===History===

The Lectures were published in 1835 as the Doctrine portion of The Doctrine and Covenants of the Church of the Latter Day Saints. The Lectures were suggested to be added to this version of the D&C by a committee appointed on September 24, 1834 by a general assembly of the church to arrange the doctrines and revelations of the church into a single volume. That committee consisted of Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, Sidney Rigdon, and Frederick G. Williams. The general body of the church accepted the committee's compilation on August 17, 1835 as "the doctrine and covenants of their faith, by a unanimous vote." {{ref|HOC1}}

===Authorship===

The authorship of the Lectures on Faith is not entirely known. Recent authorship studies ascribe the wording of the lectures "mainly to Sidney Rigdon," with Joseph Smith substantially involved, and others perhaps having some influence. {{ref|BYU1}} Willard Richards writes in his history that Joseph was "busily engaged" in November in making "preparations for the School for the Elders, wherein they might be more perfectly instructed in the great things of God." {{ref|HOC2}} Furthermore, in January 1835 Joseph was engaged in "preparing the lectures on theology for publication." {{ref|HOC3}}

===Removal from the D&C===

The Church removed the Lectures from the Doctrine and Covenants in the 1921 edition with an explanation that the Lectures "were never presented to nor accepted by the Church as being otherwise than theological lectures or lessons". {{ref|D&C1}} This is in contrast to the remaining pages of the original Doctrine and Covenants which are officially recognized as divine revelation given specifically to the church.

Joseph Fielding Smith said the following concerning their removal:

: a) They were not received as revelations by the prophet Joseph Smith.
: b) They are instructions relative to the general subject of faith. They are explanations of this principle but not doctrine.
: c) They are not complete as to their teachings regarding the Godhead. More complete instructions on the point of doctrine are given in section 130 of the 1876 and all subsequent editions of the Doctrine and Covenants.
: d) It was thought by Elder James E. Talmage, chairman, and other members of the committee who were responsible for their omission that to avoid confusion and contention on this vital point of belief, it would be better not to have them bound in the same volume as the commandments or revelations which make up the Doctrine and Covenants. {{ref|Fitz1}}

===Current Use of the Lectures===

Bruce R. McConkie wrote regarding the lectures, "They were not themselves classed as revelations, but in them is to be found some of the best lesson material ever prepared on the Godhead; on the character, perfections, and attributes of God; on faith, miracles, and sacrifice. They can be studied with great profit by all gospel scholars." {{ref|MD1}} The 1990 republication of the lectures signals the desire of some LDS scholars to stimulate interest in their historical and doctrinal significance for the Church.

==Conclusion==

While the Lectures on Faith were originally added to the Doctrine and Covenants, they were subsequently removed (along with other items [http://en.fairmormon.org/Doctrine_and_Covenants_textual_changes]) that were not considered official revelation and binding doctrine by the church.

==Endnotes==
#{{note| }} {{HoC | vol=2|start=243|end=246 }}
#{{note| }} http://ldsfaq.byu.edu/emmain.asp?number=219
#{{note| }} {{HoC | vol=2|start=169|end=170 }}
#{{note| }} {{HoC1 | vol=2|start=180 }}
#{{note| }} Doctrine and Covenants, 1921 edition's introduction.
#{{note| }} As told to John William Fitzgerald, ''A Study of the Doctrine and Covenants'', M.A. Thesis, Brigham Young University, page 344. http://patriot.lib.byu.edu/u?/MTAF,31813
#{{note| }} {{MD1 | entry=439| start=439}}

==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===
*[[Godhead and the Trinity]]
{{DCWiki}}

===FAIR web site===
*{{TG|topic=Lectures on Faith|url=http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai171.html}}
*{{TG|topic=Changes in D&C|url=http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai287.html}}

===External links===
{{DCLinks}}

===Printed material===
{{DCPrint}}
[http://www.example.com link title]

Doctrine and Covenants/Lectures on Faith/Removed

2008-02-28T18:17:11Z

CarsonCalderwood: /* Response */

==Criticism==

Critics argue that the Lectures on Faith was removed without general church membership consent.

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

* Jerald and Sandra Tanner, ''Mormonism—Shadow or Reality?'' (Utah Lighthouse Ministry, 1987), 166-67.

==Response==
===History===

The Lectures were published in 1835 as the Doctrine portion of The Doctrine and Covenants of the Church of the Latter Day Saints. The Lectures were suggested to be added to this version of the D&C by a committee appointed on September 24, 1834 by a general assembly of the church to arrange the doctrines and revelations of the church into a single volume. That committee consisted of Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, Sidney Rigdon, and Frederick G. Williams. The general body of the church accepted the committee's compilation on August 17, 1835 as "the doctrine and covenants of their faith, by a unanimous vote." {{ref|HOC1}}

===Authorship===

The authorship of the Lectures on Faith is not entirely known. Recent authorship studies ascribe the wording of the lectures "mainly to Sidney Rigdon," with Joseph Smith substantially involved, and others perhaps having some influence. {{ref|BYU1}} Willard Richards writes in his history that Joseph was "busily engaged" in November in making "preparations for the School for the Elders, wherein they might be more perfectly instructed in the great things of God." {{ref|HOC2}} Furthermore, in January 1835 Joseph was engaged in "preparing the lectures on theology for publication." {{ref|HOC3}}

===Removal from the D&C===

The Church removed the Lectures from the Doctrine and Covenants in the 1921 edition with an explanation that the Lectures "were never presented to nor accepted by the Church as being otherwise than theological lectures or lessons". {{ref|D&C1}} This is in contrast to the remaining pages of the original Doctrine and Covenants which are officially recognized as divine revelation given specifically to the church.

Joseph Fielding Smith said the following concerning their removal:

: a) They were not received as revelations by the prophet Joseph Smith.
: b) They are instructions relative to the general subject of faith. They are explanations of this principle but not doctrine.
: c) They are not complete as to their teachings regarding the Godhead. More complete instructions on the point of doctrine are given in section 130 of the 1876 and all subsequent editions of the Doctrine and Covenants.
: d) It was thought by Elder James E. Talmage, chairman, and other members of the committee who were responsible for their omission that to avoid confusion and contention on this vital point of belief, it would be better not to have them bound in the same volume as the commandments or revelations which make up the Doctrine and Covenants. {{ref|Fitz1}}

===Current Use of the Lectures===

Bruce R. McConkie wrote regarding the lectures, "They were not themselves classed as revelations, but in them is to be found some of the best lesson material ever prepared on the Godhead; on the character, perfections, and attributes of God; on faith, miracles, and sacrifice. They can be studied with great profit by all gospel scholars." {{ref|MD1}} The 1990 republication of the lectures signals the desire of some LDS scholars to stimulate interest in their historical and doctrinal significance for the Church.

==Conclusion==

While the Lectures on Faith were originally added to the Doctrine and Covenants, they were subsequently removed (along with other items) that were not considered official revelation and binding doctrine by the church.

==Endnotes==
#{{note| }} {{HoC | vol=2|start=243|end=246 }}
#{{note| }} http://ldsfaq.byu.edu/emmain.asp?number=219
#{{note| }} {{HoC | vol=2|start=169|end=170 }}
#{{note| }} {{HoC1 | vol=2|start=180 }}
#{{note| }} Doctrine and Covenants, 1921 edition's introduction.
#{{note| }} As told to John William Fitzgerald, ''A Study of the Doctrine and Covenants'', M.A. Thesis, Brigham Young University, page 344. http://patriot.lib.byu.edu/u?/MTAF,31813
#{{note| }} {{MD1 | entry=439| start=439}}

==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===
*[[Godhead and the Trinity]]
{{DCWiki}}

===FAIR web site===
*{{TG|topic=Lectures on Faith|url=http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai171.html}}
*{{TG|topic=Changes in D&C|url=http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai287.html}}

===External links===
{{DCLinks}}

===Printed material===
{{DCPrint}}
[http://www.example.com link title]

Doctrine and Covenants/Lectures on Faith/Removed

2008-02-27T16:35:23Z

CarsonCalderwood: /* Current Use of the Lectures */

==Criticism==

Critics argue that the Lectures on Faith was removed without general church membership consent.

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

* Jerald and Sandra Tanner, ''Mormonism—Shadow or Reality?'' (Utah Lighthouse Ministry, 1987), 166-67.

==Response==

The Lectures were published in 1835 as the Doctrine portion of The Doctrine and Covenants of the Church of the Latter Day Saints. The Lectures were suggested to be added to this version of the D&C by a committee appointed on September 24, 1834 by a general assembly of the church to arrange the doctrines and revelations of the church into a single volume. That committee consisted of Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, Sidney Rigdon, and Frederick G. Williams. The general body of the church accepted the committee's compilation on August 17, 1835 as "the doctrine and covenants of their faith, by a unanimous vote." {{ref|HOC1}}

===Authorship===

The authorship of the Lectures on Faith is not entirely known. Recent authorship studies ascribe the wording of the lectures "mainly to Sidney Rigdon," with Joseph Smith substantially involved, and others perhaps having some influence. {{ref|BYU1}} Willard Richards writes in his history that Joseph was "busily engaged" in November in making "preparations for the School for the Elders, wherein they might be more perfectly instructed in the great things of God." {{ref|HOC2}} Furthermore, in January 1835 Joseph was engaged in "preparing the lectures on theology for publication." {{ref|HOC3}}

===Removal from the D&C===

The Church removed the Lectures from the Doctrine and Covenants in the 1921 edition with an explanation that the Lectures "were never presented to nor accepted by the Church as being otherwise than theological lectures or lessons". {{ref|D&C1}} This is in contrast to the remaining pages of the original Doctrine and Covenants which are officially recognized as divine revelation given specifically to the church.

