FAIR - User contributions [en]

Criticism of Mormonism/Books/Early Mormonism and the Magic World View/Chapter 1

2017-12-09T14:15:28Z

DanaRepouille: Fixed broken link

{{FairMormon}}
{{H1
|L=Criticism of Mormonism/Books/Early Mormonism and the Magic World View/Chapter 1
|H=Response to claims made in "Chapter 1: Early America's Heritage of Religion and Magic"
|S=
|T=[[../../|Early Mormonism and the Magic World View]]
|A=D. Michael Quinn
|<=
|>=[[../Chapter 2|"Chapter 2: Divining Rods, Treasure-Digging, and Seer Stones"]]
}}
<onlyinclude>
{{H2
|L=Criticism of Mormonism/Books/Early Mormonism and the Magic World View/Chapter 1
|H=Response to claims made in Early Mormonism and the Magic World View, "Chapter 1: Early America's Heritage of Religion and Magic"
|L1=Response to claim: 21 - Were books on magic and the occult readily available on the 19th century frontier?
|L2=Response to claim: 26-27 - The author equates "jugglers" with "conjurors"
}}
</onlyinclude>
==Response to claim: 21 - Were books on magic and the occult readily available on the 19th century frontier?==
{{IndexClaimItemShort
|title=Early Mormonism and the Magic World View
|claim=<br>
*{{AuthorQuote|...it is reasonable to estimate that this one peddler was selling about 25,000 books to farmers each year...by the early 1800's there were thousands of peddlers.}}
*The book then asserts that Weems was selling these volumes "door-to-door in the rural areas of the South" to individual "farmers."
*{{AuthorQuote|...some [book] peddlers also stocked clandestine works'" and therefore, "if local stores would not supply occult publications to American farmers, book peddlers were there to fill the need.}}
|authorsources=<br>
#J. R. Dolan, The Yankee Peddlers of Early America (New York: Bramhall House, 1964).
}}
{{misinformation|The author miscites his source, doubles the cited figure, and conflates book peddlers with all peddlers. The author attempts to portray a wholesaler supplying multiple bookstores as representative of one of thousands of wandering book peddlers. He again seeks to bolster his weak and ahistorical claim that multiple occult texts were easily available in New England in the 1800s.
}}
{{:Question: Were books about magic and the occult easily and readily available on the 19th century frontier?}}

==Response to claim: 26-27 - The author equates "jugglers" with "conjurors"==
{{IndexClaimItemShort
|title=Early Mormonism and the Magic World View
|claim=
"Disorderly Persons" "all jugglers [conjurors], and all persons pretending to have skill in physiognomy, palmistry, or like crafty science, or pretending to tell fortunes, or ''to discover lost goods''."
*(italics added, the amendation of "conjurors" is the author's)

|authorsources=<br>
#''Laws of the State of New-York, Revised and Passed at the Thirty-Sixth Session of the Legislature'' (Albany: Southwick, 1813), 1:114
}}
{{disinformation|The author wants the reader to read "juggler" as "conjurer," i.e. as a practitioner of magic. In context, it is clear that those referred to are those who attempt to extract money from others by deceit, not the practice of 'magic.'
}}
{{Detail|../Use_of_sources/Jugglers_or_conjurors|l1=Jugglers or conjurors?}}

{{endnotes sources}}

Detailed response to CES Letter, Conclusion

2016-04-18T21:37:58Z

DanaRepouille: Adding missing word

Question: What was the Council of Fifty?

2015-05-24T22:36:39Z

DanaRepouille: /* The Council of Fifty was designed to serve as something of a preparatory legislature in the Kingdom of God */

{{FME-Source
|title=Question: What was the Council of Fifty?
|category=Council of Fifty
}}
<onlyinclude>
==Question: What was the Council of Fifty?==
===Joseph Smith received a revelation which called for the organization of a special council===

On 7 April 1842, Joseph Smith received a revelation titled "The Kingdom of God and His Laws, With the Keys and Power Thereof, and Judgment in the Hands of His Servants, Ahman Christ," which called the for the organization of a special council separate from, but parallel to, the Church. Since its inception, this organization has been generally been referred to as "the Council of Fifty" because of its approximate number of members.

===The Council of Fifty was designed to serve as something of a preparatory legislature in the Kingdom of God===

Latter-day Saints believe that one reason the gospel was restored was to prepare the earth for the second coming of the Lord Jesus Christ. Just as the Church was to bring about religious changes in the world, the Council of Fifty was intended to bring a political transformation. It was therefore designed to serve as something of a preparatory legislature in the Kingdom of God. Joseph Smith ordained the council to be the governing body of the world, with himself as chairman, Prophet, Priest, and King over the Council and the world (subject to Jesus Christ, who is "King of kings"<ref>See {{b|1|Timothy|6|15}}; {{b||Revelation|17|14}}; {{bv||Revelation|19|16}}</ref>).

The Council was organized on 11 March 1844, at which time it adopted rules of procedure, including those governing legislation. One rule included instructions for passing motions:

<blockquote>
To pass, a motion must be unanimous in the affirmative. Voting is done after the ancient order: each person voting in turn from the oldest to the youngest member of the Council, commencing with the standing chairman. If any member has any objections he is under covenant to fully and freely make them known to the Council. But if he cannot be convinced of the rightness of the course pursued by the Council he must either yield or withdraw membership in the Council. Thus a man will lose his place in the Council if he refuses to act in accordance with righteous principles in the deliberations of the Council. After action is taken and a motion accepted, no fault will be found or change sought for in regard to the motion.<ref>{{BYUS|author=Andrew F. Ehat|article=[https://byustudies.byu.edu/showtitle.aspx?title=5425 'It Seems Like Heaven Began on Earth': Joseph Smith and the Constitution of the Kingdom of God]|vol=20|num=3|date=1980|pages=260-61}}</ref>
</blockquote>

What is interesting about this rule is that it required each council member, by covenant, to voice his objections to proposed legislation. Those council members who dissented and could not be convinced to change their minds were free to withdraw from the council without repercussions. Thus, full freedom of conscience was maintained by the council — not exactly the sort of actions a despot or tyrant would allow.

===The Council never rose to the stature Joseph intended===

Members (which included individuals that were not members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) were sent on expeditions west to explore emigration routes for the Saints, lobbied the American government, and were involved in Joseph Smith's presidential campaign. But only three months after it was established, Joseph was killed, and his death was the beginning of the Council's end. Brigham Young used it as the Saints moved west and settled in the Great Basin, and it met annually during John Taylor's administration, but since that time the Council has not played an active role among the Latter-day Saints.
</onlyinclude>
{{endnotes sources}}
[[Category:American Massacre]]
[[Category:Mormon America]]
[[Category:Mormonism Unmasked]]
[[Category:No Man Knows My History]]
[[Category:One Nation Under Gods]]
[[Category:The Changing World of Mormonism]]
[[Category:Wikipedia]]

Biblical Keys for Discerning True and False Prophets/Tests/Unity of faith

2012-08-26T02:03:09Z

DanaRepouille:

Criticism of Mormonism/Books/Becoming Gods/Use of sources/The Book of Mormon and Jesus Christ's conception

2012-08-26T02:01:58Z

DanaRepouille:

Biblical Keys for Discerning True and False Prophets/Tests/Jesus come in the flesh

2012-08-26T01:59:11Z

DanaRepouille: /* Testifies that Jesus is “come in the flesh” */

Biblical Keys for Discerning True and False Prophets/Tests/Jesus come in the flesh

2012-08-26T01:57:33Z

DanaRepouille:

Biblical Keys for Discerning True and False Prophets/Tests/Revelation and Vision

2012-08-26T01:53:16Z

DanaRepouille:

Biblical Keys for Discerning True and False Prophets/Tests

2012-08-26T01:50:14Z

DanaRepouille:

User:RogerNicholson/Sandbox2/Bible tests for true and false prophets

2012-08-26T01:41:30Z

DanaRepouille:

__NOTOC__
{{BookHeader
|title=[[../]]
|author=Kevin Christensen
|noauthor=
|section=Bible tests for true and false prophets
|previous=
|next=
|notes=
}}

=Bible Tests for True and False Prophets=
{{OfTrueOfFalseTable}}
|
*{{b||Amos|3|7}}
*Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets.
*Also Rev. 19:10, Ephesians 4:13, Ps. 25.24, Jeremiah 3:15, Numbers 11:2
||
*{{b||Matthew|7|15}}
*Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly, they are ravening wolves.
*Also Matt. 24:11, 2 Tim. 3:1-9 and 4:3-4. 2 Thes. 2:1-12 and 4:1-3
{{EndTable}}

<blockquote>
''Wherefore, by their fruits shall ye know them.'' 1
</blockquote>

==Claims a True Prophet must make==
*[[/Revelation and Vision|Revelation and Vision]]
*[[/Witnesses|Witnesses]]
*[[/Chosen by God|Chosen by God]]
*[[/Ordained|Ordained by prophesy and the laying on of hands by those in authority]]
==Teaching of Christ==
*[[/Christ ordained of God|Christ ordained by God to judge all men, and]]
*[[/Remission of sins|Teaches belief on him for remission of sins]]
*[[/Jesus come in the flesh|Testifies that Jesus is "come in the flesh"]]
*[[/Unity of faith|Apostles and prophets given "till we all come in a unity of the faith"]]
*[[/Accepts the Biblical God|Accepts the Biblical God]]
==Character of Teaching==
*[[/Preaches Repentance|Preaches Repentance]]

1.Matthew 7:20
June 1998 -5
Biblical Keys for Discerning True and False Prophets
Bible Tests for True and False Prophets
Back Page -5
• Teaches of one Lord, one faith, one baptism, and one God and Father of all
•Teaches by the spirit, so that your faith stands in the power of God
•Opens understanding of the scriptures
•Teaching consistent with scripture
•Provides knowledge of the heavenly council
•Provides knowledge of God's covenant
•They teach their followers to expect trials in this life
==Personal Character==
•Seeks to please God, not men.
•Teaches with authority, and not as a scribe
•They lead as willing ensamples to the flock, not for filthy lucre
•Recognizes and is united with authorized prophets
•They admit to being men of passion, like us, liable to sin
==Evidences provided==
*[[/Signs and gifts|God bears them witness with signs and gifts of the Holy Ghost according to his own will.]]
*[[/Works|A prophet may do works none other man did.]]
*[[/Learn the truth|Teaches that the investigators must keep his words to learn the truth of them.]]
*[[/Prophecy|Prophecy]]
*[[/Pray|Teaches that we must pray]]
*[[/Arguments fail|Over time, arguments against a prophet fail, and demonstrate confusion]]

Joseph Smith's prophecy of the Civil War

2012-08-26T01:38:34Z

DanaRepouille:

{{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}}
{{JosephSmithPortal}}
=={{Criticism label}}==
Joseph Smith made an 1832 prophecy of the Civil War. Critics scramble to dismiss this prophetic "hit" by various tactics, including:
# claiming a rebellion was already going on in South Carolina in 1832
# claiming the Church did not publicize the prophecy until after the Civil War started
# claiming a civil war was "inevitable," and "anyone" could have predicted it
# claiming "war was not brought to all nations" by the Civil War and/or claiming there is "no link" between the Civil War and later conflicts
# claiming slaves did not rise up against their masters in the Civil War

{{CriticalSources}}

=={{Conclusion label}}==

The critics' desperate scramble to explain away this prophecy fails on multiple grounds. It is no surprise that nineteenth-century members of the Church
consistently saw the Civil War as a fulfillment of prophecy, and evidence of Joseph Smith's prophetic gifts.

== ==
{{Response label}}

The prophecy given 25 December 1832 reads:

:1 VERILY, thus saith the Lord concerning the wars that will shortly come to pass, beginning at the rebellion of South Carolina, which will eventually terminate in the death and misery of many souls;
:2 And the time will come that war will be poured out upon all nations, beginning at this place.
:3 For behold, the Southern States shall be divided against the Northern States, and the Southern States will call on other nations, even the nation of Great Britain, as it is called, and they shall also call upon other nations, in order to defend themselves against other nations; and then war shall be poured out upon all nations.
:4 And it shall come to pass, after many days, slaves shall rise up against their masters, who shall be marshaled and disciplined for war.
:5 And it shall come to pass also that the remnants who are left of the land will marshal themselves, and shall become exceedingly angry, and shall vex the Gentiles with a sore vexation.
:6 And thus, with the sword and by bloodshed the inhabitants of the earth shall mourn; and with famine, and plague, and earthquake, and the thunder of heaven, and the fierce and vivid lightning also, shall the inhabitants of the earth be made to feel the wrath, and indignation, and chastening hand of an Almighty God, until the consumption decreed hath made a full end of all nations;
:7 That the cry of the saints, and of the blood of the saints, shall cease to come up into the ears of the Lord of Sabaoth, from the earth, to be avenged of their enemies.
:8 Wherefore, stand ye in holy places, and be not moved, until the day of the Lord come; for behold, it cometh quickly, saith the Lord. Amen. ({{s||DC|87|1-8}})

==Rebellion on-going in South Carolina?==

Critics claim that Mormons "cover up the fact that the 'prophecy' was made in the midst of an earlier rebellion in December 1832. That rebellion ended quietly a few months later."{{ref|decker.1}}

This claim, however, is false. Gil Scharffs noted that critics "are correct when they say Joseph Smith announced the Civil War prophecy when rebellion in South Carolina was threatening. A large 1832 rebellion never materialized and the threat ended a few months later."{{ref|scharffs.1}}

No American statesman in 1832 believed that the doctrines of secession then talked of would result in a great civil war. None of them had the foresight to see that a great rebellion would occur, beginning in South Carolina; that it would terminate in the death and misery of many souls; that the Southern States would be divided against the Northern States; that the Southern States would call on Great Britain, and that war would eventually be poured out upon all nations. No one foresaw that this would be the result except Joseph Smith--when but twenty-seven years of age--and he saw it only by the spirit of prophecy and revelation. To be required to believe that the prophecy was merely the fortunate conjecture of a more than ordinary astute mind, requires a greater amount of credulity than to concede the inspiration of the Prophet; and then the question would still remain, why is it that sagacious minds in other generations have not paralleled this astuteness of Joseph Smith's? Why did not some of the brilliant minds in the Senate or House of Representatives in 1832 make such a prediction? There was not a lack of brilliant minds in either Senate or House at that time, yet none seemed equal to the task. {{ref|roberts.319}}

The fact that there were rumors of war is in fact a fulfillment of prophecy itself! ({{b||Matthew|24|6-7}}) The question is not were there rumors of war, but the question should be, did the events take place just as Joseph Smith said they would. As soon as Joseph uttered the words "Thus saith the Lord" he was tied to the prophecy being true or false, and if the events did not happen as he said, then, and only then, could it be declared a false prophecy.

It was because of this fact that the Lord made known to Joseph Smith this revelation stating that wars would shortly come to pass, beginning with the rebellion of South Carolina, which would eventually terminate in war being poured out upon all nations and in the death and misery of many souls. It may have been an easy thing in 1832, or even 1831, for someone to predict that there would come a division of the Northern States and the Southern States, for even then there were rumblings, and South Carolina had shown the spirit of rebellion. It was not, however, within the power of man to predict in the detail which the Lord revealed to Joseph Smith, what was shortly to come to pass as an outgrowth of the Civil War and the pouring out of war upon all nations. It must be conceded that no one, except Joseph Smith, ever entered into such detail in relation to this conflict or stated with such assurance that the time would come when all nations would be involved in war, The revelation begins with these words: "Verily, thus saith the Lord, concerning the wars that will shortly come to pass beginning at the rebellion of South Carolina, which will eventually terminate in the death and misery of many souls; and the time will come that war will be poured out upon all nations, beginning at this place." This, certainly, is a bold prediction which no one, other than Joseph Smith, dared to make. {{ref|jfs.123}}

==Spreading the prophecy==

Does this mean that the Church quietly shelved the prophecy for several years?

Joseph Smith reiterated the prophecy in 1842, and added more detail:

:12 I prophesy, in the name of the Lord God, that the commencement of the difficulties which will cause much bloodshed previous to the coming of the Son of Man will be in South Carolina.
:13 It may probably arise through the slave question. This a voice declared to me, while I was praying earnestly on the subject, December 25th, 1832. ({{s||DC|130|12-13}})

Orson Pratt testified that he began preaching the prophecy soon after it was given. In 1870, he said:

:I went forth before my beard was gray, before my hair began to turn white, '''when I was a youth of nineteen''', now I am fifty-eight, and from that time on I published these tidings among the inhabitants of the earth. '''I carried forth the written revelation, foretelling this great contest, some twenty-eight years before the war commenced. This prophecy has been printed and circulated extensively in this and other nations and languages.''' It pointed out the place where it should commence in South Carolina. That which I declared over the New England States, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and many other parts in the East, when but a boy, came to pass twenty-eight years after the revelation was given.

:When they were talking about a war commencing down here in Kansas, I told them that was not the place; I also told them that the revelation had designated South Carolina, "and," said I, "you have no need to think that the Kansas war is going to be the war that is to be so terribly destructive in its character and nature. No, it must commence at the place the Lord has designated by revelation."

:What did they have to say to me? They thought it was a Mormon humbug, and laughed me to scorn, and they looked upon that revelation as they do upon all others that God has given in these latter days—as without divine authority. But behold and lo! in process of time it came to pass, again establishing the divinity of this work, and giving another proof that God is in this work, and is performing that which He spoke by the mouths of the ancient prophets, as recorded in the Book of Mormon before any Church of Latter-day Saints was in existence.{{ref|pratt.1870}}

Thus, Orson Pratt indicates that not only did he preach regarding Joseph's prophesy in 1832, but that he was ridiculed for it. He would also remember:

::Now I am aware that it is almost impossible for even some of the Latter-day Saints to get that confidence and that strong faith in the events which God intends to accomplish on this land in the future to believe in such a thing, to say nothing about outsiders, that do not believe a word of it. Outsiders do not believe it any more than they believed me when I was a boy and took that revelation which was given in 1832, and carried it forth among many towns and cities and told them there was to be a great and terrible war between the North and the South, and read to them the revelation. Did they believe it? Would they consider that there was any truth in it? Not in the least, "that is a Mormon humbug" they would say. "What! this great and powerful nation of ours to be divided one part against the other and many hundreds of thousands of souls to be destroyed by civil wars!" Not a word of it would they believe. They do not believe what is still in the future. (Orson Pratt, December 27, 1868. Journal of Discourses 12:344)

The Church also printed the prophecy in the ''Pearl of Great Price'' in 1851, and continued to publicize it until the Civil War. Clearly, they did not keep it "under wraps" until the Civil War became inevitable.{{ref|eom.1}}

Orson Pratt also included the full prophecy from December 1832 on the front page of his publication ''The Seer'' in April 1854, with interpretation and editorial comment for 6 pages.{{ref|seer.1}} There are also many extant manuscript copies of the prophecy, in the handwriting of men who left the church before Joseph Smith died, and some who didn't (WW Phelps, Thomas Bullock, Willard Richards [who died before the Civil War], Edward Partridge, Algernon Sidney Gilbert, Frederick G. Williams).{{ref|woodford.1}}

Robert Woodford's Ph.D. thesis also located a an article in a Philadelphia paper quoting the revelation from 1851, with comments, from May 1861; it was reprinted in England a month later:

:Philadelphia Sunday Mercury, Sunday May 5, 1861

:A MORMON PROPHECY

:We have in our possession a pamphlet, published at Liverpool, in 1851, containing a selection from the ‘revelations, translations and narratives’ of Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism. The following prophecy is here said to have been made by Smith, on the 25th of December, 1832. In view of our present troubles, this prediction seems to be in progress of fulfilment, whether Joe Smith was a humbug or not:

:‘A REVELATION AND PROPHECY BY THE PROPHET, SEER, AND REVELATOR, JOSEPH SMITH. Verily thus saith the Lord…. Amen [complete text quoted]’

:The war began in South Carolina. Insurrections of slaves are already dreaded. Famine will certainly afflict some Southern communities. The interference of Great Britain, on account of the want of cotton, is not improbable, if the war is protracted. In the meantime, a general war in Europe appears to be imminent. Have we not had a prophet among us?{{ref|philadelphia.1}}

Clearly, members of the Church did not hide the prophecy, and spread it far and wide among themselves and among others from the 1830s until its fulfillment in the 1860s.

==Anyone could have predicted it?==

So, was the prophecy "so obvious" that anyone could have predicted it? The critics must prove this contention.

Where is the evidence that most Americans were predicting a Civil War between 1832-1851? Why was Orson Pratt ridiculed if this was obvious to everyone? This seems a desperate attempt by the critics to dismiss a "hit" by Joseph. Everything can look obvious in retrospect if one doesn't know history.

There is, in fact, good contemporary evidence that this prophecy was mocked by prominent authors only 4 years before the Civil War began. A newspaper article from 1857 reported a garbled version of the prophecy, but the author's scorn is clear:

:New beauties are being revealed in the Mormon faith almost every day, and new prophecies of Joe Smith fulfilled. When any event of state occurs, or any remarkable circumstance happens, some of the Mormon apostles find a prophecy of Joseph’s (probably dated twenty-five years ago), which has just been fulfilled by the occurrence. These prophecies are never spoken of until after the occurrence. The fact is, the leaders frame the prophecy themselves after its fulfillment. Joe Smith did at one time prophecy that before the year 1860, '''the Union would be divided, the havoc of war spread over our glorious Republic, battles be fought whose equal was never before known, father would be arrayed against son, and brother against brother, and that our glorious Republic would be stained with human blood from North to South''', the Constitution be trampled upon, and the Government fall to the ground; and then would the little band of Mormons rear the standard of their creed aloft, and proclaim to the world that the millennial year had been ushered in, and the reign of Christ begun. {{ea}}

:But methinks the Mormons can entertain but '''little hope of the fulfillment of that prophecy''', as the Union has stood the strongest test and did not even shake. But when I shall see the above prophecy come to pass, I shall probably then change my mind about the truth of the revelation. At present, I see no chance of its verification within the time specified.{{ref|golden.era}}

==Death and Misery of Many Souls==

Significantly, the prophesy warns of "the death and misery of many souls." The Civil War was, indeed, a bloody war, resulting in about 204,000 battle casualties plus another 225,000 military personnel who died of disease. This number actually well exceeds the American battle deaths (128,000) in World War I. In World War II, there were 396,637 battle deaths. {{ref|maxwell.66}}

Here are some figures concerning another war (World War I).

Authoritative tables give the grand total of all armies mobilized at 59,176,864. Direct military deaths out of this number are set down as 7,781,806; the wounded at 18,681,257; prisoners and missing 7,080,580; making a total of direct military casualties of 33,434,443. This is only a statement of military casualties however. The same authority sets down the number of civilians as being greater from famine, disease, and massacres than those who fell in the military operations. Of these two classes are named: civilians who were killed by direct military causes, and those who died from indirect causes. Of the first class the number was 100,082; and the second--those who died from indirect causes, among the Armenians, Syrians, Jews, and Greeks--massacred or starved by the Turks--are numbered at 4,000,000. The deaths numbered beyond the normal mortality of influenza and pneumonia induced by the war is placed at 4,000,000. The Serbians who died through diseases, or massacre, numbered 1,085,441. Making the total of deaths in these two classes 9,085,441, so that with military deaths and civilian deaths, resulting from the war, make a grand total of 16,967,329 deaths. And of the more than 18,000,000 who were wounded in battle 30% or about 6,000,000, were made permanent human wrecks. {{ref|roberts.302}}

==War was not brought to all nations?==

Following the Civil War the nations, in their great alarm because of the new methods of warfare which were being developed and their fear of other nations, entered into alliances and secret agreements in order to protect themselves from other nations. At the outbreak of the World War, these alliances had reached proportions never before known, and during the war other alliances were made until nearly every nation on the earth had taken sides with the Triple Alliance or the Triple Entente. It was during the period of the World War, 1914-1918, Great Britain made her appeal to the nations to come to the defense of the standard of Democracy. Her pleadings were heard round the world. And what is still more remarkable, the entire procedure conforms exactly to the prediction made by Joseph Smith, viz: "they shall also call upon other nations in order to defend themselves against other nations." A plurality of nations aligned and allied on both sides of the deadly conflict. {{ref|smith.125}}

This revelation was not just about the American Civil War. The revelation makes that very clear by first stating in verse one, "thus saith the Lord concerning the wars that will shortly come to pass." Notice that the word used is wars (plural), not war (singular), thereby "suggesting not one war but a continuum of conflict. Thus, like chapter 24 of Matthew, this scripture covered things both imminent and distant." {{ref|66-2}} Of course, in our own time, we could add the war in Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iran and Iraq, civil wars in Central America, Lebanon, the British-Argentine conflict, Desert Storm, etc.

In our several Indian uprisings since the close of the Civil War, many see the fulfillment of that part of the prophecy which declares that the "remnants who are left of the land [the American Indians] will marshal themselves, and shall become exceeding angry, and shall vex the Gentiles with a sore vexation." {{ref|roberts.303}}

World history since 1861 demonstrates that armed conflict widened and persisted since the American Civil War. There is nothing in the prophecy that claims that the Civil War must be the direct ''cause'' of on-going war, merely that on-going war will occur. And, it will happen after "Great Britain" "shall...call upon other nations, in order to defend themselves":

:2 And ''the time will come'' that war will be poured out upon all nations, beginning at this place.
:3 For behold, the Southern States shall be divided against the Northern States, and the Southern States will call on other nations, even the nation of Great Britain, as it is called, and they shall also call upon other nations, in order to defend themselves against other nations; and ''then war shall be poured out upon all nations.'' ({{s||DC|87|2-3}})

This is an excellent description of WW I and II, during which war ''was'' "poured out" into global battles. And, since WW II war and strife has not ceased.

An [http://www.onwar.com/aced/chrono/index.htm on-line] database of armed conflict demonstrates that there has not been a single year since the end of the Civil War in which a war or armed conflict did not ''begin'', and many of these wars lasted for multiple years (or even, in some cases) decades. (Click [http://pool.fairmormon.org/wiki/images/8/8b/World_Conflicts_1865-1950.pdf here] to download a PDF from this on-line database listing the wars from 1865-1950.)

==Slaves did not rebel==

In the part taken by negroes in the war between the states, many see the fulfillment of the prediction of the revelation that "slaves shall rise up against their masters, who shall be marshaled and disciplined for war;" for of the 2,653,000 soldiers enlisted on the side of the Union, 186,397 were colored, and many of them saw active service in the field against their former masters.{{ref|roberts.302}} {{ref|slaves}} However, the prophecy does not tie slave rebellions directly to the Civil War. After discussing the call on other nations for assistance, the prophecy reads:

:4 And it shall come to pass, after many days, slaves shall rise up against their masters, who shall be marshaled and disciplined for war.({{s||DC|87|4}})

The phrase "it came to pass," and related forms generally indicates a transition in subject or time. The prophecy is clear that the revolt of slaves will come "after many days," which in scriptural language (remember Jesus' second coming was "near," and "even at the door") generally suggests a fairly long period of time.

The prophecy also could refer to past race riots in the U.S. and other countries, uprisings in African nations against their governments, the liberation of peoples under dictatorships throughout the world, or some future liberation of those forced to fight against their will for totalitarian regimes.

==Other accounts of the prophecy from LDS leaders==

The contemporary evidence is complemented by accounts given later by LDS leaders and members:

*I copied a revelation more than twenty-five years ago, in which it is stated that war should be in the south and in the north, and that nation after nation would become embroiled in the tumult and excitement, until war should be poured out upon the whole earth, and that this war would commence at the rebellion of South Carolina, and that times should be such that every man who did not flee to Zion would have to take up the sword against his neighbor or against his brother. These things are beginning to be made manifest, but the end is not yet; but it will come, and that too much sooner than the world of mankind anticipate, and all those things spoken by the mouths of his Prophets will be fulfilled. ({{JDfairwiki|author=Wilford Woodruff|date=July 27, 1862|vol=10|disc=3|start=13}})

*The Lord has led this people out of bondage with a high hand and an outstretched arm. No man acquainted with the history of this people is ignorant of the almighty power of God that has been manifested in the organization, growth and present condition of the Church, though they may be unable naturally to account for it. And the more we grow and prosper, the more our enemies are angry with us. They are angry with us because we told them, thirty years ago, that calamity would come upon this nation. Their anger still increases, while they are drinking of the bitter cup; and at the same time the Saints are increasing in numbers, in faith, in hope, in wealth and in power. I have talked with men who professed to be gentlemen and dispensers of life and salvation to the people, who, Pharaoh-like, declared that they would rather be damned than believe that Joseph Smith was a true Prophet of God. I promised them they should have their choice. ({{JDfairwiki|author=Brigham Young|date=September 28, 1862|vol=10|disc=1|start=4}})

* We are under no necessity of sending forth the Elders of Israel in the condition that we have hitherto had to do; in fact, it would not be safe for a man to shoulder his valise and tramp through the States as the Elders used to do. Bloodshed, robbery, murder, jay-hawking (a polite name for robbery,) stalks abroad throughout the land, and the only chance for safety is for every man to pass along about his business and be silent; this is the case in many parts of the country. The fact that Joseph Smith predicted the present trouble and state of affairs—prophesied the result of mobbing the Saints in Missouri and elsewhere, enrages them; instead of the fulfillment of that prophecy making the people of the country friendly to us, it makes them bloodthirsty, more filled with hell, more eager to waste and destroy and crush out the last remaining particle of truth that may exist on the face of the land. ({{JDfairwiki|author=George A. Smith|date=April 6, 1863|vol=10|disc=32|start=144}})

* These things ought to be a warning to us. We comfort our souls sometimes on the fulfillment of the prophecies of God. We say "Mormonism" must be true because Joseph Smith prophesied thus and so concerning a division of this nation, and that the calamities which are now causing it to mourn should commence in South Carolina. That is true, he did prophecy that, and did foretell the events that have since transpired, and did tell where the commencement of those difficulties should originate. Well, if this is true, are not other things true? If it is true that the Lord has revealed a certain amount of truth in relation to these matters, is it not as true that He has revealed other truths in which we are as individuals interested; and if it is true that God has commenced to deal with other nations as He is doing with this until war and desolation shall spread through the earth, it is just as true that we ought to be very careful what we are doing to secure the favor of God and to fulfill our destiny upon the earth in a manner which will meet his designs. ({{JDfairwiki|author=John Taylor|date=October 25, 1863|vol=10|disc=54|start=278}})

''For further discussion on the Saints' attitude to the Civil War, both before and after its outbreak, see [[One_Nation_Under_Gods/Use_of_sources/Attitude of Saints to Civil War prophecy|Attitude of Saints to Civil War prophecy]].

Every student of United States history is acquainted with the facts establishing a complete fulfilment of this prophecy. In 1861, more than twenty-eight years after the foregoing prediction was recorded, and ten years after its publication in England, the Civil War broke out. It is known the Confederate States solicited aid of Great Britain. While no open alliance between the Southern States and the English government was effected, British influence gave indirect assistance and substantial encouragement to the South, and this in such a way as to produce serious international complications. Vessels were built and equipped at British ports in the interests of the Confederacy; and the results of this violation of the laws of neutrality cost Great Britain fifteen and a half millions of dollars, which sum was awarded the United States at the Geneva arbitration in settlement of the Alabama claims. The Confederacy appointed commissioners to Great Britain and France; these appointees were forcibly taken by United States officers from the British steamer on which they had embarked. This act, which the United States government had to admit as overt, threatened for a time to precipitate a war between this nation and Great Britain. {{ref|talmage.25}}

=={{Endnotes label}}==
#{{note|decker.1}} ''The God Makers'', 224, lines 21-24; cited by {{TruthGodmakers1|start=Chapter 15}} {{link1|url=http://www.fairlds.org/The_God_Makers/tagm31.html}}
#{{note|scharffs.1}} {{TruthGodmakers1|start=Chapter 15}} {{link1|url=http://www.fairlds.org/The_God_Makers/tagm31.html}}
#{{note|roberts.319}}B.H. Roberts, New Witnesses for God, Vol. 1 (Salt Lake City: Deseret News, 1909), 319.
#{{note|jfs.123}}Joseph Fielding Smith, Church History and Modern Revelation: Being a Course of Study for the Melchizedek Priesthood Quorums for the Years 1947-1950, Vol. 2, (Salt Lake City: Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1947), 123.
#{{note|pratt.1870}} {{JDfairwiki|author=Orson Pratt|article=The Latter-day Kingdom of God, etc|vol=13|disc=16|start=135|date= 10 April 1870}}
#{{note|eom.1}} {{EoM1|author=Paul H. Peterson|article=Civil War Prophecy|vol=1|start=288}} {{link1|url=http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/cdm4/document.php?CISOROOT=/EoM&CISOPTR=4391&CISOSHOW=3509}}
#{{note|seer.1}} Editor [Orson Pratt], "A Revelation and Prophecy by the Prophet, Seer, and Revelator, Joseph Smith," ''The Seer'' 2/4 (April 1854): 241–247.
#{{note|woodford.1}} Robert Woodford, The Historical Development of the Doctrine and Covenants, Ph.D. Dissertation, Brigham Young University, 1974, 1104–1124.
#{{note|philadelphia.1}} Woodford, "The Historical Development of the Doctrine and Covenants," 1110, 1111 (figures 12 and 13) [figures contain photocopy of the masthead of each newspaper, and the article itself].
#{{note|golden.era}} "O.P.M.," "Mormonism and its Origin, Number 4," ''The Golden Era'' San Francisco (18 October 1857). [Thanks to Ted Jones for this reference.]
#{{note|maxwell.66}}Neal A. Maxwell, Sermons Not Spoken (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1985), 66.
#{{note|roberts.302}}B.H. Roberts, Comprehensive History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Vol. 1, (Orem, Utah: Sonos Publishing, 1991), 302.
#{{note|smith.125}}Joseph Fielding Smith, Church History and Modern Revelation: Being a Course of Study for the Melchizedek Priesthood Quorums for the Years 1947-1950, Vol. 2, (Salt Lake City: Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1947), 125.
#{{note|66-2}}Neal A. Maxwell, Sermons Not Spoken (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1985), 66.
#{{note|roberts.303}}B.H. Roberts, Comprehensive History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Vol. 1, (Orem, Utah: Sonos Publishing, 1991), 303.
#{{note|roberts.302}}B.H. Roberts, Comprehensive History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Vol. 1, (Orem, Utah: Sonos Publishing, 1991), 302-303.
#{{note|slaves}} "American Civil War: Slavery during the war," ''wikipedia.org'' (accessed 15 Jan 2009) {{link|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War#Slavery_during_the_war}}
#{{note|talmage.25}}James E. Talmage, A Study of the Articles of Faith (Salt Lake City: Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1978), 25-26.

{{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:Joseph Smith/Prophecies/Civil War]]

Jesus Christ/The "Mormon" vs. the "Christian" Jesus

2012-08-25T19:10:45Z

DanaRepouille:

{{Articles FAIR copyright}} {{Articles Header 1}} {{Articles Header 2}} {{Articles Header 3}} {{Articles Header 4}} {{Articles Header 5}} {{Articles Header 6}} {{Articles Header 7}} {{Articles Header 8}} {{Articles Header 9}} {{Articles Header 10}}
=={{Criticism label}}==
Critics claim that Latter-day Saints believe in a "different" Jesus than "mainstream" Christians.

{{CriticalSources}}

=={{Conclusion label}}==
Critics wish to cast Latter-day Saints out as true followers of Jesus Christ by attempting to control the definition of who it is that we actually worship. The fact is, we worship the Jesus Christ of the Bible.