Joseph Fielding Smith said the following concerning their removal:

: a) They were not received as revelations by the prophet Joseph Smith.
: b) They are instructions relative to the general subject of faith. They are explanations of this principle but not doctrine.
: c) They are not complete as to their teachings regarding the Godhead. More complete instructions on the point of doctrine are given in section 130 of the 1876 and all subsequent editions of the Doctrine and Covenants.
: d) It was thought by Elder James E. Talmage, chairman, and other members of the committee who were responsible for their omission that to avoid confusion and contention on this vital point of belief, it would be better not to have them bound in the same volume as the commandments or revelations which make up the Doctrine and Covenants. {{ref|Fitz1}}

===Current Use of the Lectures===

Bruce R. McConkie wrote regarding the lectures, "They were not themselves classed as revelations, but in them is to be found some of the best lesson material ever prepared on the Godhead; on the character, perfections, and attributes of God; on faith, miracles, and sacrifice. They can be studied with great profit by all gospel scholars." {{ref|MD1}} The 1990 republication of the lectures signals the desire of some LDS scholars to stimulate interest in their historical and doctrinal significance for the Church.

==Conclusion==

While the Lectures on Faith were originally added to the Doctrine and Covenants, they were subsequently removed (along with other items) that were not considered official revelation and binding doctrine by the church.

==Endnotes==
#{{note| }} {{HoC | vol=2|start=243|end=246 }}
#{{note| }} http://ldsfaq.byu.edu/emmain.asp?number=219
#{{note| }} {{HoC | vol=2|start=169|end=170 }}
#{{note| }} {{HoC1 | vol=2|start=180 }}
#{{note| }} Doctrine and Covenants, 1921 edition's introduction.
#{{note| }} As told to John William Fitzgerald, ''A Study of the Doctrine and Covenants'', M.A. Thesis, Brigham Young University, page 344. http://patriot.lib.byu.edu/u?/MTAF,31813
#{{note| }} {{MD1 | entry=439| start=439}}

==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===
*[[Godhead and the Trinity]]
{{DCWiki}}

===FAIR web site===
*{{TG|topic=Lectures on Faith|url=http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai171.html}}
*{{TG|topic=Changes in D&C|url=http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai287.html}}

===External links===
{{DCLinks}}

===Printed material===
{{DCPrint}}
[http://www.example.com link title]

Doctrine and Covenants/Lectures on Faith/Removed

2008-02-27T16:34:35Z

CarsonCalderwood: /* Removal from the D&C */

==Criticism==

Critics argue that the Lectures on Faith was removed without general church membership consent.

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

* Jerald and Sandra Tanner, ''Mormonism—Shadow or Reality?'' (Utah Lighthouse Ministry, 1987), 166-67.

==Response==

The Lectures were published in 1835 as the Doctrine portion of The Doctrine and Covenants of the Church of the Latter Day Saints. The Lectures were suggested to be added to this version of the D&C by a committee appointed on September 24, 1834 by a general assembly of the church to arrange the doctrines and revelations of the church into a single volume. That committee consisted of Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, Sidney Rigdon, and Frederick G. Williams. The general body of the church accepted the committee's compilation on August 17, 1835 as "the doctrine and covenants of their faith, by a unanimous vote." {{ref|HOC1}}

===Authorship===

The authorship of the Lectures on Faith is not entirely known. Recent authorship studies ascribe the wording of the lectures "mainly to Sidney Rigdon," with Joseph Smith substantially involved, and others perhaps having some influence. {{ref|BYU1}} Willard Richards writes in his history that Joseph was "busily engaged" in November in making "preparations for the School for the Elders, wherein they might be more perfectly instructed in the great things of God." {{ref|HOC2}} Furthermore, in January 1835 Joseph was engaged in "preparing the lectures on theology for publication." {{ref|HOC3}}

===Removal from the D&C===

The Church removed the Lectures from the Doctrine and Covenants in the 1921 edition with an explanation that the Lectures "were never presented to nor accepted by the Church as being otherwise than theological lectures or lessons". {{ref|D&C1}} This is in contrast to the remaining pages of the original Doctrine and Covenants which are officially recognized as divine revelation given specifically to the church.

Joseph Fielding Smith said the following concerning their removal:

: a) They were not received as revelations by the prophet Joseph Smith.
: b) They are instructions relative to the general subject of faith. They are explanations of this principle but not doctrine.
: c) They are not complete as to their teachings regarding the Godhead. More complete instructions on the point of doctrine are given in section 130 of the 1876 and all subsequent editions of the Doctrine and Covenants.
: d) It was thought by Elder James E. Talmage, chairman, and other members of the committee who were responsible for their omission that to avoid confusion and contention on this vital point of belief, it would be better not to have them bound in the same volume as the commandments or revelations which make up the Doctrine and Covenants. {{ref|Fitz1}}

===Current Use of the Lectures===

Bruce R. McConkie wrote regarding the lectures, "They were not themselves classed as revelations, but in them is to be found some of the best lesson material ever prepared on the Godhead; on the character, perfections, and attributes of God; on faith, miracles, and sacrifice. They can be studied with great profit by all gospel scholars" {{ref|MD1}}. The 1990 republication of the lectures signals the desire of some LDS scholars to stimulate interest in their historical and doctrinal significance for the Church."

==Conclusion==

While the Lectures on Faith were originally added to the Doctrine and Covenants, they were subsequently removed (along with other items) that were not considered official revelation and binding doctrine by the church.

==Endnotes==
#{{note| }} {{HoC | vol=2|start=243|end=246 }}
#{{note| }} http://ldsfaq.byu.edu/emmain.asp?number=219
#{{note| }} {{HoC | vol=2|start=169|end=170 }}
#{{note| }} {{HoC1 | vol=2|start=180 }}
#{{note| }} Doctrine and Covenants, 1921 edition's introduction.
#{{note| }} As told to John William Fitzgerald, ''A Study of the Doctrine and Covenants'', M.A. Thesis, Brigham Young University, page 344. http://patriot.lib.byu.edu/u?/MTAF,31813
#{{note| }} {{MD1 | entry=439| start=439}}

==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===
*[[Godhead and the Trinity]]
{{DCWiki}}

===FAIR web site===
*{{TG|topic=Lectures on Faith|url=http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai171.html}}
*{{TG|topic=Changes in D&C|url=http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai287.html}}

===External links===
{{DCLinks}}

===Printed material===
{{DCPrint}}
[http://www.example.com link title]

Doctrine and Covenants/Lectures on Faith/Removed

2008-02-27T00:31:53Z

CarsonCalderwood: remove draft tag

==Criticism==

Critics argue that the Lectures on Faith was removed without general church membership consent.

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

* Jerald and Sandra Tanner, ''Mormonism—Shadow or Reality?'' (Utah Lighthouse Ministry, 1987), 166-67.

==Response==

The Lectures were published in 1835 as the Doctrine portion of The Doctrine and Covenants of the Church of the Latter Day Saints. The Lectures were suggested to be added to this version of the D&C by a committee appointed on September 24, 1834 by a general assembly of the church to arrange the doctrines and revelations of the church into a single volume. That committee consisted of Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, Sidney Rigdon, and Frederick G. Williams. The general body of the church accepted the committee's compilation on August 17, 1835 as "the doctrine and covenants of their faith, by a unanimous vote." {{ref|HOC1}}

===Authorship===

The authorship of the Lectures on Faith is not entirely known. Recent authorship studies ascribe the wording of the lectures "mainly to Sidney Rigdon," with Joseph Smith substantially involved, and others perhaps having some influence. {{ref|BYU1}} Willard Richards writes in his history that Joseph was "busily engaged" in November in making "preparations for the School for the Elders, wherein they might be more perfectly instructed in the great things of God." {{ref|HOC2}} Furthermore, in January 1835 Joseph was engaged in "preparing the lectures on theology for publication." {{ref|HOC3}}

===Removal from the D&C===

The Church removed the Lectures from the Doctrine and Covenants in the 1921 edition with an explanation that the Lectures "were never presented to nor accepted by the Church as being otherwise than theological lectures or lessons". {{ref|D&C1}} This is in contrast to the remaining pages of the original Doctrine and Covenants which are officially recognized by nearly all Latter Day Saint denominations as divine revelation given specifically to the church.

Joseph Fielding Smith said the following concerning their removal:

: a) They were not received as revelations by the prophet Joseph Smith.
: b) They are instructions relative to the general subject of faith. They are explanations of this principle but not doctrine.
: c) They are not complete as to their teachings regarding the Godhead. More complete instructions on the point of doctrine are given in section 130 of the 1876 and all subsequent editions of the Doctrine and Covenants.
: d) It was thought by Elder James E. Talmage, chairman, and other members of the committee who were responsible for their omission that to avoid confusion and contention on this vital point of belief, it would be better not to have them bound in the same volume as the commandments or revelations which make up the Doctrine and Covenants. {{ref|Fitz1}}

===Current Use of the Lectures===

Bruce R. McConkie wrote regarding the lectures, "They were not themselves classed as revelations, but in them is to be found some of the best lesson material ever prepared on the Godhead; on the character, perfections, and attributes of God; on faith, miracles, and sacrifice. They can be studied with great profit by all gospel scholars" {{ref|MD1}}. The 1990 republication of the lectures signals the desire of some LDS scholars to stimulate interest in their historical and doctrinal significance for the Church."

==Conclusion==

While the Lectures on Faith were originally added to the Doctrine and Covenants, they were subsequently removed (along with other items) that were not considered official revelation and binding doctrine by the church.

==Endnotes==
#{{note| }} {{HoC | vol=2|start=243|end=246 }}
#{{note| }} http://ldsfaq.byu.edu/emmain.asp?number=219
#{{note| }} {{HoC | vol=2|start=169|end=170 }}
#{{note| }} {{HoC1 | vol=2|start=180 }}
#{{note| }} Doctrine and Covenants, 1921 edition's introduction.
#{{note| }} As told to John William Fitzgerald, ''A Study of the Doctrine and Covenants'', M.A. Thesis, Brigham Young University, page 344. http://patriot.lib.byu.edu/u?/MTAF,31813
#{{note| }} {{MD1 | entry=439| start=439}}

==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===
*[[Godhead and the Trinity]]
{{DCWiki}}

===FAIR web site===
*{{TG|topic=Lectures on Faith|url=http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai171.html}}
*{{TG|topic=Changes in D&C|url=http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai287.html}}

===External links===
{{DCLinks}}

===Printed material===
{{DCPrint}}
[http://www.example.com link title]

Doctrine and Covenants/Lectures on Faith/Removed

2008-02-27T00:25:45Z

CarsonCalderwood: /* Endnotes */

{{draft}}

==Criticism==

Critics argue that the Lectures on Faith was removed without general church membership consent.