== ==
{{Response label}}

==="Mormon Beliefs About Jesus" versus "Christian Beliefs About Jesus"===
It would be enlightening for any Latter-day Saint to read this description of the "Mormon Jesus" in the left column and see just how much of this is recognizable as church doctrine. The list is taken from page ''One Nation Under Gods'', p. 378 (PB). This claim is repeated in the author's later work [[Becoming Gods#The "Mormon Jesus" versus the "Traditional Jesus"|''Becoming Gods''—The "Mormon Jesus" versus the "Traditional Jesus"]].
{| valign="top" border="1" style="width:100%; font-size:100%"
!width="40%"|The "mainstream Christian" author's misrepresentation of "Mormon Beliefs About Jesus"
!width="40%"|Jesus Christ, as He is actually viewed by Latter-day Saints
!width="20%"|For more information...
|-
|A ''literal'' son (spirit-child) of a god (Elohim) and his wife.||
*Latter-day Saints believe that ''everyone'' is a spirit child of Heavenly Father, including Jesus. What is a spirit child? We don't have the details.
*Our eternal nature was organized into a spirit person, whatever that is. We don't know the details. We don't know the process by which we became a spirit person.
*The difference between us is that Jesus is divine, while the rest of us are not.
*Why the emphasis on the word "literal"? Apparently, to once again call attention to the subject of [["Celestial sex"|"Celestial Sex."]]
||
*[[Jesus Christ's conception]]
|-
|The elder brother of all spirits born in the pre-existence to Heavenly Father.||
*Latter-day Saints do not claim to know by what method a spirit is "born."
*Christ is the "eldest," but what this means is also not clear. Is it a question of temporality? (i.e., He came first in time) Is it a rank? Does it describe His relationship to us? We simply don't claim to know, since time is only measured unto man.
*Latter-day Saints do believe that Christ was ''not'' created ex nihilo at some moment; He is eternally self-existent.
||
*[[Creation in Colossians 1:16]]
|-
|A polygamous Jewish male.
||
*This is not a belief among Latter-day Saints, and is based entirely upon non-doctrinal statements made by Orson Hyde and Orson Pratt.
*It is surprising that this claim is still in the paperback edition of [[One Nation Under Gods|''One Nation Under Gods'']]. It was, however, removed from [[Becoming Gods|''Becoming Gods'']].
||
*[[Was Jesus Christ married/Was Jesus a polygamist|Do Latter-day Saints believe that Jesus was a polygamist?]]
|-
|One of three gods overseeing this planet.||
*There is only one God. Christ is one of three divine beings in the Godhead. They are one in purpose, not one in person. {{b||John|17|3}}, {{b||John|17|20-22}}
*Regardless of this, a creedal Christian ought not to have a problem with one God consisting of more than one Person.
||
*[[Godhead and the Trinity]]
|-
|Atoned only for Adam's transgression by sweating blood in Gethsemane.
||
*This statement is completely false.
*The Book of Mormon teaches that Christ's sacrifice was "infinite and eternal." (2 Nephi) It could not be exceeded in any sense. Christ suffered for the sins, griefs, and pains of all humanity (Alma 7), whether or not they repent.
*The benefits of that atonement are restricted if we refuse to do that which He asks of us to accept it (i.e. have faith, repent, be baptized, receive the Holy Ghost, and endure to the end.)
*Note that this statement was changed in [[Becoming Gods#The "Mormon Jesus" versus the "Traditional Jesus"|''Becoming Gods''—The "Mormon Jesus" versus the "Traditional Jesus"]] to "Atoned only for Adam's transgression, thereby providing the opportunity for us to obtain "eternal life" by our own efforts. The change, however, didn't really do anything to correct this falsehood.
||
*[[Salvation by faith alone]]
*[[Neglect grace]]
*[[Early Christian views on salvation]]
|-
|The ''literal'' spirit brother of Lucifer.||
*Again, note the emphasis on the word "literal." Latter-day Saints do ''not'' consider Jesus in any way to be Satan's "peer."
||
*[[Jesus Christ is the brother of Satan]]
|-
|Jesus' sacrificial death is not able to cleanse some people of ''all'' their sins.||
*Latter-day Saints believe that only those who ''reject the atonement'' cannot be cleansed from all their sins. If one doesn't accept the atonement, then the atonement can't save him or her. But, that is a reflection on the sinner, and does ''not'' imply that Christ's atonement was "not able" to cleanse our sins.
*This is probably alluding to [[Blood atonement|blood atonement]].
*Jesus Christ Himself taught that blasphemy against the Holy Ghost was an "unforgivable sin." {{b||Matthew|12|31-32}}
||
*[[Unforgivable sin]]
|-
|There is no salvation without accepting Joseph Smith as a prophet of God.||
*Latter-day Saints believe that there is no salvation without accepting Jesus Christ as our Savior and Redeemer. Salvation is obtained by receiving Jesus and his atoning sacrifice. The statement presented in the book is nonsense. All save the sons of perdition are saved. All will be resurrected.
*A fullness of salvation requires accepting the words of ALL the prophets--including those who wrote the Bible, and including Joseph Smith.
*If one believes that you have to accept the Bible witness to be saved, then how can one fault Latter-day Saints for believing that another prophet's witness must also be accepted? LDS doctrine saves infidels and non-Christians in a resurrection of glory, and provides for their evangelization after death.
||
*[[Joseph Smith's status in LDS belief]]
|}

{{FurtherReading}}

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

[[fr:Jesus Christ/The "Mormon" vs. the "Christian" Jesus]]

Criticism of Mormonism/Books/One Nation Under Gods/Use of sources/Vengeance hymns

2012-08-25T18:46:21Z

DanaRepouille:

Question: What are the "works of Abraham" and how does this relate to plural marriage?

2012-08-25T18:22:58Z

DanaRepouille:

{{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}}
{{Question}}

=={{Question label}}==
D&C 132 tells Joseph and others to "do the works of Abraham." What can you tell me about this?

=={{Conclusion label}}==

The "works of Abraham" are fundamentally about obedience to God's laws, obedience to any commandment given, and willingness to sacrifice. For Joseph and the early Saints, a prominent part of such works was plural marriage, but this was (in a sense) incidental—the great work was obedience to covenant and law; plural marriage was simply their burden and trial.

== ==
{{Response label}}
It is often casually assumed that "the works of Abraham" refer mainly to plural marriage.{{ref|works.1}} A consideration of both the phrase's orgins, and its use in D&C 132, may suggest that a broader meaning is intended.

The phrase has its origins in the gospel of John. Jesus rebuked unrighteous Jews, saying:

:...Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin. And the servant abideth not in the house for ever: but the Son abideth ever. If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed. I know that ye are Abraham's seed; but ye seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you. I speak that which I have seen with my Father: and ye do that which ye have seen with your father ({{b||John|8|34-38}}).

Stung, the Jews replied, "Abraham is our father." Jesus answered:

:If ye were Abraham's children, ye would '''do the works of Abraham'''. But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham ({{b||John|8|39-40}}).

Thus, at its most basic level, "the works of Abraham" are to obey and serve God, and not be "the servant of sin." Even before the abolition of plural marriage, leaders of the Church understood this,{{ref|john.egs}} though many also used obedience to the command to practice plural marriage as a pre-eminent example.{{ref|poly.egs}}

==D&C 132==

Abraham plays a central role in D&C 132's justification of plural marriage. Yet, it is not simply ''as a polygamist'' that Abraham is appealed to:

:29 Abraham received all things, whatsoever he received, by revelation and commandment, by my word, saith the Lord, and hath entered into his exaltation and sitteth upon his throne.
:30 Abraham received promises concerning his seed, and of the fruit of his loins—from whose loins ye are, namely, my servant Joseph—which were to continue so long as they were in the world; and as touching Abraham and his seed, out of the world they should continue; both in the world and out of the world should they continue as innumerable as the stars; or, if ye were to count the sand upon the seashore ye could not number them.
:31 This promise is yours also, because ye are of Abraham, and the promise was made unto Abraham; and by this law is the continuation of the works of my Father, wherein he glorifieth himself.

Again, Abraham received blessings because of revelation and obedience to covenant and commandment.

:32 Go ye, therefore, and do the works of Abraham; enter ye into my law and ye shall be saved.
:33 But if ye enter not into my law ye cannot receive the promise of my Father, which he made unto Abraham.

The works of Abraham, we remember, were obedience and service to God. Joseph and others were to "enter into [God's] law," which has been explained earlier in the section as the law of sealing as part of the new and everlasting covenant ({{s||DC|132|7}}; see [[One_Nation_Under_Gods/Use_of_sources/John_Taylor_September_1886_revelation|''here'']] for a more extensive discussion of the new and everlasting covenant).

:34 God commanded Abraham, and Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham to wife. And why did she do it? Because this was the law; and from Hagar sprang many people. This, therefore, was fulfilling, among other things, the promises.
:35 Was Abraham, therefore, under condemnation? Verily I say unto you, Nay; for I, the Lord, commanded it.

We must not confuse "the law" to which verse 34 refers with "the law" described in verse 7: "he conditions of this law are these: All covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows, performances, connections, associations, or expectations, that are not made and entered into and sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise...are of no efficacy, virtue, or force in and after the resurrection from the dead; for all contracts that are not made unto this end have an end when men are dead."

"The law" which Sarah obeys or follows is later (v. 64-65) referred to as "the law of Sarah"—this law seems to imply that a man who will practice plural marriage must first give his wife the opportunity to approve and endorse the new wife. Thus, the rhetorical question and answer is not

:'''Q''': Why did Sarah do this?
:'''A''': Because plural marriage is "the law."

But, rather:

:'''Q''': Why did ''Sarah'' give the wife to Abraham, when ''he'' could have simply, by his culture's rules, taken another wife himself?
:'''A''': Because "the law" [of Sarah] requires a righteous man to give his wife a chance to approve, and not proceed unilaterally.

We here recall that this revelation was written to persuade Emma Smith to endorse plural marriage; this argument, then, is especially directed at her (see verses 51-56).

We note also that Abraham was not condemned—but not because plural marriage was "the law" and he practiced it, but because he was ''commanded'' and then acted. And, it was this fundamental obedience to any and every commandment that made Abraham great, as the next verse makes clear:

:36 Abraham was commanded to offer his son Isaac; nevertheless, it was written: Thou shalt not kill. Abraham, however, did not refuse, and it was accounted unto him for righteousness.

If taking a plural wife was "the law," which Abraham was bound by, then this analogy makes little sense—for it is surely not a law to murder. Indeed, the Lord acknowledges that the "default setting" for the law is not to kill. But, Abraham was ''commanded'' to sacrifice Isaac. Abraham took a plural wife not because it was the law, but because he was ''commanded'' (just as Joseph had been):

:37 Abraham received concubines, and they bore him children; and it was accounted unto him for righteousness, because they were given unto him, and he abode in my law; as Isaac also and Jacob did none other things than that which they were commanded; and because they did none other things than that which they were commanded, they have entered into their exaltation, according to the promises, and sit upon thrones, and are not angels but are gods.

Abraham kept "the law"—the sealing power and conditions detailed earlier. He, Isaac, and Jacob were justified because they "did the works of Abraham"—they did "none other things than that which they were commanded."

The Lord returns to Abraham later in the section:

:49 For I am the Lord thy God, and will be with thee even unto the end of the world, and through all eternity; for verily I seal upon you your exaltation, and prepare a throne for you in the kingdom of my Father, with Abraham your father.
:50 Behold, I have seen your sacrifices, and will forgive all your sins; I have seen your sacrifices in obedience to that which I have told you. Go, therefore, and I make a way for your escape, as I accepted the offering of Abraham of his son Isaac.

The same themes recur—Joseph has been obedient, and thus will join Abraham. He has sacrificed (as with Isaac, notably, rather than as with Hagar) in obedience.

=={{Endnotes label}}==

#{{note|works.1}} B. Carmon Hardy's sourcebook on plural marriage is even given this title: ''Doing the Works of Abraham: Mormon Polygamy: Its Origin, Practice, and Demise'', Kingdom in the West: The Mormons and the American Frontier (Norman, Okla.: Arthur H. Clark Co.), 2007.
#{{note|john.egs}} See: {{CR1|author=Franklin D. Richards|date=April 1880|start=94}}; {{JDfairwiki|author=John Taylor|vol=1|disc=34|start=226|end=227|date=8 April 1853}}; {{JDfairwiki|author=Orson Hyde|vol=11|disc=23|start=151|end=152}}; {{JDfairwiki|author=Wilford Woodruff|vol=13|disc=19|start=158}}; {{JDfairwiki|author=Orson Pratt|vol=21|disc=26|start=238}}; {{JDfairwiki|author=Franklin D. Richards|vol=24|disc=33|start=282}}; {{JDfairwiki|author=Franklin D. Richards|vol=24|disc=40|start=337}}; {{TS1|vol=5|num=22|date=2 December 1844|article=A Voice from the Temple|author=N[ewell] K. Whitney [et al.]|start=729}}
#{{note|poly.egs}} See: {{JDfairwiki|author=Orson Pratt|vol=1|disc=9|start=60}}; {{JDfairwiki|author=Heber C. Kimball|vol=4|disc=43|start=224}}; {{JDfairwiki|author=Orson Hyde|vol=4|disc=49|start=259|end=260}}; {{JDfairwiki|author=Heber C. Kimball|vol=5|disc=20|start=91}}; {{JDfairwiki|vol=9|disc=65|start=322|end=333|author=Brigham Young}}; {{JDfairwiki|author=George Q. Cannon|vol=13|disc=23|start=198}}; {{JDfairwiki|author=George Teasdale|vol=26|disc=6|start=48}}; {{JDfairwiki|author=Franklin D. Richards|vol=26|disc=37|start=341}};

{{FurtherReading}}

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

[[fr:Joseph Smith/Polygamy/Works of Abraham]]

Criticism of Mormonism/Books/One Nation Under Gods/Use of sources/Natural before spiritual

2012-08-25T18:20:56Z

DanaRepouille:

Criticism of Mormonism/Books/One Nation Under Gods/Appendix B

2012-08-25T18:18:45Z

DanaRepouille:

Criticism of Mormonism/Books/One Nation Under Gods/Use of sources/Nauvoo police violence

2012-08-25T18:16:57Z

DanaRepouille:

Criticism of Mormonism/Books/One Nation Under Gods/Use of sources/Divining rods to Kimball and Young

2012-08-25T18:15:26Z

DanaRepouille:

Criticism of Mormonism/Books/One Nation Under Gods/Use of sources/Christianity is satanic

2012-08-25T18:12:06Z

DanaRepouille:

Mormonism and the nature of God/"God is a man"

2012-08-25T18:09:59Z

DanaRepouille:

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

=={{Criticism label}}==

Critics object to the LDS position that God has a physical body and human form by quoting scripture which says that "God is not a man" (e.g. {{b||Numbers|23|19}}, {{b|1|Samuel|15|29}}, {{b||Hosea|11|9}}).

{{CriticalSources}}

=={{Conclusion label}}==

Surely the critics do not mean to imply that God cannot be in human form—the fundamental doctrine of Christianity is that Jesus is God, made flesh. The critics' reading would require these verses to also apply to Jesus, when they clearly do not. Jesus may be in human form, but he will not sin, change his mind from doing his father's will.

== ==
{{Response label}}

{{main|Corporeality_of_God|l1=Corporeality of God|God is a Spirit|Do Mormons believe that "God is a man"}}

These scriptures read {{ea}}:

* "'''God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man '''[i.e., a human being]''', that he should repent''': hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?" - {{b||Numbers|23|19}}
* "And also the Strength of Israel will not lie nor repent: for '''he is not a man, that he should repent'''." - {{b|1|Samuel|15|29}}
* I will not execute the fierceness of mine anger, I will not return to destroy Ephraim: for '''I am God, and not man'''; the Holy One in the midst of thee: and I will not enter into the city. - {{b||Hosea|11|9}}

The first passage, in Numbers, not only says that "God is not a man", but it also says that God is not "the son of man." If a Christian were to claim from this passage that God is not a man, they would have to consistently claim that God is also not a "son of man." This of course contradicts many New Testament statements about Jesus (who is God) to the contrary. Though there are many examples, one should suffice. Jesus says, "For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth." {{b||Matthew|12|40}} Therefore, we know that the passage from Numbers is not suggesting that God is fundamentally not a "son of man", but rather that God is not a "son of man" in the sense that God doesn't have need for repentance. The next logical step requires us to conclude that the passage is not suggesting that God is fundamentally "not a man", but that God is not a man in the sense that God does not lie.

These verses say nothing about the nature or form of God—they merely assert that God is not like man in certain ways. God will not lie or change his declared course, unlike humans. As the NET translation of 1 Samuel says, "The Preeminent One of Israel does not go back on his word or change his mind, for he is not a human being who changes his mind.”

{{Articles Footer 1}} {{Articles Footer 2}} {{Articles Footer 3}} {{Articles Footer 4}} {{Articles Footer 5}} {{Articles Footer 6}} {{Articles Footer 7}} {{Articles Footer 8}} {{Articles Footer 9}} {{Articles Footer 10}}
[[de:Gott ist ein Mann]]
[[fr:Nature of God/"God is a man"]]

Criticism of Mormonism/Books/Becoming Gods/Use of sources

2012-08-25T18:06:29Z

DanaRepouille:

Joseph Smith/Status in LDS belief/Heber C. Kimball on Joseph as "a god"

2012-08-25T18:03:28Z

DanaRepouille:

{{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}}
{{JosephSmithPortal}}
=={{Criticism label}}==
Critics claim that Joseph's place in LDS theology is blasphemous and even idolatrous. As evidence for this, they cite Heber C. Kimball's remark that future generations would see Joseph as "a god."

{{CriticalSources}}
=={{Conclusion label}}==

Kimball is not here assigning Joseph divine status, nor he is teaching the doctrine of [[Deification of man|''theosis'']]. Rather, he is using a biblical allusion to insist that Joseph and his heirs to the priesthood have a right to leadership of the Saints in both spiritual and temporal things.

Critics, especially Bible-believing ones, ought to be aware of the allusion, but they omit it from their citation and their interpretation, distorting both.

== ==
{{Response label}}
{{Main|Joseph Smith's status in LDS belief}}

In the wake of difficulty with the US government over the leadership of the Territory of Deseret, Heber C. Kimball said:

:You call us fools: but the day will be, gentlemen and ladies, whether you belong to this Church or not, when you will prize brother Joseph Smith as the Prophet of the Living God, and look upon him as a God, and also upon Brigham Young, our Governor in the Territory of Deseret.

:Well, I will say there is no other man, except it is his successor in the Priesthood, that will ever rule over me as a Governor.

Kimball's remarks are centered around who would lead the Saints in the territory. He makes clear that Joseph is to be recognized as a prophet of God, and then alludes to the Bible. When Moses, the great prophet ''and political leader'' of Israel, was called as a prophet, he was told by God that:

: And [Aaron] shall be thy spokesman unto the people: and he shall be, even he shall be to thee instead of a mouth, and thou shalt be to him ''instead of God'' {{ea}} ({{b||Exodus|4|16}}).

{{Main|Joseph Smith's status in LDS belief}}

=={{Endnotes label}}==
#{{note|hck.1}} {{JDfairwiki|author=Heber C. Kimball|vol=5|disc=20|start=88|end=89}}
=={{Further reading label}}==

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

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

==={{External links label}}===
*{{1min|article=Can People Go To Heaven Without Joseph Smith's Consent?|url=http://www.lightplanet.com/response/answers/consent.htm}}

==={{Printed material label}}===
{{JosephSmithPrint}}
{{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:Joseph Smith/Status in LDS belief/Heber C. Kimball on Joseph as "a god"]]

Criticism of Mormonism/Books/The Kingdom of the Cults (Revised)/Index

2012-08-21T02:04:13Z

DanaRepouille:

{{Articles FAIR copyright}} {{Articles Header 1}} {{Articles Header 2}} {{Articles Header 3}} {{Articles Header 4}} {{Articles Header 5}} {{Articles Header 6}} {{Articles Header 7}} {{Articles Header 8}} {{Articles Header 9}} {{Articles Header 10}}
__NOTOC__
{{FAIRAnalysisHeader
|title=[[../|The Kingdom of the Cults (Revised)]]
|author=Walter Martin, Hank Hanegraaff (editor)
|noauthor=
|section=Index of claims
|previous=
|next=
|notes={{AuthorsDisclaimer}}
}}

==Index to claims made in ''The Kingdom of the Cults (Revised edition)==
This is an index of claims made in this work with links to corresponding responses within the FAIRwiki. An effort has been made to provide the author's original sources where possible. This index only treats the section of the book dealing with Mormonism.

====179====
{{IndexClaim
|claim=
*{{AuthorQuote|[I]n keeping with the acceleration of cult propaganda everywhere, the Mormons have around 50,000 "missionaries" active today}}
|response=
*{{Prejudicial}}: Why the scare quotes around the word 'missionaries?' If they aren't missionaries, then what are they?
*[[../Loaded and prejudicial language|Loaded and prejudicial language]]
|authorsources=
*Author's opinion
}}

====180====
{{IndexClaim
|claim=
*The book claims that Latter-day Saints are cautioned against the use of "caffeine-bearing drinks, such as Coca-Cola."
|response=
*Cautioned yes. Prohibited, no.
*[[Word of Wisdom/Cola drinks|Word of Widom—Cola drinks]]
*Thomas J. Boud, MD, "The Energy Drink Epidemic," ''Ensign'', December 2008. {{link|url=http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=30952f9318fcd110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&hideNav=1}}
|authorsources=
*No source provided.
}}

====181====
{{IndexClaim
|claim=
*Tithing is claimed to be one-tenth of gross income.
|response=
*{{FalseStatement}}: The First Presidency has issued the following statement about what constitutes tithing:
:The simplest statement we know of is the statement of the Lord himself, namely, that the members of the Church should pay ‘one-tenth of all their interest annually,’ which is understood to mean income. No one is justified in making any other statement than this.{{ref|tithe.1}}
* Whether a member interprets "income" as "gross," "net," or some other way is up to them.
* If "no one" is entitled to make any other statement, surely that includes anti-Mormon authors!
|authorsources=
*No source provided.
}}
====181, n3====
{{IndexClaim
|claim=
*Utah "shows that rates of divorce, child abuse, teenage pregnancy, and suicide are above the national average and climbing."
|response=
* If the same faulty logic is applied to Evangelicals as is applied to Mormons in this case, they do not fare well either.
* [[Statistical claims/Suicide rate among Mormons]]
* [[Statistical claims/Suicide rate among Mormons#Evangelical_Christians_and_suicide|How do evangelical Christians stack up?]]
|authorsources=
*No source provided.
}}
====182====
{{IndexClaim
|claim=
*{{AuthorQuote|Mormons…flourish a pseudo-mastery of Scripture before the uninformed Christian's dazzled eyes and confuse him, sometimes beyond description.}}
|response=
* {{Prejudicial}}
* One wonders if this is intended to discourage conservative Christians from even ''considering'' scriptural evidence from a Mormon.
|authorsources=
*Author's opinion
}}
====182====
{{IndexClaim
|claim=
*The book refers to the "young and boastful Joseph Smith…"
|response=
* {{Prejudicial}}
|authorsources=
*No source provided.
}}
====182====
{{IndexClaim
|claim=
*It is claimed that Joseph Smith's statement that "no man knows my history" resulted in "endless suspicion by Mormon historians and non-Mormons" who began researching it.
|response=
*{{Absurd}}: The history of the Church has been of intense interest to historians since the Church was formed.
|authorsources=
*No source provided.
}}
====182====
{{IndexClaim
|claim=
*Joseph Smith practiced "occult peep-stone seeking."
|response=
*{{Prejudicial}}
*[[Joseph Smith/Occultism and magic]]
|authorsources=
*No source provided.
}}
====182====
{{IndexClaim
|claim=
*Joseph Smith practices "treasure digging."
|response=
* {{Prejudicial}}
*[[Joseph Smith/Money digging]]
|authorsources=
*No source provided.
}}

====182====
{{IndexClaim
|claim=
*Joseph Smith committed "adultery before the polygamy prophecy."
|response=
* {{SourceDistortion}}: [[Joseph_Smith/Polygamy/Adultery_before_12_July_1843|Adultery before polygamy revelation?]]
* [[Polygamy_book/Introduction_of_the_eternal_marriage|Fanny Alger—marriage or affair?]]
*[[Joseph Smith/Polygamy]]
|authorsources=
*No source provided.
}}
====182====
{{IndexClaim
|claim=
*Joseph Smith proclaimed that the Book of Mormon "is the most correct of any book on earth."
|response=
*[[Book of Mormon/As the most correct book]]
|authorsources=
*No source provided.
}}
====182====
{{IndexClaim
|claim=
*Joseph Smith said "I have more to boast of than ever any man had. I am the only man that has ever been able to keep a whole church together since the days of Adam…"
|response=
* {{SourceDistortion}}
*[[Joseph Smith/Narcissism/Did Joseph Smith 'boast' of keeping the Church intact|Did Joseph Smith 'boast' of keeping the Church intact?]]
|authorsources=
*History of the Church, 6:408-409
}}
====183====
{{IndexClaim
|claim=
*According to D. Michael Quinn, Joseph Smith Sr. was a "mystic" and a treasure digger.
|response=
* {{Prejudicial}}
*[[Joseph Smith/Money digging]]
|authorsources=
* {{attn}}
}}
====183====
{{IndexClaim
|claim=
*Joseph Smith Jr. was "interested in treasure seeking even after he became president of the LDS Church.
|response=
*[[Joseph Smith/Money digging]]
*[[Joseph Smith/Money digging/"Treasure hunting" trip to Salem|Treasure hunting post-Church organization?]]
|authorsources=
*{{CriticalWork:Quinn:Magic World View|pages=}}{{attn}}
}}
====183====
{{IndexClaim
|claim=
*D. Michael Quinn was excommunicated "after refusing to keep silent about his unflattering research."
|response=
*[[Church discipline/Scholars#D. Michael Quinn|Church discipline/Scholars—D. Michael Quinn]]
|authorsources=
* {{attn}}
}}

====184====
{{IndexClaim
|claim=
*Brigham Young wanted to suppress Lucy Mack Smith's history because it had "many mistakes."
|response=
* [[Lucy Mack Smith/Biography]]
|authorsources=
*Millennial Star, 17:297-298, personal letter dated January 31, 1885.
}}

====184====
{{IndexClaim
|claim=
*{{AuthorQuote|It is interesting to observe that Smith could not have been too much moved by the heavenly vision, for he shortly took up once again the habit of digging for treasure along with his father and brother, who were determined to unearth treasure by means of 'peep stones,' 'divining rods,' or just plain digging.}}
|response=
* {{Prejudicial}}
* [[Joseph_Smith/Seer_stones|Joseph Smith: "divining rods" and "peep stones"?]]
* [[Joseph Smith/Money digging]]
|authorsources=
*No source provided
}}

====184====
{{IndexClaim
|claim=
*Joseph is claimed to have gone "on record as denying that he had ever been a money-digger."
|response=
* {{SourceDistortion}}
* [[Joseph Smith/Money digging]]
|authorsources=
*Joseph Smith, History, 1:55
}}

====184====
{{IndexClaim
|claim=
*Joseph "took part in and personally supervised numerous treasure-digging expeditions" and "claimed supernatural powers."
|response=
*The claim relies upon a hostile source ''Gleanings by the Way'' (1842) , written by the Rev. John A. Clark. There are no sources provided for Clark's statements, although it is likely that he relies upon [[The Hurlbut affidavits|the Hurlbut affidavits]]:
<blockquote>
"...Jo Smith, who has since been the chief prophet of the Mormons, and was one of the most prominent ostensible actors in the first scenes of this drama, belonged to a very shiftless family near Palmyra. They lived a sort of vagrant life, and were principally known as ''money-diggers''. Jo from a boy appeared dull and utterly destitute of genius; but his father claimed for him a sort of second sight, a power to look into the depths of the earth, and discover where its precious treasures were hid. Consequently long before the idea of a GOLDEN BIBLE entered their minds, in their excursions for money-digging, which I believe usually occurred at night, that they might conceal from others the knowledge of the place where they struck upon treasures, Jo used to be usually their guide, putting into a hat a peculiar stone he had through which he looked to decide where they should begin to dig.
</blockquote>
|authorsources=
*{{CriticalWork:Clark:Gleanings by the Way|pages=225}}
}}

====184====
{{IndexClaim
|claim=
*A hearing 1826 ruled that Joseph was "guilty of money-digging."
|response=
* {{HistoricalError}}: the hearing was not a trial; it could not have a "guilty" verdict
*[[Joseph Smith/Legal trials/1826 glasslooking trial]]
|authorsources=
* {{attn}}
}}

====186====
{{IndexClaim
|claim=
*The angel Moroni was originally identified as Nephi.
|response=
*[[Moroni's visit/Nephi or Moroni]]
|authorsources=
*1851 edition of the Pearl of Great Price.
*{{CriticalWork:Tanner:Mormonism Shadow|pages=136}}
*Times and Seasons, vol. 3, 753
}}

====186====
{{IndexClaim
|claim=
*{{AuthorQuote|This unfortunate crossing up of the divine communication system was later remedied by thoughtful Mormon scribes who have exercised great care to ferret out all the historical and factual blunders not readily explainable in the writings of Smith...}}
|response=
*{{Prejudicial}}
*{{Fundamentalism}}
* [[Doctrine_and_Covenants/Textual_changes]]
*[[../Loaded and prejudicial language|Loaded and prejudicial language]]
|authorsources=
}}

====187, n10====
{{IndexClaim
|claim=
*"Reformed Egyptian" has never been seen by any "leading Egyptologist.
|response=
* {{SourceDistortion}}: The Book of Mormon makes it clear that "reformed Egyptian" is the Nephite term only ({{s||Mormon|9|32-34}}).
*[[Book of Mormon/Anachronisms/Reformed Egyptian]]
* {{Repeats|#199|p. 199}}
|authorsources=
* {{attn}}
}}
====188====
{{IndexClaim
|claim=
*The book claims that Sidney Rigdon "virtually challenged the whole state to do pitched battle with the 'Saints'" and as a result they were "subsequently persecuted and expelled."
|response=
*Partially true. Sidney did indeed make an inflammatory speech. This did not, however, ''initiate'' persecution against the Latter-day Saints. Sidney's speech was prompted by the persecution that the Saints had experienced so far, including his own tar and feather experience and the expulsion of the Saints from Independence, Missouri.
|authorsources=
}}
====189====
{{IndexClaim
|claim=
*{{AuthorQuote|[I]n Kirtland, Nauvoo, Jackson County, etc., the Mormons had a chance to win converts to Smith's religion because they were strangers and the character of the prophet was unknown in those areas.}}
|response=
* {{Absurd}}: the members of the Church and Joseph were repeated subjects of skeptical or hostile publications and newspaper reports. The charges against Joseph were typically close at hand.
|authorsources=
}}

====189-190====
{{IndexClaim
|claim=
*It is claimed that Eber D. Howe "did tremendous research during Joseph's lifetime" on Joseph's character, and that Joseph "never dared to answer Howe's charges."
|response=
* {{Absurd}}: Howe has the distinction of writing the first anti-Mormon book, but this says little about his "tremendous research," since most of his material was from someone else's efforts.
* Howe relied on hostile affidavits collected after the fact by Doctor Philastus Hurlbut, a man who had sworn to wash his hands in Joseph Smith's blood. Hurlbut was unable to publish the affidavits himself after his trial for making death threats against Joseph . He sold this material to Eber D. Howe, who published them.
* [[Specific works/The_Hurlbut_affidavits|The Hurlbut affidavits]]
|authorsources=
*{{CriticalWork:Howe:Mormonism Unvailed|pages=261}}
}}

====190====
{{IndexClaim
|claim=
*Latter-day Saints "pretend" that Howe's work was the result of a "revengeful vendetta of one Dr. Philastus Hurlbut." The "fact" that stories published by Howe were "publicly circulated previous to Hurlbut's excommunication" is claimed to be "incontestable."
|response=
* The role of Hurlbut in gathering the affidavits is a matter of historical record.
* If Martin has evidence that these claims were being made before Hurlbut collected them, he should present the evidence. Assertion is not evidence.
*[[Specific works/The Hurlbut affidavits]]
|authorsources=
* {{attn}}
}}

====190====
{{IndexClaim
|claim=
*It is claimed that there are "no contemporary pro-Mormon statements from reliable and informed sources who knew the Smith family and Joseph intimately."
|response=
{{FalseStatement}}: [[Joseph Smith/Early Smith family history/No positive witnesses|No positive witnesses about the Smith family?]]
* It is convenient that the author inserts the "reliable and informed" qualifiers—this allows him to simply insist that any evidence in the Smiths' favor simply isn't reliable or informed.
* Joseph's mothers and four siblings were members of the Presbyterian church. They were eventually suspended for not attending for eighteen months. If the family had been as reprobate as the Hurlbut affidavits claimed, it is unlikely their neighbors would have tolerated them in the church for as long as they did. See: [[First Vision/Lucy Mack Smith and the Presbyterians#Lucy.27s_family_was_suspended_from_fellowship_in_the_Presbyterian_church_in_March_1830|Lucy Mack Smith and Presbyterianism]]
|authorsources=
}}

====190====
{{IndexClaim
|claim=
*John C. Bennett, one of Josephs "former assistants" is claimed to have "boldly exposed the practice of polygamy in Nauvoo."
|response=
* {{HistoricalError}}: Bennett, a serial adulterer, was repeatedly chastened by Church leadership and finally excommunicated. He retaliated by accusing Joseph Smith of similar crimes.
*[[Polygamy book/John C. Bennett|John C. Bennett]]
|authorsources=
}}

====191====
{{IndexClaim
|claim=
*{{AuthorQuote|"Each succeeding president of the Mormon Church claims...an infallible prophetic succession."}}
|response=
* {{Absurd}}: [[Church doctrine/Statements by Church leaders|Prophetic infallibility?]]
* {{Fundamentalism}}
* This error is repeated again on [[#243|p. 243]].
|authorsources=
}}

====191-192====
{{IndexClaim
|claim=
*Brigham Young and the Mountain Meadows massacre.
|response=
*[[Mountain Meadows Massacre]]
|authorsources=
}}

====193====
{{IndexClaim
|claim=
*{{AuthorQuote|[T]he god of Mormonism elevates "white" races as supreme and has demeaned African-Americans and Native Americans as "unrighteous."}}
|response=
*The author ignores the fact that the "Curse of Ham" was a ''Protestant'' invention used to justify slavery.
*{{DoubleStandard}}: [[One_Nation_Under_Gods/Use_of_sources/Double_standard_on_race|Protestant critics on race issues]]
*[[Blacks and the priesthood/The "curse of Cain" and "curse of Ham"|The "curse of Cain" and "curse of Ham"]]
* {{Repeats|#235|p. 235}}
|authorsources=
*No citation provided.
}}

====193====
{{IndexClaim
|claim=
*The Book of Mormon describes the "Native-American" curse as a "skin of blackness."
|response=
*[[Book of Mormon/Lamanites/Curse]]
|authorsources=
*{{s|2|Nephi|5|21}}
}}
====194====
{{IndexClaim
|claim=
*Editions of the Book of Mormon printed after 1981 changed the word "white" to "pure" in order to "delete" "racist overtones."
|response=
* {{FalseStatement}}: Joseph Smith made the change in 1836.
*[[Book of Mormon/Textual changes/"white" changed to "pure"]]
|authorsources=
*{{s|2|Nephi|30|6}}
}}

====194====
{{IndexClaim
|claim=
*Brigham Young made degrading comments about race in the ''Journal of Discourses''.
|response=
*[[Brigham Young/Race mixing punishable by death]]
|authorsources=
*{{JDfairwiki|author=Brigham Young|disc=45|vol=7|start=290}}
*{{JDfairwiki|author=Brigham Young|disc=25|vol=10|start=110}}
}}

====194====
{{IndexClaim
|claim=
*The Urim and Thummim were "supernatural spectacles."
|response=
* {{Prejudicial}}
*The Urim and Thummim were never described in the Bible, nor in Church history as being "supernatural."
* [[Joseph_Smith/Seer_stones]]
|authorsources=
* {{attn}}
}}

====194====
{{IndexClaim
|claim=
*The first edition of the Book of Mormon listed Joseph Smith as "author and proprietor."
|response=
*It should also be noted that the following page in the 1830 Book of Mormon describes how Joseph translated the plates, and clearly states that he is a "translator."
*[[Book of Mormon/Joseph as author and proprietor]]
|authorsources=
}}
====195====
{{IndexClaim
|claim=
*{{AuthorQuote|The conflicting methods Smith used for translating the ''Book of Mormon'' leaves little doubt that the story changed often through its progressive history.}}
|response=
*The author wishes to contrast the story of the translation using the Urim and Thummim with the use of a seer stone placed in a hat. In reality, both methods are believed to have been employed and the timeline documenting their use is consistent.
*[[Book of Mormon/Translation/Method]]
|authorsources=
*David Whitmer, ''An Address to All Believers in Christ'', 12.
*''Deseret News Church Section'', September 20, 1969, 32.
*Emma Smith, ''The Saint's Herald'', 310.
}}
====197====
{{IndexClaim
|claim=
*Charles Anthon claimed that he never told Martin Harris that the translation of the characters from the gold plates was correct.
|response=
* Anthon did not like being associated with the Book of Mormon. If he did not reassure Martin, as he later claimed to Howe, why did Martin return reassured and ready to mortgage his farm to publish Joseph's translation?
*[[Book of Mormon/Translation/Anthon transcript#Martin Harris and Charles Anthon|Martin Harris and Charles Anthon]]
|authorsources=
*Letter from Charles Anthon to E.D. Howe, Feb. 17, 1834.
}}

====199====
{{IndexClaim
|claim=
*Nobody has found "the slightest trace" of a language known as "reformed Egyptian."
|response=
* {{SourceDistortion}}: The Book of Mormon makes it clear that "reformed Egyptian" is the Nephite term only ({{s||Mormon|9|32-34}}).
*[[Book of Mormon/Anachronisms/Reformed Egyptian|"Reformed Egyptian"]]
* The author is repeating himself: see [[#187, n10|p. 187, n. 10]]
|authorsources=
*Author's opinion.
}}
====200====
{{IndexClaim
|claim=
*The book claims that archaeological evidence refutes the Book of Mormon.
|response=
*[[Book of Mormon/Archaeology]]
|authorsources=
*Author's opinion.
}}
====200====
{{IndexClaim
|claim=
*The Smithsonian Institution has refuted Book of Mormon archaeological claims.
|response=
*[[Book of Mormon/Archaeology/Smithsonian statement]]
|authorsources=
*Smithsonian statement.
}}
====201====
{{IndexClaim
|claim=
*The author states that "elephants never existed on this continent."
|response=
*Actually, Mastodons and Mammoths did exist on the American continent. The question is whether or not they existed into the Jaredite timeframe before they were hunted to extinction in the Americas. Note that the only mention of elephants in the Book of Mormon relates to the earlier Jaredite civilization.
*[[Book of Mormon/Anachronisms/Animals]]
|authorsources=
*Author's opinion.
}}

====201====
{{IndexClaim
|claim=
*The book claims that the metals described in the Book of Mormon "have never been found in any of the areas of contemporary civilizations of the New World."
|response=
*[[Book of Mormon/Anachronisms/Metals|"Anachronisms"—metals]]
|authorsources=
*Author's opinion.
}}

====201====
{{IndexClaim
|claim=
*BYU professor Thomas Stuart Ferguson called Book of Mormon geography "fictional."
|response=
* Ferguson was not a professional archaeologist or scholar of Book of Mormon geography.
* He was an amateur who had unrealistic ideas about what could be expected from archaeology.
* [[Book of Mormon/Archaeology/Thomas Stuart Ferguson|Thomas Stuart Ferguson]]
|authorsources=
*Jerald and Sandra Tanner, ''Ferguson's Manuscript Unveiled'', 1988.
}}

====202====
{{IndexClaim
|claim=
*"Mormon theology" claims that Native Americans are "descendants of the Lamanites" and that they are "of the Semitic race."
|response=
*LDS doctrine holds that Lehi was ''one'' ancestor of Amerindians. He is not the only ancestor, nor is he necessarily a predominant one.
*[[Book of Mormon/DNA evidence]]
*[[Book of Mormon/Lamanites/Relationship to Amerindians]]
|authorsources=
*W.C. Boyd, ''The Contributions of Genetics to Anthropology''.
*Bentley Glass.
}}

====202====
{{IndexClaim
|claim=
*{{AuthorQuote|Now, if the Lamanites, as the ''Book of Mormon'' claims, were the descendants of Nephi, who was a Jew of the Mediterranean Caucasoid type...}}
|response=
*{{FalseStatement}}: The Book of Mormon does not claim that the Lamanites were the descendants of ''Nephi." Also not considered are the Mulekites, the Jaredites, and the likely presence of people on the continent before Lehi's arrival.
*[[Book of Mormon/Lamanites/Relationship to Amerindians]]
|authorsources=
*Author's opinion.
}}