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

* Jerald and Sandra Tanner, ''Mormonism—Shadow or Reality?'' (Utah Lighthouse Ministry, 1987), 166-67.

==Response==

The Lectures were published in 1835 as the Doctrine portion of The Doctrine and Covenants of the Church of the Latter Day Saints. The Lectures were suggested to be added to this version of the D&C by a committee appointed on September 24, 1834 by a general assembly of the church to arrange the doctrines and revelations of the church into a single volume. That committee consisted of Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, Sidney Rigdon, and Frederick G. Williams. The general body of the church accepted the committee's compilation on August 17, 1835 as "the doctrine and covenants of their faith, by a unanimous vote." {{ref|HOC1}}

===Authorship===

The authorship of the Lectures on Faith is not entirely known. Recent authorship studies ascribe the wording of the lectures "mainly to Sidney Rigdon," with Joseph Smith substantially involved, and others perhaps having some influence. {{ref|BYU1}} Willard Richards writes in his history that Joseph was "busily engaged" in November in making "preparations for the School for the Elders, wherein they might be more perfectly instructed in the great things of God." {{ref|HOC2}} Furthermore, in January 1835 Joseph was engaged in "preparing the lectures on theology for publication." {{ref|HOC3}}

===Removal from the D&C===

The Church removed the Lectures from the Doctrine and Covenants in the 1921 edition with an explanation that the Lectures "were never presented to nor accepted by the Church as being otherwise than theological lectures or lessons". {{ref|D&C1}} This is in contrast to the remaining pages of the original Doctrine and Covenants which are officially recognized by nearly all Latter Day Saint denominations as divine revelation given specifically to the church.

Joseph Fielding Smith said the following concerning their removal:

: a) They were not received as revelations by the prophet Joseph Smith.
: b) They are instructions relative to the general subject of faith. They are explanations of this principle but not doctrine.
: c) They are not complete as to their teachings regarding the Godhead. More complete instructions on the point of doctrine are given in section 130 of the 1876 and all subsequent editions of the Doctrine and Covenants.
: d) It was thought by Elder James E. Talmage, chairman, and other members of the committee who were responsible for their omission that to avoid confusion and contention on this vital point of belief, it would be better not to have them bound in the same volume as the commandments or revelations which make up the Doctrine and Covenants. {{ref|Fitz1}}

===Current Use of the Lectures===

Bruce R. McConkie wrote regarding the lectures, "They were not themselves classed as revelations, but in them is to be found some of the best lesson material ever prepared on the Godhead; on the character, perfections, and attributes of God; on faith, miracles, and sacrifice. They can be studied with great profit by all gospel scholars" {{ref|MD1}}. The 1990 republication of the lectures signals the desire of some LDS scholars to stimulate interest in their historical and doctrinal significance for the Church."

==Conclusion==

While the Lectures on Faith were originally added to the Doctrine and Covenants, they were subsequently removed (along with other items) that were not considered official revelation and binding doctrine by the church.

==Endnotes==
#{{note| }} {{HoC | vol=2|start=243|end=246 }}
#{{note| }} http://ldsfaq.byu.edu/emmain.asp?number=219
#{{note| }} {{HoC | vol=2|start=169|end=170 }}
#{{note| }} {{HoC1 | vol=2|start=180 }}
#{{note| }} Doctrine and Covenants, 1921 edition's introduction.
#{{note| }} As told to John William Fitzgerald, ''A Study of the Doctrine and Covenants'', M.A. Thesis, Brigham Young University, page 344. http://patriot.lib.byu.edu/u?/MTAF,31813
#{{note| }} {{MD1 | entry=439| start=439}}

==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===
*[[Godhead and the Trinity]]
{{DCWiki}}

===FAIR web site===
*{{TG|topic=Lectures on Faith|url=http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai171.html}}
*{{TG|topic=Changes in D&C|url=http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai287.html}}

===External links===
{{DCLinks}}

===Printed material===
{{DCPrint}}

Doctrine and Covenants/Lectures on Faith/Removed

2008-02-27T00:21:39Z

CarsonCalderwood: /* Removal from the D&C */ edit quote format

{{draft}}

==Criticism==

Critics argue that the Lectures on Faith was removed without general church membership consent.

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

* Jerald and Sandra Tanner, ''Mormonism—Shadow or Reality?'' (Utah Lighthouse Ministry, 1987), 166-67.

==Response==

The Lectures were published in 1835 as the Doctrine portion of The Doctrine and Covenants of the Church of the Latter Day Saints. The Lectures were suggested to be added to this version of the D&C by a committee appointed on September 24, 1834 by a general assembly of the church to arrange the doctrines and revelations of the church into a single volume. That committee consisted of Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, Sidney Rigdon, and Frederick G. Williams. The general body of the church accepted the committee's compilation on August 17, 1835 as "the doctrine and covenants of their faith, by a unanimous vote." {{ref|HOC1}}

===Authorship===

The authorship of the Lectures on Faith is not entirely known. Recent authorship studies ascribe the wording of the lectures "mainly to Sidney Rigdon," with Joseph Smith substantially involved, and others perhaps having some influence. {{ref|BYU1}} Willard Richards writes in his history that Joseph was "busily engaged" in November in making "preparations for the School for the Elders, wherein they might be more perfectly instructed in the great things of God." {{ref|HOC2}} Furthermore, in January 1835 Joseph was engaged in "preparing the lectures on theology for publication." {{ref|HOC3}}

===Removal from the D&C===

The Church removed the Lectures from the Doctrine and Covenants in the 1921 edition with an explanation that the Lectures "were never presented to nor accepted by the Church as being otherwise than theological lectures or lessons". {{ref|D&C1}} This is in contrast to the remaining pages of the original Doctrine and Covenants which are officially recognized by nearly all Latter Day Saint denominations as divine revelation given specifically to the church.

Joseph Fielding Smith said the following concerning their removal:

: a) They were not received as revelations by the prophet Joseph Smith.
: b) They are instructions relative to the general subject of faith. They are explanations of this principle but not doctrine.
: c) They are not complete as to their teachings regarding the Godhead. More complete instructions on the point of doctrine are given in section 130 of the 1876 and all subsequent editions of the Doctrine and Covenants.
: d) It was thought by Elder James E. Talmage, chairman, and other members of the committee who were responsible for their omission that to avoid confusion and contention on this vital point of belief, it would be better not to have them bound in the same volume as the commandments or revelations which make up the Doctrine and Covenants. {{ref|Fitz1}}

===Current Use of the Lectures===

Bruce R. McConkie wrote regarding the lectures, "They were not themselves classed as revelations, but in them is to be found some of the best lesson material ever prepared on the Godhead; on the character, perfections, and attributes of God; on faith, miracles, and sacrifice. They can be studied with great profit by all gospel scholars" {{ref|MD1}}. The 1990 republication of the lectures signals the desire of some LDS scholars to stimulate interest in their historical and doctrinal significance for the Church."

==Conclusion==

While the Lectures on Faith were originally added to the Doctrine and Covenants, they were subsequently removed (along with other items) that were not considered official revelation and binding doctrine by the church.

==Endnotes==
#{{note| }} {{HoC | vol=2|start=243|end=246 }}
#{{note| }} http://ldsfaq.byu.edu/emmain.asp?number=219
#{{note| }} {{HoC | vol=2|start=169|end=170 }}
#{{note| }} {{HoC1 | vol=2|start=180 }}
#{{note| }} Doctrine and Covenants, 1921 edition's introduction.
#{{note| }} As told to John William Fitzgerald, ''A Study of the Doctrine and Covenants'', M.A. Thesis, Brigham Young University, page 344.
#{{note| }} {{MD1 | entry=439| start=439}}

==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===
*[[Godhead and the Trinity]]
{{DCWiki}}

===FAIR web site===
*{{TG|topic=Lectures on Faith|url=http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai171.html}}
*{{TG|topic=Changes in D&C|url=http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai287.html}}

===External links===
{{DCLinks}}

===Printed material===
{{DCPrint}}

Doctrine and Covenants/Lectures on Faith/Removed

2008-02-26T22:15:41Z

CarsonCalderwood: /* Response */

{{draft}}

==Criticism==

Critics argue that the Lectures on Faith was removed without general church membership consent.

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

* Jerald and Sandra Tanner, ''Mormonism—Shadow or Reality?'' (Utah Lighthouse Ministry, 1987), 166-67.

==Response==

The Lectures were published in 1835 as the Doctrine portion of The Doctrine and Covenants of the Church of the Latter Day Saints. The Lectures were suggested to be added to this version of the D&C by a committee appointed on September 24, 1834 by a general assembly of the church to arrange the doctrines and revelations of the church into a single volume. That committee consisted of Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, Sidney Rigdon, and Frederick G. Williams. The general body of the church accepted the committee's compilation on August 17, 1835 as "the doctrine and covenants of their faith, by a unanimous vote." {{ref|HOC1}}

===Authorship===

The authorship of the Lectures on Faith is not entirely known. Recent authorship studies ascribe the wording of the lectures "mainly to Sidney Rigdon," with Joseph Smith substantially involved, and others perhaps having some influence. {{ref|BYU1}} Willard Richards writes in his history that Joseph was "busily engaged" in November in making "preparations for the School for the Elders, wherein they might be more perfectly instructed in the great things of God." {{ref|HOC2}} Furthermore, in January 1835 Joseph was engaged in "preparing the lectures on theology for publication." {{ref|HOC3}}

===Removal from the D&C===

The Church removed the Lectures from the Doctrine and Covenants in the 1921 edition with an explanation that the Lectures "were never presented to nor accepted by the Church as being otherwise than theological lectures or lessons". {{ref|D&C1}} This is in contrast to the remaining pages of the original Doctrine and Covenants which are officially recognized by nearly all Latter Day Saint denominations as divine revelation given specifically to the church.