====202-203====
{{IndexClaim
|claim=
*The Book of Mormon was "corrected" without "consulting the missing golden plates."
|response=
* {{Absurd}}: Both the translation and corrections were the result of a revelatory process—Joseph did not need the plates physically present to translate ''or'' to correct the text. He could not read the plates, save with God's aid. Why would God need the plates to be physically present?
*[[Book of Mormon/Textual changes]]
|authorsources=
* {{attn}}
}}

====203====
{{IndexClaim
|claim=
*The name "Benjamin" was changed to "Mosiah" in {{s||Mosiah||21|28}}.
|response=
*[[Book of Mormon/Textual changes/"Benjamin" changed to "Mosiah"|Textual change—"Benjamin" to "Mosiah"]]
|authorsources=
*{{s||Mosiah|21|28}}
}}

====203====
{{IndexClaim
|claim=
*The Book of Mormon plagiarizes the King James Bible.
|response=
*Why would Joseph plagiarize the one text his readers would be sure to know, and be sure to be offended by if he did?
*[[Book of Mormon/Plagiarism accusations/King James Bible]]
|authorsources=
* {{attn}}
}}

====204====
{{IndexClaim
|claim=
*Martin Harris is claimed to said that he saw the plates with his "spiritual eyes" rather than his "naked eyes."
|response=
*[[Book of Mormon/Witnesses/"Eye of Faith" and "Spiritual Eye" statements by Martin Harris]]
|authorsources=
*Recollections of John H. Gilbert, 1892, Typescript, BYU, 5-6.
}}
====204====
{{IndexClaim
|claim=
*{{AuthorQuote|The Mormons are loath to admit that all three of these witnesses later apostatized from the Mormon faith and were described in the most unflattering terms ("counterfeiters, thieves, [and] liars") by their Mormon contemporaries.}}
|response=
*{{FalseStatement}}. The fact that the witnesses left the Church is actually ''taught'' in Church. The fact that none of them ever denied their testimony that they saw the angel and the plates, despite the fact that they all disagreed with Joseph Smith later in their lives when they could have "exposed the fraud" so to speak, makes their testimony even more powerful. New documents, such as the recently discovered William McLellin notebook, continue to provide proof that the witnesses never denied their testimony of the Book of Mormon.
|authorsources=
* {{attn}}
}}

====204====
{{IndexClaim
|claim=
*The book claims that Joseph Smith "wrote prophecies and articles against the character of the witnesses," and that this makes their testimony "suspect."
|response=
* {{Absurd}}: the witnesses persisted in their testimony despite falling out with Joseph. This strengthens their witness.
*[[Book of Mormon/Witnesses/Character|Book of Mormon witnesses—character]]
*[[Book of Mormon/Witnesses/Recant|Book of Mormon witnesses—faithfulness to witness]]
|authorsources=
*{{s||DC|3|12}}
*{{HoC1|vol=3|start=228}}
*{{HoC1|vol=3|start=232}}
}}

====204====
{{IndexClaim
|claim=
*Oliver Cowdery is claimed to have denied his testimony in the ''Times and Seasons''.
|response=
*The source is a poem by Eliza Snow, the first part of which reads:
<blockquote>
Amazed with wonder! I look round Or prove that Christ was not the Lord
<br>
To see most people of our day, Because Peter cursed and swore?
<br>
Reject the glorious gospel sound, Or Book of Mormon not his word
<br>
Because the simple turn away. Because denied, by Oliver?
<br>
Or does it prove there is no time, Or prove, that Joseph Smith is false
<br>
Because some watches will not go? Because apostates say tis so?
</blockquote>
*[[Book of Mormon/Witnesses/Recant|Did Oliver or the others recant?]]
*Oliver Cowdery held to his testimony of the Book of Mormon even on his deathbed.
|authorsources=
*''Times and Seasons'', 2:482.
}}

====204====
{{IndexClaim
|claim=
*Martin Harris is claimed to have "denied the teaching of Brigham Young" after he was rebaptized.
|response=
* Without a source, it is difficult to assess this claim.
|authorsources=
*No source provided.
}}

====204====
{{IndexClaim
|claim=
*David Whitmer is claimed to have said that "it was a vision and not an actual visitation by an angelic person."
|response=
* {{FalseStatement}}: Whitmer's actual words are:
:In June, 1829, the Lord called Oliver Cowdery, Martin Harris, and myself as the three witnesses, to behold the vision of the Angel, as recorded in the fore part of the Book of Mormon, and to bear testimony to the world that the Book of Mormon, and to bear testimony to the world that the Book of Mormon is true. I was not called to bear testimony to the mission of Brother Joseph Smith any farther than his work of translating the Book of Mormon, as you can see by reading the testimony of us three witnesses.

* Whitmer endorses his printed testimony, and insists that the Book of Mormon was true and that he saw the angel. He says nothing about it not being "an actual visitation."
*[[Book of Mormon/Witnesses/David Whitmer said was not an actual visitation|David Whitmer said was not an actual visitation?]]
*[[Book of Mormon/Witnesses/Recant|Whitmer and the others never denied their testimony?]]
* [[Book_of_Mormon/Witnesses/Spiritual_or_literal|The Three Witnesses—"spiritual" or "literal"?]]
|authorsources=
*{{AddressBelievers1|start=32}}
}}

====204-205====
{{IndexClaim
|claim=
*The Book of Mormon contains passages from the King James Bible.
|response=
*Why would Joseph plagiarize the one text his readers would be sure to know, and be sure to be offended by if he did?
*[[Book of Mormon/Plagiarism accusations/King James Bible]]
|authorsources=
}}

====205====
{{IndexClaim
|claim=
*Some of Christ's words in 3 Nephi are a paraphrase of a sermon made by Peter, before Peter had made it. According to the author, 3 Nephi "makes Christ out to be a liar" because Christ "attributes Peter's words to Moses as a direct quotation," while Peter was actually paraphrasing Moses.
|response=
|authorsources=
* {{attn}} - source? {{NB}}
}}

====205====
{{IndexClaim
|claim=
*The Book of Mormon is said to "follow an error" in the King James Bible in {{b||Isaiah|4|5}} / ({{s|2|Nephi|14|5}}). The phrase "For upon all the glory shall be a defense" should actually be "For over all the gloary {{cs}} there will be a canopy."
|response=
* [[Book_of_Mormon/Anachronisms/Translation_Errors_from_the_KJV|"Anachronisms"—KJV translation errors?]]
|authorsources=
* {{attn}}
}}

====205====
{{IndexClaim
|claim=
*The Jaredites are claimed to have "enjoyed glass windows" in their barges.
|response=
* {{FalseStatement}}
* {{SourceDistortion}}: The Book of Ether specifically says that ''if'' the Jaredites were to put windows in their barges, this would result in the barges being "dashed to pieces." There are no windows in the barges, and no mention of glass at all (see {{s||Ether|2|23}}).
* [[Book_of_Mormon/Anachronisms/Windows|"Anachronisms"—windows? glass?]]
|authorsources=
* {{attn}}
}}

====205====
{{IndexClaim
|claim=
*The Book of Mormon mentions "steel" and a "compass."
|response=
*[[Book of Mormon/Anachronisms/Metals|"Anachronisms"—steel]]
*[[Book of Mormon/Anachronisms/Compass|"Anachronisms"—compass]]
|authorsources=
* {{attn}}
}}

====205====
{{IndexClaim
|claim=
*Laban uses a steel sword and Nephi had a steel bow.
|response=
*[[Book of Mormon/Anachronisms/Metals|"Anachronisms"—steel]]
* {{InternalContradiction|205-206}}: The author admits that biblical usage has "steel" = "bronze," and then criticizes the Book of Mormon for potentially following the same convention.
|authorsources=
*{{s|1|Nephi|4|9}}
}}

====205-206====
{{IndexClaim
|claim=
*The Jaredites had steel swords, but "steel" in the Bible is actually bronze or iron.
|response=
*[[Book of Mormon/Anachronisms/Metals|"Anachronisms"—steel]]
* {{DoubleStandard}}: The author admits that biblical usage has "steel" = "bronze," and then criticizes the Book of Mormon for potentially following the same convention.
|authorsources=
*{{s||Ether|7|9}}
*{{b||Psalm|18|34}}
*{{b||Nahum|6|2}} NASB.
}}

====206====
{{IndexClaim
|claim=
*Interpreting "steel" as "bronze" undermines the claim that the Book of Mormon was translated correctly.
|response=
* {{Fundamentalism}}
* {{DoubleStandard}}: the KJV Bible uses "steel" for "bronze"—does this mean it is utterly unreliable?
*[[Book of Mormon/Anachronisms/Metals|"Anachronisms"—steel]]
* {{InternalContradiction|205-206}}: The author admits that biblical usage has "steel" = "bronze," and then criticizes the Book of Mormon for potentially following the same convention.
|authorsources=
*William Hamblin, "Handheld Weapons in the Book of Mormon" 1985, FARMS.
}}

====206====
{{IndexClaim
|claim=
*The compass was not yet invented. "Mormons" are claimed to defend this by using Acts 28:13, which is correctly rendered as "circle" instead of "compass".
|response=
* The author ignores numerous other examples.
* The question is not whether the word could be otherwise translated—the question is whether in KJV-style English the term "compass" could be used as the Book of Mormon does. And, the answer is clearly, "Yes."
*{{Fundamentalism}}: the author seems to want to insist on some type of perfect, ideal "translation," which neither Joseph nor the Saints believe in.
*[[Book of Mormon/Anachronisms/Compass|"Anachronisms"—compass]]
|authorsources=
*{{b||Acts|28|13}}
}}

====206====
{{IndexClaim
|claim=
*The Bible says that the Messiah was to be born in Bethlehem, but the Book of Mormon says that he would be born "at Jerusalem."
|response=
*[[Book of Mormon/Anachronisms/Jerusalem vs Bethlehem|Jerusalem vs. Bethlehem?]]
|authorsources=
*{{b||Micah|5|2}}
*{{s|1|Nephi|1|4}}
}}

====206====
{{IndexClaim
|claim=
*The Bible is claimed to contradict the Book of Mormon teaching that children cannot sin under eight years of age.
*The Bible is claimed to place sin at the point of conception.
*{{AuthorQuote|Anyone who thinks that children under age eight cannot sin has not visited the classrooms of today's schools.}}
|response=
* The author can restrict Christ's grace to little children, but members of the Church of Jesus Christ refuse to believe that little children are held guilty before God. They are saved from their imperfections and errors through Christ's grace.
* [[Plan of salvation/When are children capable of sin]]
* [[Plan of salvation/Original sin]]
|authorsources=
*{{s||Moroni|8|8}}
*{{b||Psalm|51|5}}
*{{b||Romans|5|12-15}}
*{{b||Romans|3|10-12}}
}}

====207====
{{IndexClaim
|claim=
*The Book of Mormon and D&C are claimed to contradict one another. According to the author, the Book of Mormon states that ""remission of sins is the accomplishment of baptism,"" while the D&C states ""the direct opposite,"" by claiming that remission of sins occurs before baptism.
*The author claims that "Mormon theologians conspicuously omit any serious discussion of the contradiction."
|response=
* [[Latter-day Saint scripture/Supposed contradictions/Remission of sins before or after baptism|Remission of sins before or after baptism?]]
* "Mormon theologians" understand that there ''is'' no contradiction; the critics are reading these texts through their own theology, not through an LDS view of the matter.
* {{Repeats|#227|p. 227}}
|authorsources=
*{{s|3|Nephi|12|2}}
*{{s||Moroni|8|11}}
*{{s||DC|20|37}}
}}

====207====
{{IndexClaim
|claim=
*The author claims that the Book of Mormon condemns polygamy, and that this contradicts the D&C.
|response=
*[[Polygamy/Book of Mormon condemns the practice]]
*[[Doctrine and Covenants/Contradiction between Section 132 and Jacob 2|Contradiction between D&C 132 and Jacob 2?]]
*[[Joseph Smith/Polygamy/Not Biblical|Plural marriage is not Biblical?]]
*[[Latter-day Saint scripture/Supposed contradictions/Contradictions in LDS scripture table#12|"Contradictions" in LDS scripture?]]
|authorsources=
*{{CrossRef:Abanes:One Nation|chapter=13|pages=308 (PB)}}
*{{s||DC|132|32}}
*{{s||DC|132|34}}
*{{s||Jacob|2|26-28}}
}}

====207====
{{IndexClaim
|claim=
*The Book of Moses and Book of Abraham are claimed to be in conflict with one another. The Book of Moses talks of one God creating the earth, while the Book of Abraham talks of more than one god creating the earth.
|response=
* "God" may be spoken of as "one" in some senses, and as "more than one" in other senses. This is true even for creedal Christianity.
* [[Latter-day Saint scripture/Supposed contradictions/Multiple versus single creators|Multiple versus single creators?]]
* [[Nature of God/Trinity/Nicene creed]]
|authorsources=
*{{s||Moses|2|1}}
*{{s||Abraham|4|1}}
}}

====207====
{{IndexClaim
|claim=
*Joseph Smith's "Civil War Prophecy" is claimed to have been "drawn chiefly from material already published at the time."
|response=
* {{SourceDistortion}}: Mormons were mocked for spreading the prophecy; it was not "obvious" to everyone else that a civil war was in the offing.
*[[Joseph Smith/Prophecies/Civil War]]
*[[One Nation Under Gods/Use of sources/Attitude of Saints to Civil War prophecy|Attitude of Saints to Civil War prophecy]]
*{{CrossRef:Abanes:One Nation|appendix=B|pages=461}}
|authorsources=
*{{HoC1|vol=1|start=301}}
*Boston Daily Advertiser & Patriot, December 10, 1832.
*D&C 87
}}

====208====
{{IndexClaim
|claim=
*Joseph "prophesied that he would possess the house he built at Nauvoo 'for ever and ever,'" yet the Nauvoo House was never completed.
|response=
*[[Questions All Mormons Should Ask Themselves/Pages 2#45. Why did the Nauvoo House not stand forever and ever?|Why did the Nauvoo House not stand forever and ever?]]
|authorsources=
*{{s||DC|124|22-23}}
*{{s||DC|124|59}}
*{{HoC1|vol=1|start=160}}
}}

====208====
{{IndexClaim
|claim=
*It is claimed regarding Joseph's prophecy concerning the restoration of Israel that he expected it to occur within his lifetime, when in reality the prophecy in Ezekiel 37 "began to be fulfilled in 1948, more than a hundred years after Smith's death."
|response=
* The statement from Joseph occurred around 1832 (see {{HC1|vol=4|start=375}} where Hyde dates this to ""about nine years"" before 1841).
* The author's grasp of Zionism and Israeli history is poor. European Jews began immigrating in large numbers to Palestine in 1882, and immigration was already increasing from the 1840s-1880s. The ""gathering of the Jews"" began well before the establishment of the state of Israel, as the author appears to believe (see [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aliyah here]]).
* The author does not believe that a dedication by Hyde has any effect, but he cannot prove that it did not, just as those with faith cannot ''prove'' that it did.
*{{CrossRef:Abanes:One Nation|appendix=B|pages=463, 617n18}}
|authorsources=
*{{b||Ezekiel|37|}}
*No source provided for Joseph Smith's prophecy of the restoration of Israel.
}}

====208====
{{IndexClaim
|claim=
*The author claims that "numerous students of Mormonism" such as E.D. Howe, Pomeroy Tucker and William A. Linn believe that the Book of Mormon was based upon the writings of Solomon Spalding. Spalding is claimed to have "written a number of 'romances' with biblical backgrounds similar to those of the Book of Mormon."
|response=
*Howe (1834), Tucker (1867), and Linn (1902) are not ""students of Mormonism""—they were critics of the Church. It is telling that the author cites no one since 1902.
*Ever since critic Fawn Brodie wrote, the Spalding theory has been considered a dead end. Recent critics have tried to resuscitate it, without success.
*[[Book of Mormon/Authorship theories/Spalding manuscript]]
*[[Specific works/The Hurlbut affidavits|The Hurlbut affidavits]]
* {{FR-17-2-3}} 
|authorsources=
*No source provided.
}}

====209====
{{IndexClaim
|claim=
*It is claimed that the "theological portions" of the Book of Mormon were added to Spalding's writings by Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery and Sidney Rigdon.
|response=
* The author needs to provide some evidence for this remarkable assertion.
*[[Book of Mormon/Authorship theories/Spalding manuscript]]
*[[Specific works/The Hurlbut affidavits|The Hurlbut affidavits]]
|authorsources=
*Testimony of John Spaulding, Martha Spaulding printed in {{CriticalWork:Howe:Mormonism Unvailed|pages=278}}
}}

====210====
{{IndexClaim
|claim=
*{{AuthorQuote|It is fairly well established historically, then, that the Mormons have attempted to use a manuscript that is admittedly not the one from which Smith later copied and amplified the text of what is now known as the Book of Mormon…}}
|response=
*{{Absurd}}: It is easy for critics to postulate the existence of a second manuscript which cannot be produced.
*[[Book of Mormon/Authorship theories/Spalding manuscript]]
* [[../Absurd claims|Absurd claim]]
|authorsources=
* {{attn}}
}}

====210, n15-16====
{{IndexClaim
|claim=
*It is claimed that the Spalding Manuscript "Manuscript Story" contains at least 75 similarities to the Book of Mormon.
|response=
* The Spalding theory is implausible on historical grounds.
* "Similarities" mean very little unless they are complex, unique, and unable to be explained except by copying.
*[[Book of Mormon/Authorship theories/Spalding manuscript]]
|authorsources=
* {{attn}}
}}

====211====
{{IndexClaim
|claim=
*The author claims that Deuteronomy 13:1-10 "perfectly" describes Joseph Smith.
|response=
* {{Prejudicial}}: the author is claiming that Joseph taught that his hearers should "go after other gods."
* The text also says that such a preacher of idolatry should be put to death.
* Joseph, his followers, and his enemies believed he was a Christian preacher—only later critics have tried to cloud this.
* [[Jesus Christ/Worship different Jesus|Did Joseph preach a different God? A different Jesus?]]
* [[Jesus Christ/Latter-day Saints aren't Christians|Joseph wasn't a Christian? The LDS aren't Christian?]]
* [[Jesus Christ/Latter-day Saints aren't Christians#Saints_claim_to_be_Christian_only_recently.3F|Mormons only recently claim to be Christians?]]
|authorsources=
* {{b||Deuteronomy|13|1-10}}
}}

====211====
{{IndexClaim
|claim=
*The Bible prohibits adding to the Word of God, and "[i]t does no good for the Mormon to argue that Revelation 22:18-20 only pertains to the book of Revelation," since in 1981 the Joseph Smith Translation modified it.
|response=
'''On changes in general:'''
* The author here tries to cover the fact that the verse in Revelation does not apply to the entire Bible, but we must not let him slip this by us.
* [[%22Adding_to%22_or_%22taking_away_from%22_the_Bible|"Adding to" or "taking away" from the Bible]]
'''On "changes" to Revelation:'''
* Humans may not add to or alter the word of God. God, however, may do what he wishes. Can God not command a prophet to do so?
* If Joseph's claims are true, then he may be ''restoring'' changes made by someone else to the text.
* The author mistakenly assumes that the Joseph Smith Translation must be a textual restoration.
* [[Bible/Joseph Smith Translation/As a restoration of the original Bible text]]
|authorsources=
* {{attn}}
}}

====212====
{{IndexClaim
|claim=
*Joseph is claimed to have "declared theological war on Christianity" by branding "all Christian sects as 'all wrong'."
|response=
* {{Absurd}}: Christian sects were declaring each other to be in error for centuries before Joseph's arrival. It was this conflict that troubled him and led to his prayer in the grove.
* {{HistoricalError}}: Joseph did not say the churches were "all wrong," i.e., entirely mistaken on all points. He did report the message from God that they all lacked something, or taught some things that were not true. But, Joseph saw much of value in other Christians:
:Have the Presbyterians any truth? Yes. Have the Baptists, Methodists, etc., any truth? Yes. They all have a little truth mixed with error, We should gather all the good and true principles in the world and treasure them up, or we shall not come out true "Mormons".{{ref|tpjs.316}}
|authorsources=
* {{attn}}
}}

====212====
{{IndexClaim
|claim=
*The book claims that the LDS brought persecution upon themselves and that they were the "initial antagonists."
|response=
* {{Absurd}}: Christians have been disagreeing theologically about practically every issue for nearly two thousand years. Joseph did not suddenly start this practice.
* Since when is preaching different doctrines license for violence, rape, dispossession, and murder? Is the author trying to excuse these crimes because the Mormons said things their neighbors didn't like?
* Even if the Saints ''did'' "start the fight," it is extraordinary that a Christian minister like the author resorts to the claim that "they started it." Jesus taught "bless them that curse you." The author has decided to continue a fight he is convinced that the Mormons started, and excuse those who persecuted the Saints for their beliefs.
|authorsources=
* {{attn}}
}}

====213, n20====
{{IndexClaim
|claim=
*It is claimed that Blacks were denied the priesthood because they were "under a curse for their lack of valiance in their premortal existence."
|response=
*This idea has been [[Blacks_and_the_priesthood/Repudiated_ideas|repudiated]] by Church leaders.
*[[Blacks and the priesthood/Pre-existence|Priesthood ban—Pre-existence]]
* {{Repeats|#235|p. 235}}
|authorsources=
* {{attn}}
}}

====214====
{{IndexClaim
|claim=
*According to Hebrews 7, Jesus Christ changed the priesthood and eliminated the need for the Aaronic Priesthood.
|response=
*[[Priesthood/Restoration/Aaronic/Hebrews 7]]
|authorsources=
* {{attn}}
}}

====215, n21====
{{IndexClaim
|claim=
*Jesus' priesthood is said to be "untransferable." The LDS claim that Melchizedek conferred his priesthood on Abraham "finds no support in scripture."
|response=
* The LDS do not need to rely only on biblical scripture for their knowledge of such things. There is nothing in the Bible that ''precludes'' Abraham receiving the priesthood from Abraham.
*{{SourceDistortion}}: the author's claim about a non-transferable priesthood is based on a translation error that has been long since corrected. Theological necessity, however, keeps the idea popular in some circles.
* [[Priesthood/Non-transferable]]
|authorsources=
* {{attn}}
}}

====216====
{{IndexClaim
|claim=
*The priesthood is the "priesthood of all believers."
|response=
* The author is welcome to his opinion, but his view on this is recent in Christian history, and is not biblical.
*[[Priesthood/Is there a "Priesthood of All Believers"]]
|authorsources=
* {{attn}}
}}

====216-217====
{{IndexClaim
|claim=
*LDS look forward to "communication with the dead."
|response=
* {{Prejudicial}}
* {{Absurd}}: Latter-day Saints look forward to the resurrection promised to all, and for a continuation of their loving relationships with those who have passed away.
*The "Mormon author" Joseph Heinerman also appears in the anti-Mormon film [[The God Makers]]. {{attn}} - is this the source?
|authorsources=
* {{attn}}
}}

====217====
{{IndexClaim
|claim=
*The author claims that Latter-day Saints show a "denial of the true deity of Jesus Christ."
|response=
* {{Absurd}}:
* {{FalseStatement}}: Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints proclaim that Jesus of Nazareth is Christ, Lord, and God.
* [[Jesus Christ/Latter-day Saints aren't Christians]]
|authorsources=
* {{attn}}
}}

====218 ====
{{IndexClaim
|claim=
*{{AuthorQuote|[A]ll church theologians from the earliest days of church history have affirmed that Christianity is monotheistic in the strictest sense of the term.}}
|response=
* {{Absurd}}: The author should try to persuade a Jew or Muslim that Christianity (with its trinitarian God) is monotheistic in "the strictest sense of the term."
* Like other Christians, Latter-day Saints believe that God is one, and that more than one divine person may be properly spoken of as "God" (the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost).
* Christians have used various methods to reconcile these two ideas. Latter-day Saints reject Nicene trinitarianism, and have adopted a solution more in line with modern Christian ideas of "social trinitarianism."
* [[Nature of God/Trinity/Nicene creed]]
* [[Nature of God/Polytheism|Do the LDS reject monotheism?]]
|authorsources=
* {{attn}}
}}

====219====
{{IndexClaim
|claim=
*"God is spirit, and they that worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth"
|response=
* {{SourceDistortion}}
* The Latter-day Saints agree with this scripture, but (along with many Christian commentators) reject the idea that this scripture is describing God's nature as "only" a spirit.
*[[Nature of God/God is a Spirit]]
|authorsources=
* {{attn}}
}}

====219-220====
{{IndexClaim
|claim=
*LDS "misuse" John 10:34, which claims "Ye are gods" to "falsely" imply that Jesus "endorsed godhood for man." The author claims that this does not agree with the context of John 10:24-36.
|response=
* The author needs argument, not just assertion.
*[[Nature of God/Deification of man]]
* ''An extended discussion of this issue can be found in:''
**{{FR-19-1-13}}
**{{FR-19-1-14}}
**{{FR-19-1-15}}
|authorsources=
* {{attn}}
}}

====220-221====
{{IndexClaim
|claim=
*Adam-God doctrine taught by Brigham Young
|response=
*[[Church doctrine/Repudiated concepts/Adam-God]]
|authorsources=
* {{attn}}
}}

====221-222====
{{IndexClaim
|claim=
*King Follett discourse.
|response=
* {{attn}} - what is the criticism? {{nb}}
|authorsources=
* {{attn}}
}}

====222====
{{IndexClaim
|claim=
*The book claims that Latter-day Saints "attempt to veil their evil doctrine in semi-orthodox terminology."
|response=
* {{Prejudicial}}
* {{Absurd}}: the author is charging members of the Church with willfully trying to hide their beliefs and intent.
* The author should stop trying to declare what members believe, and let Latter-day Saints explain their own beliefs.
|authorsources=
* {{attn}}
}}

====222====
{{IndexClaim
|claim=
*"Mormon doctrine" is that "God the Father is a mere man…"
|response=
*{{FalseStatement}} LDS do not consider the Father "a mere man," or a "mere" anything.
*{{Prejudicial}}
|authorsources=
* {{attn}}
}}

====223====
{{IndexClaim
|claim=
*The author equates the word "spirit" with "immaterial nature."
|response=
* This conception owes more to the metaphysics of Greece which were merged with Christian thought than it does with the Bible.
* [[Apostasy|The Great Apostasy and the Hellenization of Christian thought]]
|authorsources=
* {{attn}}
}}

====223====
{{IndexClaim
|claim=
*{{AuthorQuote|Mormons indeed have sworn allegiance to a polytheistic pantheon of gods…}}
|response=
* {{Absurd}}
* {{Prejudicial}}
*{{FalseStatement}}: Latter-day Saints have "allegiance" only to God the Father and His Son, Jesus Christ.
*[[Nature of God/Polytheism]]
|authorsources=
* {{attn}}
}}

====224====
{{IndexClaim
|claim=
*The "Mormon teaching" that God was seen "face to face" in the Old Testament has been "refuted" through language and comparative textual analysis. God said that that no man could see His face and live ({{b||Exodus|33|20}}
|response=
* [[Nature of God/No man has seen God|No man has seen God?]]
*[[Nature of God/Corporeality of God]]
|authorsources=
* {{attn}}
}}

====225====
{{IndexClaim
|claim=
*Biblical scriptures describing God's body parts are claimed to be metaphorical. Why then does God not have feathers or wings, as described in the Bible?
|response=
* Jesus is God, and he clearly had a body like humans do, and was resurrected with that body. Why, then, do the critics object to the Latter-day Saints saying that God has a body, when the entire message of Christianity is that God descended to earth and was incarnated and then resurrected?
* [[Nature of God/No man has seen God|No man has seen God?]]
*[[Nature of God/Corporeality of God]]
|authorsources=
* {{attn}}
}}

====227====
{{IndexClaim
|claim=
*The author claims that it is a contradiction that D&C 20:37 states that baptism follows repentance while 3 Nephi 12:22 and Moroni 8:11 states that repentance follows baptism.
|response=
* [[Latter-day Saint scripture/Supposed contradictions/Remission of sins before or after baptism|Supposed contradictions in scripture—2 Nephi 31 & Moroni 8:11]]
* {{Repeats|#207|p. 207}}
|authorsources=
*{{s||DC|20|37}}
*{{s|3|Nephi|12|22}}
*{{s||Moroni|8|11}}
}}

====227====
{{IndexClaim
|claim=
*The Holy Ghost is referred to as "it."
|response=
*[[Holy Ghost/Identity]]
|authorsources=
*Charles Penrose, ''Mormon Doctrine'' (1888). {{attn}} - page number? {{nb}}
}}

====228====
{{IndexClaim
|claim=
*The book claims that for LDS, God is not "incomprehensible."
|response=
* Mortal minds cannot comprehend everything about God.
* However, Latter-day Saints do not regard God's nature or character as incomprehensible—He is, quite simply, Our Father: a personal being who loves us and wishes us to return to him.
* It is strange that understanding God's intent and relationship to humanity is regarded as a ''negative'' thing by the author.
|authorsources=
* {{attn}}
}}

====229====
{{IndexClaim
|claim=
*Brigham Young said that Jesus was not begotten by the Holy Ghost.
|response=
* LDS doctrine teaches that Christ was the Son of the Father. Little is known, save that the virgin Mary was "carried away in the Spirit for the space of a time" prior to Jesus' birth and conception ({{s|1|Nephi|11|19}}).
* [[Jesus Christ/Conception]]
|authorsources=
*{{JDfairwiki|author=Brigham Young|disc=8|vol=1|start=50|end=51}}
}}

====229====
{{IndexClaim
|claim=
*"Mormon theology" is claimed to teach that "polytheism is the divine order" and that these gods are "polygamous."
|response=
|authorsources=
*Parley P. Pratt, ''Key to the Science of Theology'', 23.
}}
====229-230====
{{IndexClaim
|claim=
*LDS are claimed to teach that Jesus was conceived "by actual sexual relations" with Mary.
|response=
* [[Jesus Christ/Conception]]
*{{CrossRef:Abanes:Becoming Gods|pages=183}}
*{{CrossRef:Abanes:One Nation|pages=287 575n38(PB)}}
|authorsources=
*James Talmage, ''The Articles of Faith'', 473.
*{{JDfairwiki|author=Brigham Young|disc=27|vol=8|start=115}}
*{{JDfairwiki|author=Brigham Young|disc=8|vol=1|start=50|end=51}}
}}

====231====
{{IndexClaim
|claim=
*Brigham Young is claimed to have denied the virgin birth. The author refers to Adam-God as "Brigham Young's doctrine of the virgin Birth."
|response=
* {{FalseStatement}}
* {{SourceDistortion}}: In this very passage, Brigham: "When the Virgin Mary conceived the child Jesus, the Father had begotten him in his own likeness. He was not begotten by the Holy Ghost." Brigham even mentions "the Virgin Mary"—how does this deny the virgin birth?
|authorsources=
*{{JDfairwiki|author=Brigham Young|disc=8|vol=1|start=50|end=51}}
}}

====232====
{{IndexClaim
|claim=
*It is claimed that "no General Authority has ever contradicted" Brigham Young's teachings on Adam-God.
|response=
* {{Absurd}}: Brigham was unable to convince all of the apostles of ''his day'' that Adam-God was proper doctrine.
* {{FalseStatement}}:

*Charles W. Penrose said in 1902:
:The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has never formulated or adopted any theory concerning the subject treated upon by President Young as to Adam.{{ref|penrose1}}
* In October 1976 general conference, President Spencer W. Kimball declared the Church's official position on Adam-God:
:We warn you against the dissemination of doctrines which are not according to the Scriptures and which are alleged to have been taught by some of the General Authorities of past generations. Such, for instance, is the Adam-God theory. We denounce that theory and hope that everyone will be cautioned against this and other kinds of false doctrine.{{ref|kimball1}}
* [[Church doctrine/Repudiated concepts/Adam-God]]
|authorsources=
* {{attn}}
}}

====233====
{{IndexClaim
|claim=
*Brigham said that "keeping the commandments of God will cleanse away the stain of sin." According to the author, "Apparently Brigham was ignorant of the biblical pronouncement that 'without the shedding of blood there is no remission [of sin]"
|response=
*{{Absurd}}: The author is implying that Brigham Young did not understand the need for Christ's atonement.
* Brigham is merely asserting that if one does not strive to keep the commandments after repenting of sin, one has not truly repented, and treats the atonement of Christ lightly. In this case, the "commandment" to be kept is the command to be baptized, the whole point of which is to access the atonement:
::Has water [of baptism], in itself, any virtue to wash away sin? Certainly not; but the Lord says, "If the sinner will repent of his sins, and go down into the waters of baptism, and there be buried in the likeness of being put into the earth and buried, and again be delivered from the water, in the likeness of being born—if in the sincerity of his heart he will do this, his sins shall be washed away. Will the water of itself wash them away? No; but keeping the commandments of God will cleanse away the stain of sin.
|authorsources=
*{{JDfairwiki|author=Brigham Young|disc=1|vol=2|start=4}}
*{{b||Hebrews|9|22}}
}}

====234====
{{IndexClaim
|claim=
*LDS believe that Adam and Eve "were foreordained to sin" and that the Fall of Adam was necessary.
|response=
* The LDS believe that God foresaw the likelihood of sin, but the choice remained a free agent act of Adam and Eve's.
* It is ironic that the critics (who often believe in some from of Calvinist predestination) complain about Adam and Eve being "foreordained to sin." In much of creedal Christianity, God creates humanity out of nothing (''ex nihilo'') and thus creates in them the nature to sin.
* The only alternative to seeing the Fall of Adam as necessary to God's plan is to see the Fall as a disaster from which God had to recover and go to "plan B."
|authorsources=
*{{s|2|Nephi|2|25}}
}}

====235====
{{IndexClaim
|claim=
*The author states that Joseph Smith said that the Garden of Eden was located in Missouri rather than Mesopotamia.
|response=
* [[Garden_of_Eden_in_Missouri]]
|authorsources=
* {{attn}}
}}

====235====
{{IndexClaim
|claim=
*The ''Book of Moses'' is claimed to state that Cain was the "progenitor of the Negro race" and that his "black skin" was the result of a curse by God.
|response=
* Under the influence of cultural ideas adopted from Protestantism, some Latter-day Saints read the ''Book of Moses'' in this way.
* {{SourceDistortion}}: There is, however, nothing in the ''Book of Moses'' that describes Cain as the "progenitor of the Negro race," nor is there anything which calls his curse "black skin." Like the Bible, the ''Book of Moses'' says only that "the Lord set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him" ({{s||Moses|5|40}}).
* {{DoubleStandard}}: This reading of the Cain story drew on common Protestant ideas of the time. Yet, the author wishes to blame members of the Church more than his own religious tradition.
* [[Blacks_and_the_priesthood/The_%22curse_of_Cain%22_and_%22curse_of_Ham%22|"Curse of Cain"]]
* [[Blacks_and_the_priesthood/LDS_scriptures|LDS Scripture and the priesthood ban]]
*[[One_Nation_Under_Gods/Use_of_sources/Double_standard_on_race|Protestant critics' double standard on race: a case study]]
|authorsources=
* {{attn}}
}}

====235====
{{IndexClaim
|claim=
*LDS are claimed to believe that blacks were "less than valiant" in the "war in heaven."
|response=
*This idea has been [[Blacks_and_the_priesthood/Repudiated_ideas|repudiated]] by Church leaders.
*[[Blacks and the priesthood/Pre-existence|Priesthood ban—Pre-existence]]
* {{Repeats|#213, n20|p. 213, n. 20}}
|authorsources=
* {{attn}}
}}

====235====
{{IndexClaim
|claim=
*The Indians "have allegedly been cursed by the Mormon deity with dark skins."
|response=
*[[Book of Mormon/Lamanites/Curse]]
|authorsources=
* {{attn}}
}}

====235====
{{IndexClaim
|claim=
*{{AuthorQuote|Mormonism, then, is clearly a religion with a shameful history of white supremacist doctrines and practices.}}
|response=
*It is amazing that the author completely ignores the fact that the "Curse of Cain" or "Curse of Ham" believe was a ''Protestant'' invention that was used to justify slavery, and that Protestant congregations were segregated.
*{{DoubleStandard}}: [[One_Nation_Under_Gods/Use_of_sources/Double_standard_on_race|Protestant critics on race issues]]
*[[Blacks and the priesthood/The "curse of Cain" and "curse of Ham"]]
* {{Repeats|#193|p. 193}}
|authorsources=
* {{attn}}
}}

====236====
{{IndexClaim
|claim=
*According to Latter-day Saints, Jesus Christ was "the spirit brother of the devil."
|response=
*[[Jesus Christ/Brother of Satan]]
|authorsources=
*{{s||Moses|4|1-4}}
}}
====236====
{{IndexClaim
|claim=
*LDS are claimed to believe that Jesus Christ was married to Mary, Martha and "the other Mary" at Cana.
|response=
* {{HistoricalError}}: ''some'' 19th-century LDS held this view, but it was not a doctrine of the Church.
* [[Jesus Christ/Was Jesus married/Was Jesus a polygamist|Was Jesus a polygamist?]]
|authorsources=
*{{JDfairwiki|author=Orson Hyde|disc=49|vol=4|start=259}}
*{{JDfairwiki|author=Orson Hyde|disc=18|vol=2|start=82}}
}}

====236====
{{IndexClaim
|claim=
*Brigham Young taught that the shedding of Christ's blood was not sufficient to cleanse all sins.
|response=
* Jesus himself [[Unforgivable_sin|taught]] that there was sin which was [[Unforgivable_sin|unforgiveable]].
* [[Church doctrine/Repudiated concepts/Blood atonement]]
* [[Church doctrine/Repudiated concepts/Blood atonement#Brigham_Young.27s_preaching_style|Brigham Young's preaching style]]
|authorsources=
*{{JDfairwiki|author=Brigham Young|disc=35|vol=3|start=247}}
*{{JDfairwiki|author=Brigham Young|disc=42|vol=4|start=219|end=220}}
*{{b|1|Jn|1|7}}
}}
====243====
{{IndexClaim
|claim=
*The author claims that Latter-day Saints believe in "infallible prophets."
|response=
* {{Absurd}}: [[Church doctrine/Statements by Church leaders|Prophetic infallibility?]]
* {{Fundamentalism}}
* * This error is repeated again on [[#191|p. 191]].
|authorsources=
*No source provided.
}}

=={{Endnotes label}}==
#{{note|tithe.1}} First Presidency letter, 19 Mar. 1970; quoted in the ''General Handbook of Instructions'' (1989): 9-1 by {{CR1|author=Dallin H. Oaks|date=Apr. 1994|start=46}} See also {{Ensign1|author=Dallin H. Oaks|date=May 1994|start=35|article=Tithing}} {{link|url=http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=10c3425e0848b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD}}
#{{note|tpjs.316}} {{TPJS1|start=316}}
#{{note|penrose1}}{{IE1|author=Charles W. Penrose|article=Our Father Adam|date=September 1902|start=873}} reprinted in {{MS|author=Charles W. Penrose|article=Our Father Adam|vol=64|num=50 |date=11 December 1902|start=785|end=790}} (this paragraph from p. 789).
#{{note|kimball1}}{{Ensign1|author=Spencer W. Kimball|article=Our Own Liahona|date=November 1976|start=77}}{{link|url=http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/1976.htm/ensign%20november%201976.htm/our%20own%20liahona%20.htm}}

=Further reading=
{{FAIRAnalysisWiki}}
{{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:Specific works/The Kingdom of the Cults (Revised)/Index]]

Criticism of Mormonism/Books/One Nation Under Gods/Chapter 15

2012-08-21T01:57:11Z

DanaRepouille:

Criticism of Mormonism/Books/One Nation Under Gods/Chapter 17

2012-08-21T01:52:48Z

DanaRepouille:

Criticism of Mormonism/Books/One Nation Under Gods/Chapter 10

2012-08-21T01:50:25Z

DanaRepouille:

Criticism of Mormonism/Books/One Nation Under Gods/Chapter 9

2012-08-21T01:49:07Z

DanaRepouille:

Plan of salvation/Resurrection/Mormon views regarding

2012-08-21T01:43:08Z

DanaRepouille:

{{Articles FAIR copyright}} {{Articles Header 1}} {{Articles Header 2}} {{Articles Header 3}} {{Articles Header 4}} {{Articles Header 5}} {{Articles Header 6}} {{Articles Header 7}} {{Articles Header 8}} {{Articles Header 9}} {{Articles Header 10}}
=={{Criticism label}}==
Mormons believe men have the right to resurrect their spouses by a specific ordinance.