Joseph Fielding Smith said the following concerning their removal:

a) They were not received as revelations by the prophet Joseph Smith.
b) They are instructions relative to the general subject of faith. They are explanations
of this principle but not doctrine.
c) They are not complete as to their teachings regarding the Godhead. More complete
instructions on the point of doctrine are given in section 130 of the 1876 and all
subsequent editions of the Doctrine and Covenants.
d) It was thought by Elder James E. Talmage, chairman, and other members of the committee
who were responsible for their omission that to avoid confusion and contention on this
vital point of belief, it would be better not to have them bound in the same volume as
the commandments or revelations which make up the Doctrine and Covenants. {{ref|Fitz1}}

===Current Use of the Lectures===

Bruce R. McConkie wrote regarding the lectures, "They were not themselves classed as revelations, but in them is to be found some of the best lesson material ever prepared on the Godhead; on the character, perfections, and attributes of God; on faith, miracles, and sacrifice. They can be studied with great profit by all gospel scholars" {{ref|MD1}}. The 1990 republication of the lectures signals the desire of some LDS scholars to stimulate interest in their historical and doctrinal significance for the Church."

==Conclusion==

While the Lectures on Faith were originally added to the Doctrine and Covenants, they were subsequently removed (along with other items) that were not considered official revelation and binding doctrine by the church.

==Endnotes==
#{{note| }} {{HoC | vol=2|start=243|end=246 }}
#{{note| }} http://ldsfaq.byu.edu/emmain.asp?number=219
#{{note| }} {{HoC | vol=2|start=169|end=170 }}
#{{note| }} {{HoC1 | vol=2|start=180 }}
#{{note| }} Doctrine and Covenants, 1921 edition's introduction.
#{{note| }} As told to John William Fitzgerald, ''A Study of the Doctrine and Covenants'', M.A. Thesis, Brigham Young University, page 344.
#{{note| }} {{MD1 | entry=439| start=439}}

==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===
*[[Godhead and the Trinity]]
{{DCWiki}}

===FAIR web site===
*{{TG|topic=Lectures on Faith|url=http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai171.html}}
*{{TG|topic=Changes in D&C|url=http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai287.html}}

===External links===
{{DCLinks}}

===Printed material===
{{DCPrint}}

Doctrine and Covenants/Lectures on Faith/Removed

2008-02-26T21:14:11Z

CarsonCalderwood:

{{draft}}

==Criticism==

Critics argue that the Lectures on Faith was removed without general church membership consent.

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

* Jerald and Sandra Tanner, ''Mormonism—Shadow or Reality?'' (Utah Lighthouse Ministry, 1987), 166-67.

==Response==

The Lectures were published in 1835 as the Doctrine portion of The Doctrine and Covenants of the Church of the Latter Day Saints. The Lectures were suggested to be added to this version of the D&C by a committee appointed on September 24, 1834 by a general assembly of the church to arrange the doctrines and revelations of the church into a single volume. That committee consisted of Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, Sidney Rigdon, and Frederick G. Williams. The general body of the church accepted the committee's compilation on August 17, 1835 as "the doctrine and covenants of their faith, by a unanimous vote." {{ref|HOC1}}

===Authorship===

The authorship of the Lectures on Faith is not entirely known. Recent authorship studies ascribe the wording of the lectures "mainly to Sidney Rigdon," with Joseph Smith substantially involved, and others perhaps having some influence. {{ref|BYU1}} Willard Richards writes in his history that Joseph was "busily engaged" in November in making "preparations for the School for the Elders, wherein they might be more perfectly instructed in the great things of God." {{ref|HOC2}} Furthermore, in January 1835 Joseph was engaged in "preparing the lectures on theology for publication." {{ref|HOC3}}

===Removal from the D&C===

The Church removed the Lectures from the Doctrine and Covenants in the 1921 edition with an explanation that the Lectures "were never presented to nor accepted by the Church as being otherwise than theological lectures or lessons". {{ref|D&C1}} This is in contrast to the remaining pages of the original Doctrine and Covenants which are officially recognized by nearly all Latter Day Saint denominations as divine revelation given specifically to the church.

Joseph Fielding Smith said the following concerning their removal:

(a) They were not received as revelations by the prophet Joseph Smith.
(b) They are instructions relative to the general subject of faith. They are explanations
of this principle but not doctrine.
(c) They are not complete as to their teachings regarding the Godhead. More complete
instructions on the point of doctrine are given in section 130 of the 1876 and all
subsequent editions of the Doctrine and Covenants.
(d) It was thought by Elder James E. Talmage, chairman, and other members of the committee
who were responsible for their omission that to avoid confusion and contention on this
vital point of belief, it would be better not to have them bound in the same volume as
the commandments or revelations which make up the Doctrine and Covenants. {{ref|Fitz1}}

===Current Use of the Lectures===

Bruce R. McConkie wrote regarding the lectures, "They were not themselves classed as revelations, but in them is to be found some of the best lesson material ever prepared on the Godhead; on the character, perfections, and attributes of God; on faith, miracles, and sacrifice. They can be studied with great profit by all gospel scholars" {{ref|MD1}}. The 1990 republication of the lectures signals the desire of some LDS scholars to stimulate interest in their historical and doctrinal significance for the Church."

==Conclusion==

While the Lectures on Faith were originally added to the Doctrine and Covenants, they were subsequently removed (along with other items) that were not considered official revelation and binding doctrine by the church.

==Endnotes==
#{{note| }} {{HoC | vol=2|start=243|end=246 }}
#{{note| }} http://ldsfaq.byu.edu/emmain.asp?number=219
#{{note| }} {{HoC | vol=2|start=169|end=170 }}
#{{note| }} {{HoC1 | vol=2|start=180 }}
#{{note| }} Doctrine and Covenants, 1921 edition's introduction.
#{{note| }} As told to John William Fitzgerald, ''A Study of the Doctrine and Covenants'', M.A. Thesis, Brigham Young University, page 344.
#{{note| }} {{MD1 | entry=439| start=439}}

==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===
*[[Godhead and the Trinity]]
{{DCWiki}}

===FAIR web site===
*{{TG|topic=Lectures on Faith|url=http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai171.html}}
*{{TG|topic=Changes in D&C|url=http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai287.html}}

===External links===
{{DCLinks}}

===Printed material===
{{DCPrint}}

Doctrine and Covenants/Lectures on Faith/Removed

2008-02-26T21:13:42Z

CarsonCalderwood: /* Endnotes */

{{draft}}

==Criticism==

Critics argue that the Lectures on Faith was removed without general church membership consent.

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

* Jerald and Sandra Tanner, ''Mormonism—Shadow or Reality?'' (Utah Lighthouse Ministry, 1987), 166-67.

==Response==

The Lectures were published in 1835 as the Doctrine portion of The Doctrine and Covenants of the Church of the Latter Day Saints. The Lectures were suggested to be added to this version of the D&C by a committee appointed on September 24, 1834 by a general assembly of the church to arrange the doctrines and revelations of the church into a single volume. That committee consisted of Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, Sidney Rigdon, and Frederick G. Williams. The general body of the church accepted the committee's compilation on August 17, 1835 as "the doctrine and covenants of their faith, by a unanimous vote." {{ref|HOC1}}

===Authorship===

The authorship of the Lectures on Faith is not entirely known. Recent authorship studies ascribe the wording of the lectures "mainly to Sidney Rigdon," with Joseph Smith substantially involved, and others perhaps having some influence. {{ref|BYU1}} Willard Richards writes in his history that Joseph was "busily engaged" in November in making "preparations for the School for the Elders, wherein they might be more perfectly instructed in the great things of God." {{ref|HOC2}} Furthermore, in January 1835 Joseph was engaged in "preparing the lectures on theology for publication." {{ref|HOC3}}

===Removal from the D&C===

The Church removed the Lectures from the Doctrine and Covenants in the 1921 edition with an explanation that the Lectures "were never presented to nor accepted by the Church as being otherwise than theological lectures or lessons". {{ref|D&C1}} This is in contrast to the remaining pages of the original Doctrine and Covenants which are officially recognized by nearly all Latter Day Saint denominations as divine revelation given specifically to the church.

Joseph Fielding Smith said the following concerning their removal:

(a) They were not received as revelations by the prophet Joseph Smith.
(b) They are instructions relative to the general subject of faith. They are explanations
of this principle but not doctrine.
(c) They are not complete as to their teachings regarding the Godhead. More complete
instructions on the point of doctrine are given in section 130 of the 1876 and all
subsequent editions of the Doctrine and Covenants.
(d) It was thought by Elder James E. Talmage, chairman, and other members of the committee
who were responsible for their omission that to avoid confusion and contention on this
vital point of belief, it would be better not to have them bound in the same volume as
the commandments or revelations which make up the Doctrine and Covenants. {{ref|Fitz1}}

===Current Use of the Lectures===

Bruce R. McConkie wrote regarding the lectures, "They were not themselves classed as revelations, but in them is to be found some of the best lesson material ever prepared on the Godhead; on the character, perfections, and attributes of God; on faith, miracles, and sacrifice. They can be studied with great profit by all gospel scholars" {{ref|MD1}}. The 1990 republication of the lectures signals the desire of some LDS scholars to stimulate interest in their historical and doctrinal significance for the Church."

==Conclusion==

While the Lectures on Faith were originally added to the Doctrine and Covenants, they were subsequently removed (along with other items) that were not considered official revelation and binding doctrine by the church.

==Endnotes==

==Endnotes==
#{{note| }} {{HoC | vol=2|start=243|end=246 }}
#{{note| }} http://ldsfaq.byu.edu/emmain.asp?number=219
#{{note| }} {{HoC | vol=2|start=169|end=170 }}
#{{note| }} {{HoC1 | vol=2|start=180 }}
#{{note| }} Doctrine and Covenants, 1921 edition's introduction.
#{{note| }} As told to John William Fitzgerald, ''A Study of the Doctrine and Covenants'', M.A. Thesis, Brigham Young University, page 344.
#{{note| }} {{MD1 | entry=439| start=439}}

==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===
*[[Godhead and the Trinity]]
{{DCWiki}}

===FAIR web site===
*{{TG|topic=Lectures on Faith|url=http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai171.html}}
*{{TG|topic=Changes in D&C|url=http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai287.html}}

===External links===
{{DCLinks}}

===Printed material===
{{DCPrint}}

Doctrine and Covenants/Lectures on Faith/Removed

2008-02-26T21:08:03Z

CarsonCalderwood: /* Endnotes */ added

{{draft}}

==Criticism==

Critics argue that the Lectures on Faith was removed without general church membership consent.