{{CriticalSources}}

=={{Conclusion label}}==

The claim is false--all of humanity will be resurrected through the grace of Christ. While worthy Saints may participate in that process (as, for example, they participate in performing baptisms) they cannot withhold it from anyone, and Christ would not tolerate an unrighteous exercise of such authority anyway.

== ==
{{Response label}}
Van Gorden was referring to speculations or statements from past church leaders who said resurrection will be an ordinance of sorts (or at least requiring priesthood keys in order to occur). Bearing in mind that not all statements of General Authorities carry the weight of revelation or scripture,{{ref|Foot_RO2}} Brigham Young tied "keys" to resurrection:

:When the angel who holds the keys of the resurrection shall sound his trumpet, then the peculiar fundamental particles that organized our bodies here, if we do honor to them, though they be deposited in the depths of the sea, and though one particle is in the north, another in the south, another in the east, and another in the west, will be brought together again in the twinkling of an eye, and our spirits will take possession of them.{{ref|Foot_RO3}}

In 1872 he stated his belief that there are some ordinances the Church does not currently practice, one being resurrection:

:It is supposed by this people that we have all the ordinances in our possession for life and salvation, and exaltation, and that we are administering in these ordinances. This is not the case.

:We are in possession of all the ordinances that can be administered in the flesh; but there are other ordinances and administrations that must be administered beyond this world. I know you would ask what they are.

:I will mention one. We have not, neither can we receive here, the ordinance and the keys of the resurrection. They will be given to those who have passed off this stage of action and have received their bodies again, as many have already done and many more will. They will be ordained, by those who hold the keys of the resurrection, to go forth and resurrect the Saints, just as we receive the ordinance of baptism, then the keys of authority to baptize others for the remission of their sins. This is one of the ordinances we can not receive here, and there are many more."{{ref|Foot_RO4}}

Additionally, Wilford Woodruff's journal contains the following:

:Who will resurrect Joseph's Body? It will be Peter, James, John, Moroni, or someone who has or will receive the keys of the resurrection. It will probably be one of those who hold the keys of this dispensation and has delivered them to Joseph and you will see Jesus and he will eat peaches and apples with you.{{ref|Foot_RO5}} But the world will not see it or know it for wickedness will increase. Joseph and Jesus will be there. They will walk and talk with them at times and no man mistrusts who they are. Joseph will lead the Armies of Israel whether He is seen or no, whether visible or invisible as seemeth him good.

:Joseph has got to receive the keys of the resurrection for you and I. After he is resurrected he will go and resurrect Brother Brigham, Brother Heber, and Brother Carloss, and when that is done then He will say, "now go Brother Brigham and resurrect your wives and children and gather them together. While this is done, the wicked will know nothing of it, though they will be in our midst and they will be struck with fear. This is the way the resurrection will be. All will not be raised at once but will continue in this way until all the righteous are resurrected.

:After Joseph comes to us in his resurrected body, He will more fully instruct us concerning the baptism for the dead and the sealing ordinances. He will say, be baptized for this man and that man and that man be sealed to that such a man to such a man, and connect the Priesthood together. I tell you their will not be much of this done until Joseph comes.... Our hearts are already turned to him and his to us.{{ref|Foot_RO6}}

Perhaps there is some speculation in connection with a portion of the temple ceremony before a husband and wife are sealed.{{ref|Foot_RO7}} Hugh Nibley has made connections between ordinances and resurrection in Egyptian ritual, for example.{{ref|Foot_RO8}} The closest contemporary reference I could find dealt not with the resurrection as an ordinance, but with the priesthood keys playing a part in the final judgment as stated in Matthew 19:27-28 (see footnote 3 below). The Encyclopedia of Mormonism makes no mention of it in the Resurrection article but makes an oblique reference to priesthood power directing raising of the dead, which is considered temporal (such as in the raising of Lazarus) contrasted with the eternal resurrection.{{ref|Foot_RO9}}

=={{Endnotes label}}==

#{{note|Foot_RO2}}See FAIRwiki, "[[Official Church doctrine and statements by Church leaders]]" The drift of this doctrinal stance has been mentioned by LDS leaders from Joseph Smith ("a prophet is a prophet only when he is acting as such" [History of the Church 5:265]) to the present. Also consider the recent statement from LDS Public Affairs: "Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church...Some doctrines are more important than others and might be considered core doctrines" (Approaching Mormon Doctrine," LDS Newsroom, May 4, 2007).
#{{note|Foot_RO3}}''Discourses of Brigham Young'', p. 372. Perhaps these keys involve the concept of judgment found in the New Testament, wherein Christ told the apostles "ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. ({{b||Matthew|19|27-28}}; see also {{b||Luke|22|28-30}}). Brigham and other early leaders taught this principle extended to whomever held the keys over a particular dispensation in which people live. For more, see "Priesthood: the chain that reaches from heaven to earth."
#{{note|Foot_RO4}}Brigham Young, [http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Journal_of_Discourses/Volume_15/Increase_of_Saints_Since_Joseph_Smith%E2%80%99s_Death,_etc. "Increase of Saints Since Joseph Smith’s Death, etc."], Aug. 24, 1872, ''Journal of Discourses'' 15:137.
#{{note|Foot_RO5}}See "Priesthood: the chain that reaches from heaven to earth." It appears the concept of priesthood stewardship was part of Woodruff's reasoning as well.
#{{note|Foot_RO6}}Susan Staker, ed., Waiting for the World's End: The Diaries of Wilford Woodruff, pp.168-169. For a review, see Matt W., "Initial Thoughts on “Waiting for Worlds End: The Diaries of Wilford Woodruff," New Cool Thang, Nov. 10, 2008.
#{{note|Foot_RO7}}W. John Walsh's statements on Jeff Lindsay's Light Planet website appear to hint toward that interpretation, but asserts resurrection is the right of Christ: "Now, Latter-day Saints do believe that in some instances, a woman's husband will be given the privilege of performing the resurrection ordinance for and in behalf of the Savior. In cases where a woman does not have a worthy husband, the Savior may allow her father to do so. Likewise, a man's father will be given the privilege of resurrecting him. In such cases, the person performing the resurrection ordinance is simply performing the ordinance for and in behalf of the Savior."(Walsh, "Do Husbands Resurrect Their Wives?" All About Mormons.)
#{{note|Foot_RO8}}Hugh Nibley, ''Message of the Joseph Smith Papyri: An Egyptian Endowment'', 2nd ed. For an overview see Bryce Hammond's "The Egyptian Ankh, 'Life! Health! Strength!'" on his Temple Study blog.
#{{note|Foot_RO9}}Douglas L. Callister, "Resurrection," pp.1222-1223, and Dennis D. Flake, "Raising the Dead," p. 1192, in Daniel H. Ludlow, ed., ''Encyclopedia of Mormonism.''

=={{Further reading label}}==
*BHodges, Life On Gold Plates, [http://www.lifeongoldplates.com/2008/12/resurrection-as-ordinance.html "Resurrection as an Ordinance?"]

==={{FAIR wiki articles label}}===
{{PriesthoodWiki}}
{{WomenWiki}}

==={{FAIR web site label}}===
{{PriesthoodFAIR}}

===Videos===

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

==={{Printed material label}}===
{{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:Resurrection/As a Priesthood Ordinance]]

The White Horse prophecy

2012-08-21T01:42:34Z

DanaRepouille:

{{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}}
=[[Joseph Smith/Prophecies/White Horse prophecy|White Horse Prophecy]]=
=={{Criticism label}}==
*Critics claim that the "White Horse" prophecy predicts the "transformation of the U.S. government into a Mormon-ruled theocracy."
*Critics claim that the "White Horse" prophecy "continues to be a dominant element of the faith espoused by Joseph Smith's followers" because they believe that they will be "officers and administrators" during Christ's millennial reign.
*Critics claim that "Mormons thereafter will reign with Christ, and every American citizen, along with the rest of the world, will be forced to recognize Mormonism as the one true religion."

{{CriticalSources}}

=={{Conclusion label}}==
Unfortunately, the only accounts of the alleged prophecy were provided second-hand years after the Prophet's death, and cannot be corroborated with other contemporary sources. However, based upon the information that is extant, one can see that the prediction is that Latter-day Saints would ''support and uphold'' the government, not ''take over'' the government. It is absolutely clear that this is not a prophecy that is considered in any way true or binding on the membership of the Church. Those who would try to hold the Church to their interpretation of this so-called prophecy do so improperly and without any verifiable reason to do so.

== ==
{{Response label}}

{{Epigraph|The so-called 'White Horse Prophecy' is based on accounts that have not been substantiated by historical research and is not embraced as Church doctrine.<br>- Kim Farrah, representative from Church Public Affairs{{ref|farrah.1}}}}
As will be seen in the following sections there is absolutely no supportable reason for anyone to honestly make, and surely not to believe, the claims listed above. This so-called "prophecy" has been repeatedly disavowed by the authorities of the Church and it is not a common topic of discussion among the members today.

===What is the "White Horse Prophecy?"===
Joseph Smith is alleged to have uttered a prophecy in 1843 alluding to the four horses in the Book of Revelation. This was recorded by two Church members, Edwin Rushton and Theodore Turley approximately ten years after Joseph's death. There is no contemporary account that was recorded during the Prophet's lifetime. According to the Book of Revelation:

:1 And I saw when the Lamb opened one of the seals, and I heard, as it were the noise of thunder, one of the four beasts saying, Come and see.
:2 And I saw, and behold a white horse: and he that sat on him had a bow; and a crown was given unto him: and he went forth conquering, and to conquer.
:3 And when he had opened the second seal, I heard the second beast say, Come and see.
:4 And there went out another horse that was red: and power was given to him that sat thereon to take peace from the earth, and that they should kill one another: and there was given unto him a great sword.
:5 And when he had opened the third seal, I heard the third beast say, Come and see. And I beheld, and lo a black horse; and he that sat on him had a pair of balances in his hand.
:6 And I heard a voice in the midst of the four beasts say, A measure of wheat for a penny, and three measures of barley for a penny; and see thou hurt not the oil and the wine.
:7 And when he had opened the fourth seal, I heard the voice of the fourth beast say, Come and see.
:8 And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him. And power was given unto them over the fourth part of the earth, to kill with sword, and with hunger, and with death, and with the beasts of the earth.
:—{{b||Revelation|6|1-8}}

====Alleged text of the prophecy====
The following is an excerpt of the journal of Elder John J. Roberts:
:...While this conversation was going on we stood by his south wicket gate in a triangle. Turning to me, [Joseph] said, “I want to tell you something of the future. I will speak in a parable like unto John the Revelator. You will go to the Rocky Mountains and you will be a great and mighty people established there, which I will call the White Horse of peace and safety.” When the Prophet said, “You will see it,” I said, “Where will you be at that time?” He said, “I shall never go there. Your enemies will continue to follow you with persecutions and they will make obnoxious laws against you in Congress to destroy the White Horse, but you will have a friend or two to defend you and throw out the worst parts of the law so they will not hurt you so much. You must continue to petition Congress all the time, but they will treat you like strangers and aliens and they will not give you your rights, but will govern you with strangers and commissioners. You will see the Constitution of the United States almost destroyed. It will hang like a thread as fine as a silk fiber.” At that time the Prophet’s countenance became sad, because as he said, “I love the Constitution; it was made by the inspiration of God; and it will be preserved and saved by the efforts of the White Horse, and by the Red Horse who will combine in its defense. The White Horse will find the mountains full of minerals and they will become rich (at this time, it must be remembered, the precious metals were not known to exist in either the Rocky Mountains or California). You will see silver piled up in the streets. You will see the gold shoveled up like sand. Gold will be of little value then, even in a mercantile capacity; for the people of the world will have something else to do in seeking for salvation. The time will come when the banks of every nation will fall and only two places will be safe where people can deposit their gold and treasure. This place will be the White Horse and England’s vaults. A terrible revolution will take place in the land of America, such as has never been seen before; for the land will be left without a Supreme Government, and every specie of wickedness will be practiced rampantly in the land. Father will be against son and son against father; mother against daughter and daughter against mother. The most terrible scenes of bloodshed, murder and rape that have ever been imagined or looked upon will take place. People will be taken from the earth and there will be peace and love only in the Rocky Mountains. This will cause many hundreds of thousands of the honest in heart of the world to gather there, not because they would be Saints, but for safety and because they will be so numerous that you will be in danger of famine, but not for want of seed, time and harvest, but because of so many to be fed. Many will come with bundles under their arms to escape the calamities for there will be no escape except only by escaping and fleeing to Zion...

===The U.S. Constitution to "hang by a thread?"===
Occasionally heard among Church members are references to the Constitution "hanging by a thread' during the last days. This concept of the Constitution "hanging by a thread" has been improperly, and sometimes uniquely, associated with the White Horse prophecy. The implication is that the Constitution will be close to destruction and that the "White Horse" and the "Red Horse" will step in to save it. This is often misinterpreted to mean that a man on a white horse will step in to save the Constitution. {{ref|cobabe1}} This was the reference that was often applied to Mitt Romney by his detractors during his run for the U.S. Presidency in 2008.

So what references have Church leaders made to the Constitution "hanging by a thread?"

:Will the Constitution be destroyed? No: it will be held inviolate by this people; and, as Joseph Smith said, "The time will come when the destiny of the nation will hang upon a single thread. At that critical juncture, this people will step forth and save it from the threatened destruction." It will be so.
:With regard to the doings of our fathers and the Constitution of the United States, I have to say, they present to us a glorious prospect in the future, but one we cannot attain to until the present abuses in the Government are corrected.
:—Brigham Young, [http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Journal_of_Discourses/Volume_7/Celebration_of_the_Fourth_of_July "Celebration of the Fourth of July"], ''Journal of Discourses'' 7:15 (July 4, 1854)

:It is said that brother Joseph in his lifetime declared that the Elders of this Church should step forth at a particular time when the Constitution should be in danger, and rescue it, and save it. This may be so; but I do not recollect that he said exactly so. I believe he said something like this—that the time would come when the Constitution and the country would be in danger of an overthrow; and said he, If the Constitution be saved at all, it will be by the Elders of this Church. I believe this is about the language, as nearly as I can recollect it.
:—Orson Hyde, [http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Journal_of_Discourses/Volume_6/Self-Government,_etc. "Self-Government, etc."], ''Journal of Discourses'' 6:152 (Jan. 3, 1858)

Brigham Young and Orson Hyde both clearly state that the Constitution will be in grave danger of being destroyed. If the constitution is to be preserved it will be because the "Elders" of the Church will step forward and provide the support that will help to preserve the Constitution. The Elders of the Church will always be in ''support'' of the constitution, and will not ever be in a position to replace or supplant the constitutional principles in that document. Note that this belief has nothing to do with the so-called "White Horse" prophecy, but in fact preceded the date claimed for that prophecy.

The concern for the Constitution of the United States of America is a real and valid concern of the authorities and membership of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Because it was included as part of the White Horse does not give the White Horse any sort of credibility. It is an entirely separate concern.

===The "Mormons" to take over the U.S. Government?===
The White Horse Prophecy has been used extensively by critics to imply that Latter-day Saints have a "secret agenda" to take over the United States government. These accusations have been made for years, particularly when a Latter-day Saint runs for president.

Some of the accusations have even bordered on the ridiculous. Consider this bit of absurdity from William Schnoebelen:

:He told me that there was a council room up there [in the Washington Temple] which was an exact replica of the Oval Office of the White House. He told me they even had all the radio and telemetry equipment in place, hidden beneath a dome on top of the temple. He said that from this council room, the prophet could run the nation just as easily as he could from the White House itself. He also claimed that these electronic devices on the roof were so strong that airlines had to avoid flying right over the temple or their instruments might be thrown off.
:—William Schnoebelen, "Mitt Romney and the Mormon Plan for America"

===Reactions of Church leaders===

Authorities of the Church have denounced portions of the account. In General Conference in October 1918 Joseph Fielding Smith made the following comments:

:I have discovered that people have copies of a purported vision by the Prophet Joseph Smith given in Nauvoo, and some people are circulating this supposed vision, or revelation, or conversation which the prophet is reported to have held with a number of individuals in the city of Nauvoo. I want to say to you, my brethren and sisters, that if you understand the Church articles and covenants, if you will read the scriptures and become familiar with those things which are recorded in the revelations from the Lord, it will not be necessary for you to ask any questions in regard to the authenticity or otherwise of any purported revelation, vision, or manifestation that proceeds out of darkness, concocted in some corner, surreptitiously presented, and not coming through the proper channels of the Church. Let me add that when a revelation comes for the guidance of this people, you may be sure that it will not be presented in some mysterious manner contrary to the order of the Church. It will go forth in such form that the people will understand that it comes from those who are in authority, for it will be sent either to the presidents of stakes and the bishops of the wards over the signatures of the presiding authorities, Or it will be published in some of the regular papers or magazines under the control and direction of the Church or it will be presented before such a gathering as this, at a general conference. It will not spring up in some distant part of the Church and be in the hands of some obscure individual without authority, and thus be circulated among the Latter-day Saints. Now, you may remember this.