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

* Jerald and Sandra Tanner, ''Mormonism—Shadow or Reality?'' (Utah Lighthouse Ministry, 1987), 166-67.

==Response==

The Lectures were published in 1835 as the Doctrine portion of The Doctrine and Covenants of the Church of the Latter Day Saints. The Lectures were suggested to be added to this version of the D&C by a committee appointed on September 24, 1834 by a general assembly of the church to arrange the doctrines and revelations of the church into a single volume. That committee consisted of Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, Sidney Rigdon, and Frederick G. Williams. The general body of the church accepted the committee's compilation on August 17, 1835 as "the doctrine and covenants of their faith, by a unanimous vote." {{ref|HOC1}}

===Authorship===

The authorship of the Lectures on Faith is not entirely known. Recent authorship studies ascribe the wording of the lectures "mainly to Sidney Rigdon," with Joseph Smith substantially involved, and others perhaps having some influence. {{ref|BYU1}} Willard Richards writes in his history that Joseph was "busily engaged" in November in making "preparations for the School for the Elders, wherein they might be more perfectly instructed in the great things of God." {{ref|HOC2}} Furthermore, in January 1835 Joseph was engaged in "preparing the lectures on theology for publication." {{ref|HOC3}}

===Removal from the D&C===

The Church removed the Lectures from the Doctrine and Covenants in the 1921 edition with an explanation that the Lectures "were never presented to nor accepted by the Church as being otherwise than theological lectures or lessons". {{ref|D&C1}} This is in contrast to the remaining pages of the original Doctrine and Covenants which are officially recognized by nearly all Latter Day Saint denominations as divine revelation given specifically to the church.

Joseph Fielding Smith said the following concerning their removal:

(a) They were not received as revelations by the prophet Joseph Smith.
(b) They are instructions relative to the general subject of faith. They are explanations
of this principle but not doctrine.
(c) They are not complete as to their teachings regarding the Godhead. More complete
instructions on the point of doctrine are given in section 130 of the 1876 and all
subsequent editions of the Doctrine and Covenants.
(d) It was thought by Elder James E. Talmage, chairman, and other members of the committee
who were responsible for their omission that to avoid confusion and contention on this
vital point of belief, it would be better not to have them bound in the same volume as
the commandments or revelations which make up the Doctrine and Covenants. {{ref|Fitz1}}

===Current Use of the Lectures===

Bruce R. McConkie wrote regarding the lectures, "They were not themselves classed as revelations, but in them is to be found some of the best lesson material ever prepared on the Godhead; on the character, perfections, and attributes of God; on faith, miracles, and sacrifice. They can be studied with great profit by all gospel scholars" {{ref|MD1}}. The 1990 republication of the lectures signals the desire of some LDS scholars to stimulate interest in their historical and doctrinal significance for the Church."

==Conclusion==

While the Lectures on Faith were originally added to the Doctrine and Covenants, they were subsequently removed (along with other items) that were not considered official revelation and binding doctrine by the church.

==Endnotes==

==Endnotes==
#{{note| }} {{HoC | vol=2|start=243|end=246 }}
#{{note| }} http://ldsfaq.byu.edu/emmain.asp?number=219
#{{note| }} {{HoC | vol=2|start=169|end=170 }}
#{{note| }} {{HoC | vol=2|start=180| }}
#{{note| }} Introduction to Doctrine and Covenants, 1921 edition.
#{{note| }} As told to John William Fitzgerald, A Study of the Doctrine and Covenants, M.A. Thesis, Brigham Young University, page 344.
#{{note| }} (MD, p. 439)

==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===
*[[Godhead and the Trinity]]
{{DCWiki}}

===FAIR web site===
*{{TG|topic=Lectures on Faith|url=http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai171.html}}
*{{TG|topic=Changes in D&C|url=http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai287.html}}

===External links===
{{DCLinks}}

===Printed material===
{{DCPrint}}

Doctrine and Covenants/Lectures on Faith/Removed

2008-02-26T21:03:59Z

CarsonCalderwood: /* Response */

{{draft}}

==Criticism==

Critics argue that the Lectures on Faith was removed without general church membership consent.

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

* Jerald and Sandra Tanner, ''Mormonism—Shadow or Reality?'' (Utah Lighthouse Ministry, 1987), 166-67.

==Response==

The Lectures were published in 1835 as the Doctrine portion of The Doctrine and Covenants of the Church of the Latter Day Saints. The Lectures were suggested to be added to this version of the D&C by a committee appointed on September 24, 1834 by a general assembly of the church to arrange the doctrines and revelations of the church into a single volume. That committee consisted of Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, Sidney Rigdon, and Frederick G. Williams. The general body of the church accepted the committee's compilation on August 17, 1835 as "the doctrine and covenants of their faith, by a unanimous vote." {{ref|HOC1}}

===Authorship===

The authorship of the Lectures on Faith is not entirely known. Recent authorship studies ascribe the wording of the lectures "mainly to Sidney Rigdon," with Joseph Smith substantially involved, and others perhaps having some influence. {{ref|BYU1}} Willard Richards writes in his history that Joseph was "busily engaged" in November in making "preparations for the School for the Elders, wherein they might be more perfectly instructed in the great things of God." {{ref|HOC2}} Furthermore, in January 1835 Joseph was engaged in "preparing the lectures on theology for publication." {{ref|HOC3}}

===Removal from the D&C===

The Church removed the Lectures from the Doctrine and Covenants in the 1921 edition with an explanation that the Lectures "were never presented to nor accepted by the Church as being otherwise than theological lectures or lessons". {{ref|D&C1}} This is in contrast to the remaining pages of the original Doctrine and Covenants which are officially recognized by nearly all Latter Day Saint denominations as divine revelation given specifically to the church.

Joseph Fielding Smith said the following concerning their removal:

(a) They were not received as revelations by the prophet Joseph Smith.
(b) They are instructions relative to the general subject of faith. They are explanations
of this principle but not doctrine.
(c) They are not complete as to their teachings regarding the Godhead. More complete
instructions on the point of doctrine are given in section 130 of the 1876 and all
subsequent editions of the Doctrine and Covenants.
(d) It was thought by Elder James E. Talmage, chairman, and other members of the committee
who were responsible for their omission that to avoid confusion and contention on this
vital point of belief, it would be better not to have them bound in the same volume as
the commandments or revelations which make up the Doctrine and Covenants. {{ref|Fitz1}}

===Current Use of the Lectures===

Bruce R. McConkie wrote regarding the lectures, "They were not themselves classed as revelations, but in them is to be found some of the best lesson material ever prepared on the Godhead; on the character, perfections, and attributes of God; on faith, miracles, and sacrifice. They can be studied with great profit by all gospel scholars" {{ref|MD1}}. The 1990 republication of the lectures signals the desire of some LDS scholars to stimulate interest in their historical and doctrinal significance for the Church."

==Conclusion==

While the Lectures on Faith were originally added to the Doctrine and Covenants, they were subsequently removed (along with other items) that were not considered official revelation and binding doctrine by the church.

==Endnotes==

''None''

==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===
*[[Godhead and the Trinity]]
{{DCWiki}}

===FAIR web site===
*{{TG|topic=Lectures on Faith|url=http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai171.html}}
*{{TG|topic=Changes in D&C|url=http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai287.html}}

===External links===
{{DCLinks}}

===Printed material===
{{DCPrint}}

Doctrine and Covenants/Lectures on Faith/Removed

2008-02-26T21:01:08Z

CarsonCalderwood: /* Response */

{{draft}}

==Criticism==

Critics argue that the Lectures on Faith was removed without general church membership consent.

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

* Jerald and Sandra Tanner, ''Mormonism—Shadow or Reality?'' (Utah Lighthouse Ministry, 1987), 166-67.

==Response==

The Lectures were published in 1835 as the Doctrine portion of The Doctrine and Covenants of the Church of the Latter Day Saints. The Lectures were suggested to be added to this version of the D&C by a committee appointed on September 24, 1834 by a general assembly of the church to arrange the doctrines and revelations of the church into a single volume. That committee consisted of Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, Sidney Rigdon, and Frederick G. Williams. The general body of the church accepted the committee's compilation on August 17, 1835 as "the doctrine and covenants of their faith, by a unanimous vote." {{ref|HOC1}}(History of the Church 2: 243-6)

===Authorship===

The authorship of the Lectures on Faith is not entirely known. Recent authorship studies ascribe the wording of the lectures "mainly to Sidney Rigdon," with Joseph Smith substantially involved, and others perhaps having some influence. {{ref|BYU1}}http://ldsfaq.byu.edu/emmain.asp?number=219 Willard Richards writes in his history that Joseph was "busily engaged" in November in making "preparations for the School for the Elders, wherein they might be more perfectly instructed in the great things of God" (HC 2:169–70). Furthermore, in January 1835 Joseph was engaged in "preparing the lectures on theology for publication" {{ref|HOC2}}(HC 2:180).

===Removal from the D&C===

The Church removed the Lectures from the Doctrine and Covenants in the 1921 edition with an explanation that the Lectures "were never presented to nor accepted by the Church as being otherwise than theological lectures or lessons". {{ref|D&C1}}(See Introduction , 1921 edition.) This is in contrast to the remaining pages of the original Doctrine and Covenants which are officially recognized by nearly all Latter Day Saint denominations as divine revelation given specifically to the church.

Joseph Fielding Smith said the following concerning their removal:

(a) They were not received as revelations by the prophet Joseph Smith.
(b) They are instructions relative to the general subject of faith. They are explanations
of this principle but not doctrine.
(c) They are not complete as to their teachings regarding the Godhead. More complete
instructions on the point of doctrine are given in section 130 of the 1876 and all
subsequent editions of the Doctrine and Covenants.
(d) It was thought by Elder James E. Talmage, chairman, and other members of the committee
who were responsible for their omission that to avoid confusion and contention on this
vital point of belief, it would be better not to have them bound in the same volume as
the commandments or revelations which make up the Doctrine and Covenants. {{ref|Fitz1}}

===Current Use of the Lectures===

Bruce R. McConkie wrote regarding the lectures, "They were not themselves classed as revelations, but in them is to be found some of the best lesson material ever prepared on the Godhead; on the character, perfections, and attributes of God; on faith, miracles, and sacrifice. They can be studied with great profit by all gospel scholars" {{ref|MD1}}. The 1990 republication of the lectures signals the desire of some LDS scholars to stimulate interest in their historical and doctrinal significance for the Church."

==Conclusion==

While the Lectures on Faith were originally added to the Doctrine and Covenants, they were subsequently removed (along with other items) that were not considered official revelation and binding doctrine by the church.

==Endnotes==

''None''

==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===
*[[Godhead and the Trinity]]
{{DCWiki}}

===FAIR web site===
*{{TG|topic=Lectures on Faith|url=http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai171.html}}
*{{TG|topic=Changes in D&C|url=http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai287.html}}

===External links===
{{DCLinks}}

===Printed material===
{{DCPrint}}

Doctrine and Covenants/Lectures on Faith/Removed

2008-02-26T20:42:05Z

CarsonCalderwood: /* Conclusion */ conclusion

{{draft}}

==Criticism==

Critics argue that the Lectures on Faith was removed without general church membership consent.

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

* Jerald and Sandra Tanner, ''Mormonism—Shadow or Reality?'' (Utah Lighthouse Ministry, 1987), 166-67.

==Response==

The Lectures were published in 1835 as the Doctrine portion of The Doctrine and Covenants of the Church of the Latter Day Saints. The Lectures were suggested to be added to this version of the D&C by a committee appointed on September 24, 1834 by a general assembly of the church to arrange the doctrines and revelations of the church into a single volume. That committee consisted of Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, Sidney Rigdon, and Frederick G. Williams. The general body of the church accepted the committee's compilation on August 17, 1835 as "the doctrine and covenants of their faith, by a unanimous vote." (History of the Church 2: 243-6)

===Authorship===

The authorship of the Lectures on Faith is not entirely known. Recent authorship studies ascribe the wording of the lectures "mainly to Sidney Rigdon," with Joseph Smith substantially involved, and others perhaps having some influence. http://ldsfaq.byu.edu/emmain.asp?number=219 Willard Richards writes in his history that Joseph was "busily engaged" in November in making "preparations for the School for the Elders, wherein they might be more perfectly instructed in the great things of God" (HC 2:169–70). Furthermore, in January 1835 Joseph was engaged in "preparing the lectures on theology for publication" (HC 2:180).

===Removal from the D&C===

The Church removed the Lectures from the Doctrine and Covenants in the 1921 edition with an explanation that the Lectures "were never presented to nor accepted by the Church as being otherwise than theological lectures or lessons". (See Introduction , 1921 edition.) This is in contrast to the remaining pages of the original Doctrine and Covenants which are officially recognized by nearly all Latter Day Saint denominations as divine revelation given specifically to the church.

Joseph Fielding Smith said the following concerning their removal:

(a) They were not received as revelations by the prophet Joseph Smith.
(b) They are instructions relative to the general subject of faith. They are explanations
of this principle but not doctrine.
(c) They are not complete as to their teachings regarding the Godhead. More complete
instructions on the point of doctrine are given in section 130 of the 1876 and all
subsequent editions of the Doctrine and Covenants.
(d) It was thought by Elder James E. Talmage, chairman, and other members of the committee
who were responsible for their omission that to avoid confusion and contention on this
vital point of belief, it would be better not to have them bound in the same volume as
the commandments or revelations which make up the Doctrine and Covenants.’ " (as told to John William Fitzgerald, A Study of the Doctrine and Covenants, M.A. Thesis, Brigham Young University, page 344).

===Current Use of the Lectures===

Bruce R. McConkie wrote regarding the lectures, "They were not themselves classed as revelations, but in them is to be found some of the best lesson material ever prepared on the Godhead; on the character, perfections, and attributes of God; on faith, miracles, and sacrifice. They can be studied with great profit by all gospel scholars" (MD, p. 439). The 1990 republication of the lectures signals the desire of some LDS scholars to stimulate interest in their historical and doctrinal significance for the Church."

==Conclusion==

While the Lectures on Faith were originally added to the Doctrine and Covenants, they were subsequently removed (along with other items) that were not considered official revelation and binding doctrine by the church.

==Endnotes==

''None''

==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===
*[[Godhead and the Trinity]]
{{DCWiki}}

===FAIR web site===
*{{TG|topic=Lectures on Faith|url=http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai171.html}}
*{{TG|topic=Changes in D&C|url=http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai287.html}}

===External links===
{{DCLinks}}

===Printed material===
{{DCPrint}}

Doctrine and Covenants/Lectures on Faith/Removed

2008-02-26T20:40:18Z

CarsonCalderwood: /* Response */ added body

{{draft}}

==Criticism==

Critics argue that the Lectures on Faith was removed without general church membership consent.

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

* Jerald and Sandra Tanner, ''Mormonism—Shadow or Reality?'' (Utah Lighthouse Ministry, 1987), 166-67.

==Response==

The Lectures were published in 1835 as the Doctrine portion of The Doctrine and Covenants of the Church of the Latter Day Saints. The Lectures were suggested to be added to this version of the D&C by a committee appointed on September 24, 1834 by a general assembly of the church to arrange the doctrines and revelations of the church into a single volume. That committee consisted of Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, Sidney Rigdon, and Frederick G. Williams. The general body of the church accepted the committee's compilation on August 17, 1835 as "the doctrine and covenants of their faith, by a unanimous vote." (History of the Church 2: 243-6)

===Authorship===

The authorship of the Lectures on Faith is not entirely known. Recent authorship studies ascribe the wording of the lectures "mainly to Sidney Rigdon," with Joseph Smith substantially involved, and others perhaps having some influence. http://ldsfaq.byu.edu/emmain.asp?number=219 Willard Richards writes in his history that Joseph was "busily engaged" in November in making "preparations for the School for the Elders, wherein they might be more perfectly instructed in the great things of God" (HC 2:169–70). Furthermore, in January 1835 Joseph was engaged in "preparing the lectures on theology for publication" (HC 2:180).

===Removal from the D&C===

The Church removed the Lectures from the Doctrine and Covenants in the 1921 edition with an explanation that the Lectures "were never presented to nor accepted by the Church as being otherwise than theological lectures or lessons". (See Introduction , 1921 edition.) This is in contrast to the remaining pages of the original Doctrine and Covenants which are officially recognized by nearly all Latter Day Saint denominations as divine revelation given specifically to the church.

Joseph Fielding Smith said the following concerning their removal:

(a) They were not received as revelations by the prophet Joseph Smith.
(b) They are instructions relative to the general subject of faith. They are explanations
of this principle but not doctrine.
(c) They are not complete as to their teachings regarding the Godhead. More complete
instructions on the point of doctrine are given in section 130 of the 1876 and all
subsequent editions of the Doctrine and Covenants.
(d) It was thought by Elder James E. Talmage, chairman, and other members of the committee
who were responsible for their omission that to avoid confusion and contention on this
vital point of belief, it would be better not to have them bound in the same volume as
the commandments or revelations which make up the Doctrine and Covenants.’ " (as told to John William Fitzgerald, A Study of the Doctrine and Covenants, M.A. Thesis, Brigham Young University, page 344).

===Current Use of the Lectures===

Bruce R. McConkie wrote regarding the lectures, "They were not themselves classed as revelations, but in them is to be found some of the best lesson material ever prepared on the Godhead; on the character, perfections, and attributes of God; on faith, miracles, and sacrifice. They can be studied with great profit by all gospel scholars" (MD, p. 439). The 1990 republication of the lectures signals the desire of some LDS scholars to stimulate interest in their historical and doctrinal significance for the Church."

==Conclusion==

==Endnotes==

''None''

==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===
*[[Godhead and the Trinity]]
{{DCWiki}}

===FAIR web site===
*{{TG|topic=Lectures on Faith|url=http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai171.html}}
*{{TG|topic=Changes in D&C|url=http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai287.html}}

===External links===
{{DCLinks}}

===Printed material===
{{DCPrint}}

Doctrine and Covenants/Lectures on Faith/Removed

2008-02-26T19:22:23Z

CarsonCalderwood: /* Criticism */ added

Mormonism and apologetics

2008-02-25T05:28:56Z

CarsonCalderwood: /* Questions */

{{question}}
==Questions==

Many people are not familiar about "apologetics," and raise a variety of questions. These include:
*What is apologetics?
*Why do apologetics?
*Is it appropriate for a Church member to be involved in apologetics?
*Since you can't "prove" religion, is apologetics a waste of time?
*Are there risks in doing apologetics?

==Answers==
===What is apologetics?===

The word "apologetic" is not commonly used in the LDS community and may be unfamiliar to many people. The word literally means "in defense of the faith." It is not talking about apologizing to anyone or being sorry for something. (From the [http://www.fairlds.org/faq.html FAIR FAQ].)

===Why do apologetics?=== 

Apologists participate for a variety of reasons. They may:
* have an interest in Church history and doctrine
* have a background in the study of ancient languages or other religions which give a useful perspective on the restored gospel
* experience frustration with anti-Mormon authors who ignore the totality of LDS doctrine and thought
* wish to protect others from poorly-reasoned criticisms, thus preventing others from enduring the suffering which anti-Mormon attacks have caused in the apologist's own life, or the lives of friends or family
* want to enhance their own knowledge of Church doctrine or history
* need information to improve their ability to share the gospel with others who have sincere questions or misunderstandings
* enjoy the company of other like-minded Church members, who are interested in the same sorts of issues
* serve in Church leadership positions which require them to address questions

===Is it appropriate for a Church member to be involved in apologetics?===

C.S. Lewis pointed out that since enemies have invoked 'science' or 'reason' to attack faith, it may now be necessary that someone respond in the same vein:

:To be ignorant and simple now—not to be able to meet the enemies on their own ground—would be to throw down our weapons, and to betray our uneducated brethren who have, under God, no defense but us against the intellectual attacks of the heathen. Good philosophy must exist, if for no other reason, because bad philosophy needs to be answered.{{ref|lewis1}}

Indeed, the great risk which apologetics seeks to counter is that those unfamiliar with anti-Mormon arguments will assume that there are no good answers to the critics. Elder Neal A. Maxwell warned of the consequences of such a situation:

:Let us be articulate for while our defense of the kingdom may not stir all hearers, the absence of thoughtful response may cause fledglings among the faithful to falter. What we assert may not be accepted, but unasserted convictions soon become deserted convictions.{{ref|maxwell1}}

''See also:'' [[Does the Church discourage reading critical material?]]
===Since you can't "prove" religion, is apologetics a waste of time?===

Dallin H. Oaks spoke to this concern:

:The lack of decisive scientific proofs of scriptural truths does not preclude gospel defenders from counterarguments of that nature. When opponents attack the Church or its doctrines with so-called proofs, loyal defenders will counter with material of a comparable nature to defend.{{ref|oaks1}}

And, Neal A. Maxwell noted that God would provide fascinating additions to our understanding:

:There will be a convergence of discoveries (never enough, mind you, to remove the need for faith) to make plain and plausible what the modern prophets have been saying all along…[I] do not expect incontrovertible proof to come in this way…, but neither will the Church be outdone by hostile or pseudo-scholars.{{ref|maxwell2}}

Austen Farrar said, of C.S. Lewis:

:Though argument does not create conviction, lack of it destroys belief. What seems to be proved may not be embraced; but what no one shows the ability to defend is quickly abandoned. Rational argument does not create belief, but it maintains a climate in which belief may flourish.{{ref|farrar1}}
Apologetics does not aim to "create belief"—it aims only to dispense with the poor reasons given by critics for disbelief. As Elder Maxwell put it, the critics ought not to be permitted "uncontested slam-dunks."{{ref|maxwell3}}

===Are there risks in doing apologetics?===

====Impatience====
Apologists often confront the same anti-Mormon arguments again, and again, and ''again''!

It can be frustrating to see a new crop of anti-Mormon books, films, pamphlets, and websites trot out the same tired claims, without even attempting to address the LDS responses. Apologists must remain patient, and not become short or irritable with those who have sincere questions just because ''they'' have 'heard it all before.'

====Over-reacting====

The ability to create a climate around us in which people, as in the case of the man who approached Jesus, feel free enough to say the equivalent of "Lord, help Thou my unbelief," is a critical skill. If we can deal with doubt effectively in its nascent stages, we can assist people by a warmth and love which frees them to share the worries that they may have, and increase the probability of dissolving their doubt. But, if we over-react to dissent or to doubt, we are apt, rather than inculcating confidence in those we serve, to exhibit what, in the eyes of the rebel, may seem to be a flaw in our inner confidence in what we say.

We need to relax to be effective in the process of helping people who are building testimonies. Over-reacting and pressing the panic button when doubt first makes its appearance can render us ineffective. This is one of the reasons why parents are often in a temporarily poorer tactical position to deal effectively with a rebellious son or daughter—the anxiety is too real to relax. In these circumstances, bishops, teachers, and friends can be helpful—not because they are clinically detached, for their love and concern should be honestly communicated—but rather because third parties sometimes can listen a little longer without reacting, can prescribe with a clear-headed assessment, and most of all, can be a fresh voice which conveys care and concern, a voice which has risen above similar challenges.{{ref|maxwell4}}

====Pride====
An apologist can decide (wrongly) that the issues which excite and concern him ''must'' excite everyone. There are many people for whom apologetic issues are of no importance. This implies no defect in them ''or'' in those who are concerned about a given issue.

C.S. Lewis remarked:

:The intellectual life is not the only road to God, nor the safest, but we find it to be a road, and it may be the appointed road for us. Of course, it will be so only so long as we keep the impulse pure and disinterested. That is the great difficulty. As the author of the Theologia Germanica says, we may come to love knowledge-our knowing-more than the thing known: to delight not in the exercise of our talents but in the fact that they are ours, or even in the reputation they bring us. Every success in a scholar's life increases this danger. If it becomes irresistible, he must give up his scholarly work. The time for plucking out the right eye has arrived.{{ref|lewis2}}

And, any field in which one becomes something of an expert is ripe for pride. As Alma cautioned his missionary sons, "See that ye are not lifted up unto pride; yea, see that ye do not boast in your own wisdom, nor of your much strength." [http://scriptures.lds.org/alma/38/11#11 Alma 38:11] Such strength can be apologetic or mental as much as physical.

====Spiritual Neglect====

Apologetics does not substitute for faith, prayer, scripture study, Christ-like service, and spiritual renewal. Apologists must remember that their main task is to encourage others to seek a personal witness for themselves; the 'rational' part of apologetics is really a prelude to the important work of conversion. At best, apologetics 'gets someone's attention,' and may help them give a novel or strange idea 'the benefit of the doubt' sufficient to plant the seed of faith ([http://scriptures.lds.org/alma/32/1#1 Alma 32]).

LDS apologists should never fall into the trap of assuming that logical argument can create belief, or that the 'case' for the gospel of Christ can be made rationally irresistable.

This applies to those for whom we write, but it applies to with even greater force to ourselves.

C.S. Lewis gave an important caution from his own work in Christian apologetics:

:I have found that nothing is more dangerous to one's own faith than the work of an apologist. No doctrine of that Faith seems to me so spectral, so unreal as one that I have just successfully defended in a public debate. For a moment, you see, it has seemed to rest on oneself: as a result, when you go away from that debate, it seems no stronger than that weak pillar. That is why we apologists take our lives in our hands and can be saved only by falling back continually from the web of our own arguments, as from our intellectual counters, into the Reality—from Christian apologetics into Christ Himself. That also is why we need one another's continual help—''oremus pro invincem'' [Let us pray for each other].{{ref|lewis3}}

==Endnotes==
#{{note|lewis1}} C. S. Lewis, "Learning in War-Time," in ''The Weight of Glory and Other Addresses'' (New York: Macmillan, 1965), 27-28; cited by James S. Jardine, “Consecration and Learning,” in ''On Becoming a Disciple-Scholar'', edited by Henry B. Eying (Bookcraft, Salt Lake, 1995), 77.
#{{note|maxwell1}} Neal A. Maxwell, "'All Hell Is Moved," in ''1977 Devotional Speeches of the Year'' (Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University Press, 1977), 179.
#{{note|oaks1}} Dallin H. Oaks, ''The Lord’s Way'', (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1991), 92.
#{{note|maxwell2}} Neal A. Maxwell, ''Deposition of a Disciple'' (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1976), 49.
#{{note|farrar1}} Cited by {{BYUS|author=Neal A. Maxwell|article=Discipleship and Scholarship|vol=32|num=3|date=1992|start=5}}{{pdflink|url=http://byustudies.byu.edu/Products/MoreInfoPage/MoreInfo.aspx?Type=7&ProdID=1166}}
#{{note|maxwell3}} Neal A. Maxwell, cited in {{Ensign1|author=Gilbert W. Scharffs|article=Some people say it is best to leave alone materials that claim to 'expose' the Church and its teachings. What counsel has been given on this? How do we respond when a friend comes to us with questions found in such materials?|date=January 1995|start=60 (scroll half-way down)}}{{link|url=http://library.lds.org/library/lpext.dll/ArchMagazines/Ensign/1995.htm/ensign%20january%201995.htm/i%20have%20a%20question.htm?fn=document-frame.htm&f=templates&2.0#LPTOC2}}
#{{note|maxwell4}} Neal A Maxwell, ''A More Excellent Way: Essays on Leadership for Latter-day Saints'' (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1967), 62.
#{{note|lewis2}} C. S. Lewis, "Learning in War-Time," in ''The Weight of Glory and Other Addresses'' (New York: Macmillan, 1965), 27-28; cited by James S. Jardine, “Consecration and Learning,” in ''On Becoming a Disciple-Scholar'', edited by Henry B. Eying (Bookcraft, Salt Lake, 1995), 77.
#{{note|lewis3}} C.S. Lewis, ''God in the Dock: Essays on Theology and Ethics'', edited by Walter Hooper, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1970), 103.

==Further reading==
===FAIR wiki articles===
* [[Does the Church discourage reading critical material%3F]]
===FAIR web site===
* {{tg|url=http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai003.html|topic=Apologetics}}
* FAIR FAQ{{fairlink|url=http://www.fairlds.org/faq.html}}
* Wayne Arnett, "Apologetics 101," FAIR Conference 2006. {{fairlink|url=http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/2006_Apologetics_101.html}}
* Gary Bowler, "What is FAIR, and Why Are You Apologizing?" {{pdflink|url=http://www.fairlds.org/apol/brochures/AboutFAIR.pdf}}

===External links===
*{{FR-18-2-1}}
* {{Ensign1|author=Gilbert W. Scharffs|article=Some people say it is best to leave alone materials that claim to 'expose' the Church and its teachings. What counsel has been given on this? How do we respond when a friend comes to us with questions found in such materials?|date=January 1995|start=60 (scroll half-way down)}}{{link|url=http://library.lds.org/library/lpext.dll/ArchMagazines/Ensign/1995.htm/ensign%20january%201995.htm/i%20have%20a%20question.htm?fn=document-frame.htm&f=templates&2.0#LPTOC2}}

===Printed material===
* Many good printed books are available at the [http://www.fair-lds.org/Merchant2/merchant.mvc FAIR Bookstore].

Mormonism and apologetics

2008-02-25T05:28:27Z

CarsonCalderwood: /* Questions */ added bullet to list to match body better

{{question}}
==Questions==

Many people are not familiar about "apologetics," and raise a variety of questions. These include:
*What is apologetics?
*Why do apologetics?
*Since you can't "prove" religion, is apologetics a waste of time?
*Is it appropriate for a Church member to be involved in apologetics?
*Are there risks in doing apologetics?

==Answers==
===What is apologetics?===

The word "apologetic" is not commonly used in the LDS community and may be unfamiliar to many people. The word literally means "in defense of the faith." It is not talking about apologizing to anyone or being sorry for something. (From the [http://www.fairlds.org/faq.html FAIR FAQ].)

===Why do apologetics?=== 

Apologists participate for a variety of reasons. They may:
* have an interest in Church history and doctrine
* have a background in the study of ancient languages or other religions which give a useful perspective on the restored gospel
* experience frustration with anti-Mormon authors who ignore the totality of LDS doctrine and thought
* wish to protect others from poorly-reasoned criticisms, thus preventing others from enduring the suffering which anti-Mormon attacks have caused in the apologist's own life, or the lives of friends or family
* want to enhance their own knowledge of Church doctrine or history
* need information to improve their ability to share the gospel with others who have sincere questions or misunderstandings
* enjoy the company of other like-minded Church members, who are interested in the same sorts of issues
* serve in Church leadership positions which require them to address questions

===Is it appropriate for a Church member to be involved in apologetics?===

C.S. Lewis pointed out that since enemies have invoked 'science' or 'reason' to attack faith, it may now be necessary that someone respond in the same vein:

:To be ignorant and simple now—not to be able to meet the enemies on their own ground—would be to throw down our weapons, and to betray our uneducated brethren who have, under God, no defense but us against the intellectual attacks of the heathen. Good philosophy must exist, if for no other reason, because bad philosophy needs to be answered.{{ref|lewis1}}

Indeed, the great risk which apologetics seeks to counter is that those unfamiliar with anti-Mormon arguments will assume that there are no good answers to the critics. Elder Neal A. Maxwell warned of the consequences of such a situation:

:Let us be articulate for while our defense of the kingdom may not stir all hearers, the absence of thoughtful response may cause fledglings among the faithful to falter. What we assert may not be accepted, but unasserted convictions soon become deserted convictions.{{ref|maxwell1}}

''See also:'' [[Does the Church discourage reading critical material?]]
===Since you can't "prove" religion, is apologetics a waste of time?===

Dallin H. Oaks spoke to this concern:

:The lack of decisive scientific proofs of scriptural truths does not preclude gospel defenders from counterarguments of that nature. When opponents attack the Church or its doctrines with so-called proofs, loyal defenders will counter with material of a comparable nature to defend.{{ref|oaks1}}

And, Neal A. Maxwell noted that God would provide fascinating additions to our understanding:

:There will be a convergence of discoveries (never enough, mind you, to remove the need for faith) to make plain and plausible what the modern prophets have been saying all along…[I] do not expect incontrovertible proof to come in this way…, but neither will the Church be outdone by hostile or pseudo-scholars.{{ref|maxwell2}}

Austen Farrar said, of C.S. Lewis:

:Though argument does not create conviction, lack of it destroys belief. What seems to be proved may not be embraced; but what no one shows the ability to defend is quickly abandoned. Rational argument does not create belief, but it maintains a climate in which belief may flourish.{{ref|farrar1}}
Apologetics does not aim to "create belief"—it aims only to dispense with the poor reasons given by critics for disbelief. As Elder Maxwell put it, the critics ought not to be permitted "uncontested slam-dunks."{{ref|maxwell3}}

===Are there risks in doing apologetics?===

====Impatience====
Apologists often confront the same anti-Mormon arguments again, and again, and ''again''!

It can be frustrating to see a new crop of anti-Mormon books, films, pamphlets, and websites trot out the same tired claims, without even attempting to address the LDS responses. Apologists must remain patient, and not become short or irritable with those who have sincere questions just because ''they'' have 'heard it all before.'

====Over-reacting====

The ability to create a climate around us in which people, as in the case of the man who approached Jesus, feel free enough to say the equivalent of "Lord, help Thou my unbelief," is a critical skill. If we can deal with doubt effectively in its nascent stages, we can assist people by a warmth and love which frees them to share the worries that they may have, and increase the probability of dissolving their doubt. But, if we over-react to dissent or to doubt, we are apt, rather than inculcating confidence in those we serve, to exhibit what, in the eyes of the rebel, may seem to be a flaw in our inner confidence in what we say.

We need to relax to be effective in the process of helping people who are building testimonies. Over-reacting and pressing the panic button when doubt first makes its appearance can render us ineffective. This is one of the reasons why parents are often in a temporarily poorer tactical position to deal effectively with a rebellious son or daughter—the anxiety is too real to relax. In these circumstances, bishops, teachers, and friends can be helpful—not because they are clinically detached, for their love and concern should be honestly communicated—but rather because third parties sometimes can listen a little longer without reacting, can prescribe with a clear-headed assessment, and most of all, can be a fresh voice which conveys care and concern, a voice which has risen above similar challenges.{{ref|maxwell4}}

====Pride====
An apologist can decide (wrongly) that the issues which excite and concern him ''must'' excite everyone. There are many people for whom apologetic issues are of no importance. This implies no defect in them ''or'' in those who are concerned about a given issue.

C.S. Lewis remarked:

:The intellectual life is not the only road to God, nor the safest, but we find it to be a road, and it may be the appointed road for us. Of course, it will be so only so long as we keep the impulse pure and disinterested. That is the great difficulty. As the author of the Theologia Germanica says, we may come to love knowledge-our knowing-more than the thing known: to delight not in the exercise of our talents but in the fact that they are ours, or even in the reputation they bring us. Every success in a scholar's life increases this danger. If it becomes irresistible, he must give up his scholarly work. The time for plucking out the right eye has arrived.{{ref|lewis2}}

And, any field in which one becomes something of an expert is ripe for pride. As Alma cautioned his missionary sons, "See that ye are not lifted up unto pride; yea, see that ye do not boast in your own wisdom, nor of your much strength." [http://scriptures.lds.org/alma/38/11#11 Alma 38:11] Such strength can be apologetic or mental as much as physical.

====Spiritual Neglect====

Apologetics does not substitute for faith, prayer, scripture study, Christ-like service, and spiritual renewal. Apologists must remember that their main task is to encourage others to seek a personal witness for themselves; the 'rational' part of apologetics is really a prelude to the important work of conversion. At best, apologetics 'gets someone's attention,' and may help them give a novel or strange idea 'the benefit of the doubt' sufficient to plant the seed of faith ([http://scriptures.lds.org/alma/32/1#1 Alma 32]).

LDS apologists should never fall into the trap of assuming that logical argument can create belief, or that the 'case' for the gospel of Christ can be made rationally irresistable.

This applies to those for whom we write, but it applies to with even greater force to ourselves.

C.S. Lewis gave an important caution from his own work in Christian apologetics:

:I have found that nothing is more dangerous to one's own faith than the work of an apologist. No doctrine of that Faith seems to me so spectral, so unreal as one that I have just successfully defended in a public debate. For a moment, you see, it has seemed to rest on oneself: as a result, when you go away from that debate, it seems no stronger than that weak pillar. That is why we apologists take our lives in our hands and can be saved only by falling back continually from the web of our own arguments, as from our intellectual counters, into the Reality—from Christian apologetics into Christ Himself. That also is why we need one another's continual help—''oremus pro invincem'' [Let us pray for each other].{{ref|lewis3}}

==Endnotes==
#{{note|lewis1}} C. S. Lewis, "Learning in War-Time," in ''The Weight of Glory and Other Addresses'' (New York: Macmillan, 1965), 27-28; cited by James S. Jardine, “Consecration and Learning,” in ''On Becoming a Disciple-Scholar'', edited by Henry B. Eying (Bookcraft, Salt Lake, 1995), 77.
#{{note|maxwell1}} Neal A. Maxwell, "'All Hell Is Moved," in ''1977 Devotional Speeches of the Year'' (Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University Press, 1977), 179.
#{{note|oaks1}} Dallin H. Oaks, ''The Lord’s Way'', (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1991), 92.
#{{note|maxwell2}} Neal A. Maxwell, ''Deposition of a Disciple'' (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1976), 49.
#{{note|farrar1}} Cited by {{BYUS|author=Neal A. Maxwell|article=Discipleship and Scholarship|vol=32|num=3|date=1992|start=5}}{{pdflink|url=http://byustudies.byu.edu/Products/MoreInfoPage/MoreInfo.aspx?Type=7&ProdID=1166}}
#{{note|maxwell3}} Neal A. Maxwell, cited in {{Ensign1|author=Gilbert W. Scharffs|article=Some people say it is best to leave alone materials that claim to 'expose' the Church and its teachings. What counsel has been given on this? How do we respond when a friend comes to us with questions found in such materials?|date=January 1995|start=60 (scroll half-way down)}}{{link|url=http://library.lds.org/library/lpext.dll/ArchMagazines/Ensign/1995.htm/ensign%20january%201995.htm/i%20have%20a%20question.htm?fn=document-frame.htm&f=templates&2.0#LPTOC2}}
#{{note|maxwell4}} Neal A Maxwell, ''A More Excellent Way: Essays on Leadership for Latter-day Saints'' (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1967), 62.
#{{note|lewis2}} C. S. Lewis, "Learning in War-Time," in ''The Weight of Glory and Other Addresses'' (New York: Macmillan, 1965), 27-28; cited by James S. Jardine, “Consecration and Learning,” in ''On Becoming a Disciple-Scholar'', edited by Henry B. Eying (Bookcraft, Salt Lake, 1995), 77.
#{{note|lewis3}} C.S. Lewis, ''God in the Dock: Essays on Theology and Ethics'', edited by Walter Hooper, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1970), 103.

==Further reading==
===FAIR wiki articles===
* [[Does the Church discourage reading critical material%3F]]
===FAIR web site===
* {{tg|url=http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai003.html|topic=Apologetics}}
* FAIR FAQ{{fairlink|url=http://www.fairlds.org/faq.html}}
* Wayne Arnett, "Apologetics 101," FAIR Conference 2006. {{fairlink|url=http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/2006_Apologetics_101.html}}
* Gary Bowler, "What is FAIR, and Why Are You Apologizing?" {{pdflink|url=http://www.fairlds.org/apol/brochures/AboutFAIR.pdf}}

===External links===
*{{FR-18-2-1}}
* {{Ensign1|author=Gilbert W. Scharffs|article=Some people say it is best to leave alone materials that claim to 'expose' the Church and its teachings. What counsel has been given on this? How do we respond when a friend comes to us with questions found in such materials?|date=January 1995|start=60 (scroll half-way down)}}{{link|url=http://library.lds.org/library/lpext.dll/ArchMagazines/Ensign/1995.htm/ensign%20january%201995.htm/i%20have%20a%20question.htm?fn=document-frame.htm&f=templates&2.0#LPTOC2}}

===Printed material===
* Many good printed books are available at the [http://www.fair-lds.org/Merchant2/merchant.mvc FAIR Bookstore].