The White Horse Prophecy, in any of its variant forms, has never been submitted, or even considered, for such a process that would be required to make it canon or binding on the Church membership. It simply has not occurred!

Joseph Fielding Smith's father and President of the Church, Joseph F. Smith, followed immediately after his speech and said:

:The ridiculous story about the "red horse," and "the black horse," and "the white horse," and a lot of trash that has been circulated about and printed and sent around as a great revelation given by the Prophet Joseph Smith, is a matter that was gotten up, I understand, some ten years after the death of the Prophet Joseph Smith, by two of our brethren who put together some broken sentences from the Prophet that they may have heard from time to time, and formulated this so-called revelation out of it, and it was never spoken by the prophet in the manner in which they have put it forth. It is simply false; that is all there is to it.

Elder Bruce R McConkie also comments on the “prophecy” in his book Mormon Doctrine:

:From time to time, accounts of various supposed visions, revelations, and prophecies are spread forth by and among the Latter-day Saints, who should know better than to believe or spread such false information. One of these false and deceptive documents that has cropped up again and again for over a century is the so-called White Horse Prophecy. This supposed prophecy purports to be a long and detailed account by the Prophet Joseph Smith concerning the wars, turmoils, and difficulties which should exist in the last days.

Note that the substance of the condemnation is that some thoughts or sentences from one source or another may have been put together to form this so-called revelation. The memory of the men involved may not have been sufficient to remember all that occurred in the short conversation they reportedly had with the Prophet. It is likely that they had parts from here and parts from there that formed the basis of their memory of the event. Note also that it is the descriptions of the various horses and what they represent that are condemned as false. In addition, the details of the last days are also declared false.
It is clear that the text of the White Horse Prophecy as reported by Theodore Turley and Edwin Rushton and recorded in the diary of John J. Roberts is not accepted as verified, binding prophecy by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It has never been accepted and it has been soundly denounced. The acceptability of the document should not be an issue with any commentator. ''No authority of the Church has ever spoken in support of this document—not once!'' This really is not an issue that can responsibly come up in any discussion regarding the Church of Jesus Christ.

{{SeeAlso|Church involvement in politics/White Horse prophecy|l1=White Horse prophecy and Church involvement in politics}}

=={{Endnotes label}}==
#{{note|farrah.1}} Kim Farrah, spokeswoman for LDS public affairs, cited in "[http://www.rexburgstandardjournal.com/articles/2009/12/26/news/42.txt LDS Church issues statement on Rex Rammell]," ''Rexburg Standard Journal'' (17h21, 24 December 2009).
#{{note|cobabe1}}George Cobabe, [http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/whitehorse.pdf The White Horse Prophecy], FAIR article.
#{{note|mormondoctrine.835}} {{MD1|start=835}}

{{FurtherReading}}

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

[[fr:Joseph Smith/Prophecies/White Horse prophecy]]

Jesus Christ/Atonement/The garden and the cross

2012-08-21T01:34:38Z

DanaRepouille:

Racial issues and the Church of Jesus Christ/Blacks and the priesthood/The "curse of Cain" and "curse of Ham"

2012-08-21T01:32:41Z

DanaRepouille:

{{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}}
{{question}}
{{RacePortal}}

=={{Question label}}==
*Don't Latter-day Saints believe and teach that blacks are descendents of Cain, and that they are cursed?

{{CriticalSources}}

=={{Conclusion label}}==

Prior to 1978, the doctrinal folklore that blacks are the descendants of Cain and Ham and that they carry the “mark of Cain” was a belief among some members of the Church, and is occasionally heard even today. The dubious “folk doctrine” in question is no longer even relevant, since it was used to incorrectly explain and justify a Church policy that was reversed over thirty years ago. Prior to the 1978 revelation, however, the Saints used the “mark of Cain” to explain the policy of denying priesthood ordination to those of African descent—a policy for which no revelation or prophetic explanation was ever actually given.

== ==
{{Response label}}

===The "curse of Cain" and the "curse of Ham"===

There is a distinction between the “curse” and the “mark” of Cain. The "curse of Cain" resulted in Cain being cut off from the presence of the Lord. The Genesis and Moses accounts both attest to this. The Book of Mormon teaches this principle in general when it speaks about those who keep the commandments will prosper in the land, while those who don't will be cut off from the presence off the Lord. This type of curse was applied to the [[Lamanite curse|Lamanites]] when they rejected the teachings of the prophets.

The exact nature of the "mark" of Cain, on the other hand, is unknown. The scriptures don't say specifically what it was, except that it was for Cain's protection, so that those finding him wouldn't slay him. Many people, both in an out of the Church, have assumed that the mark and the curse are the same thing.

===When did a biblical curse become associated with the "Hamites?"===
The origin of the "curse of Ham" pre-dates the establishment of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints by hundreds of years. The basis used is Genesis 9:18-27:

:18 And the sons of Noah, that went forth of the ark, were Shem, and Ham, and Japheth: and '''Ham is the father of Canaan'''.

:19 These are the three sons of Noah: and of them was the whole earth overspread.

:20 And Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard:

:21 And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent.

:22 And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without.

:23 And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father’s nakedness.

:24 And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him.

:25 And he said, '''Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren'''.

:26 And he said, Blessed be the Lord God of Shem; and '''Canaan shall be his servant'''.

:27 God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and '''Canaan shall be his servant'''.

:{{b||Genesis|9|18-27}} {{ea}}

Although these verses clearly state that Canaan is cursed, it is not clear that the curse would be extended to his descendants. The use of Genesis 9 to associate a biblical curse with the ''descendants'' of Ham actually began in the third and fourth centuries A.D. {{ref|haynes.6}} This "curse" became associated with the Canaanites. Origen, an early Christian scholar and theologian, makes reference to Ham's "discolored posterity" and the "ignobility of the race he fathered." {{ref|origen.215}} Likewise, Augustine and Ambrose of Milan speculated that the descendants of Ham carried a curse that was associated with a darkness of skin. This concept was shared among Jews, Muslims and Christians. The first "racial justification" for slavery appeared in the fifteenth century in Spain and Portugal. In the American colonies, the "curse of Ham" was being used in the late 1600's to justify the practice of slavery. {{ref|haynes.7-8}} As author Stephen R. Haynes puts it, "Noah's curse had become a stock weapon in the arsenal of slavery's apologists, and references to Genesis 9 appeared prominently in their publications." {{ref|haynes.8}}

===The biblical “mark of Cain” associated with black skin by Protestants to justify slavery===

The idea that the “mark of Cain” and the "curse of Ham" was a black skin is something that was used by many Protestants as a way to morally and biblically justify slavery. This idea did not originate with Latter-day Saints, although the existence of the priesthood ban prior to 1978 tends to cause some people to assume that it was a Latter-day Saint concept.

Dr. Benjamin M. Palmer, pastor of the First Presbyterian Church in New Orleans from 1856 until 1902, was a "moving force" in the Southern Presbyterian church during that period. Palmer believed that the South's cause during the Civil War was supported by God. Palmer believed the Hebrew history supported the concept that God had intended for some people to be formed "apart from others" and placed in separate territories in order to "prevent admixture of races." {{ref|palmer.import.591}} Palmer claimed that, "[t]he descendants of Ham, on the contrary, in whom the sensual and corporeal appetites predominate, are driven like an infected race beyond the deserts of Sahara, where under a glowing sky nature harmonized with their brutal and savage disposition." {{ref|palmer.historic.4-5}} Palmer declared:

:Upon Ham was pronounced the doom of perpetual servitude—proclaimed with double emphasis, as it is twice repeated that he shall be the servant of Japheth and the servant of Shem. Accordingly, history records not a single example of any member of this group lifting itself, by any process of self-development, above the savage condition. From first to last their mental and moral characteristics, together with the guidance of Providence, have marked them for servitude; while their comparative advance in civilization and their participation in the blessings of salvation, have ever been suspended upon this decreed connexion [sic] with Japhet [sic] and with Shem. {{ref|cherry.179-180}}

Unfortunately, among some, the Protestant concept that God has separated people by race has persisted even into modern times.

:God has separated people for His own purpose. He has erected barriers between the nations, not only land and sea barriers, but also ethnic, cultural, and language barriers. God has made people different one from another and intends those differences to remain. (Letter to James Landrith from Bob Jones University, 1998) {{ref|haynes.161}}

===Latter-day Saints and the "curse of Ham"===
{{Main|Blacks and the priesthood}}

Early members of the Church were, for the most part, converts from Protestant sects. It is understandable that they naturally brought this culturally-conditioned belief in the "curse of Ham" with them into Mormonism. Many modern members of the Church, for instance, are unaware that Joseph Smith [[Blacks and the priesthood/Origin of the priesthood ban|ordained at least one African-American man to the priesthood]]: Elijah Abel.

At some point during Brigham Young's administration, the priesthood ban was initiated. No revelation, if there ever was one, was published, although many throughout the history of the Church have assumed that the reason for the ban must be that blacks were the cursed seed of Cain, and therefore not allowed the priesthood (usually stemming from a misreading of Abraham 1). The correct answer as to why the ban was put into place is: we don't know. For further information on the priesthood ban, see [[Blacks and the priesthood]].

:It is time disbelieving people repented and got in line and believed in a living, modern prophet. Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young…or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world. We get our truth and our light line upon line and precept upon precept. We have now had added a new flood of intelligence and light on this particular subject, and it erases all the darkness and all the views and all the thoughts of the past. They don’t matter any more. It doesn’t make a particle of difference what anybody ever said about the Negro matter before the first day of June of this year. It is a new day and a new arrangement, and the Lord has now given the revelation that sheds light out into the world on this subject. {{ref|mcconkie1}}
:— Bruce R. McConkie in 1978, after the revelation granting blacks the priesthood

Prior to this statement by Elder Bruce R. McConkie in 1978, the doctrinal folklore that blacks are the descendants of Cain and Ham and that they carry the “mark of Cain” was a belief among some members of the Church, and is occasionally heard even today. The dubious “folk doctrine” in question is no longer even relevant, since it was used to incorrectly explain and justify a Church policy that was reversed over thirty years ago. Prior to the 1978 revelation, however, the Saints used the “mark of Cain” to explain the policy of denying priesthood ordination to those of African descent—a policy for which no revelation or prophetic explanation was ever actually given.

The speculation was that in the [[Premortal existence|premortal existence]], certain spirits were set aside to come to Earth through a lineage that was cursed and marked, first by Cain’s murder of his brother and covenant with Satan ({{b||Genesis|4|11–15}}; {{s||Moses|5|23–25}}, {{s||Moses|5|36–40}}), and then again later by Ham’s offense against his father Noah. The reasons why this lineage was set apart weren’t clear, but it was speculated they were somehow [[Blacks and the priesthood/Pre-existence|less valiant than their premortal brethren]] during the war in heaven. In this life, then, the holy priesthood [[Blacks and the priesthood|was to be withheld]] from all who had had any trace of that lineage.

As neat and coherent as that scenario might seem, the scriptures typically cited in its support cannot logically be interpreted this way unless one starts with the priesthood ban
itself and then works backward, looking for scriptures to support a predetermined belief.

(''For further discussion see:'' FAIR wiki article: [[Fallibility_of_prophets|Official Church doctrine and statements by Church leaders]].)

=={{Endnotes label}}==

#{{note|haynes.6}}Stephen R. Haynes, ''Noah's Curse: The Biblical Justification of American Slavery'' (New York: Oxford University Press, 2002)
#{{note|origen.215}}Origen, "Genesis Homily XVI," in ''Homilies on Genesis and Exodus, translated by Ronald E. Heine (Washington: Catholic University of America Press, 1982), p. 215, referenced in Haynes.
#{{note|haynes.7-8}}Haynes, p. 7-8.
#{{note|haynes.8}}Haynes, p. 8.
#{{note|palmer.import.591}}Haynes, ''Noah's Curse: The Biblical Justification of American Slavery'', p. 127-8 citing Palmer, "The Import of Hebrew History," ''Southern Presbyterian Review 9 (April 1856) 591
#{{note|palmer.historic.4-5}}Haynes, p. 129, citing Palmer, ''Our Historic Mission, An Address Delivered before the Eunomian and PhiMu Societies of La Grange Synodical College, July 7 1858'' (New Orleans: True Witness Office, 1859), 4-5.
#{{note|cherry.179-180}}Haynes, p. 132, citing Cherry, ''God's New Israel'', 179-180 who in turn is citing one of Palmer's sermons.
#{{note|haynes.161}}Haynes, p. 161.
#{{note|mcconkie1}} Bruce R. McConkie, [http://www.zionsbest.com/alike.html “All Are Alike unto God,”] address in the Second Annual CES Symposium, Salt Lake City, August 1978.

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

[[de:Schwarze und das Priestertum/Der Fluch Kains und der Fluch Hams]]
[[fr:Blacks and the priesthood/The "curse of Cain" and "curse of Ham"]]

Joseph Smith/Polygamy/The Peace Maker

2012-08-21T01:31:53Z

DanaRepouille:

Jesus Christ/Relationship to Quetzalcoatl

2012-08-21T01:28:16Z

DanaRepouille:

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

=={{Criticism label}}==
Critics claim that LDS scholars believe that Quetzalcoatl was Jesus Christ. However, since Quetzalcoatl's association with a "feathered serpent" constitutes "snake worship," critics claim that this association is therefore inconsistent with worship of Jesus Christ.

{{CriticalSources}}

=={{Conclusion label}}==

Some LDS authors have seen Christian parallels to Quetzalcoatl. At least some of these parallels were probably imposed, however, by the secondary sources who also sought a Christian connection to native myth. Quetzalcoatl plays a minor—if any—role in modern LDS apologetics. Critics should not, however, act as if the association of a "snake" with Christ is completely foreign or strange—certainly the brass serpent placed on a pole and raised up by Moses has some symbolic links to Jesus.

Whether Quetzalcoatl can tell us anything about the Book of Mormon, however, remains unproven. FAIR does not at present recommend relying on this as "evidence" for the truth of the Book of Mormon account.

== ==
{{Response label}}

Although critics would like to make the LDS association of Quetzalcoatl with Jesus Christ some sort of key element in an effort to "salvage their cherished faith," the reality is that Quetzalcoatl is rarely if ever discussed. The legend of Quetzalcoatl is of interest as a corroborative element in supporting the Book of Mormon, but it is by no means a critical element of anybody's belief. The association is intriguing to the LDS, as even the critics agree that certain elements of the legend are consistent with the Book of Mormon teaching that Jesus Christ appeared in the New World. Wallace E. Hunt Jr. lists the following elements, all drawn from non-LDS sources:

*Quetzalcoatl was the creator of life.
*Quetzalcoatl taught virtue.
*Quetzalcoatl was the greatest Lord of all.
*Quetzalcoatl had a "long beard and the features of a white man."
*The Mesoamericans believed Quetzalcoatl would return.

Critic Richard Abanes claims that the similarities in the comparison of Quetzalcoatl with Jesus Christ are "minor," while continuing on to note that "what LDS apologists tend to not mention are a few additional aspects of Quetzalcoatl, none of which seem very consistent with Jesus Christ." The following aspects of the Quetzalcoatl legend are those that critics claim that are "deemphasized" by LDS apologists:
*Snake worship
*Human sacrifice made to Quetzalcoatl
*Quetzalcoatl's twin brother Xolotl

===Snake worship associated with Jesus Christ?===
Critics claim that since Quetzalcoatl is associated with a "feathered serpent," that this constitutes "snake worship," and could in no way refer to Jesus Christ. In order to examine this claim, one has to look no further than the Bible:

{{b||Numbers|21|6-9}}
:6 And the Lord sent fiery serpents among the people, and they bit the people; and much people of Israel died.
:7 Therefore the people came to Moses, and said, We have sinned, for we have spoken against the Lord, and against thee; pray unto the Lord, that he take away the serpents from us. And Moses prayed for the people.
:8 And the Lord said unto Moses, Make thee a fiery serpent, and set it upon a pole: and it shall come to pass, that every one that is bitten, when he looketh upon it, shall live.
:9 And Moses made a serpent of brass, and put it upon a pole, and it came to pass, that if a serpent had bitten any man, when he beheld the serpent of brass, he lived.

This incident foreshadowed the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, and how one had to look to Him in order to be saved. Note that the people were not commanded to ''worship'' the serpent, but rather to simply look at it. Amazingly enough, many did not even have the faith to look upon the serpent and live.

There is no doubt that Mesoamericans worshipped the feathered serpent god Quetzalcoatl, and one could certainly agree that "snake worship" has nothing to do with Jesus Christ. What must be kept in mind is that this represents traditions of a people that apostatized from the teachings of Jesus Christ over a period of many hundreds of years. The real question is where and how the legend of Quetzalcoatl originated.

===Flying serpents?===
There is an additional intriguing element which indicates a possible relationship between the Book of Mormon and the "feathered serpent" Quetzalcoatl. When Nephi relates the story of Moses and the brazen serpent, he adds a detail that is ''not present in the Biblical account''. In Nephi's account, he refers to

:41 And he did straiten them in the wilderness with his rod; for they hardened their hearts, even as ye have; and the Lord straitened them because of their iniquity. He sent '''fiery flying serpents''' among them; and after they were bitten he prepared a way that they might be healed; and the labor which they had to perform was to look; and because of the simpleness of the way, or the easiness of it, there were many who perished. {{s|1|Nephi|17|41}} {{ea}}

Nephi refers to "fiery ''flying'' serpents." This brings the Book of Mormon account of this event ''more in line'' with the concept of Quetzalcoatl being a ''feathered'' serpent.{{ref|hunt1}} It is also interesting to note that Joseph Smith would not have gleaned this detail from a reading of the same story from the Bible.

===Have LDS apologists deemphasized aspects of Quetzalcoatl which are inconsistent with Jesus Christ?===

So, have "LDS apologists" (meaning, in this case, any LDS scholar) ignored or deemphasized aspects of the Quetzalcoatl legend?

Those (e.g., Milton R. Hunter) who have seen Quetzalcoatl as evidence for Christ's visit to the Americas generally saw the Quetzalcoatl legend as an apostate remnant of the truth. Thus, they saw some parallels which they felt applied to Jesus, while recognizing that fifteen hundred years of apostasy and corruption led to other elements being "grafted on" or altered.

While a legitimate perspective, this approach has the disadvantage of seeing parallels and ignoring contradictory aspects.

==A closer look at Quetzalcoatl==

Despite the enthusiasm of some earlier researchers, the Quetzalcoatl = Christ link has substantial problems.

Chief among these is the fact that most writers have not used the original sources of the Quetzalcoatl myths, but have relied on secondary sources—these sources often came via the Spanish, who likewise had an interest in seeing Christian parallels with native Amerindian myths.

When the original sources are studied, it becomes clear that the Christian parallels to Quetzalcoatl are not as significant as some authors have previously thought.

For extensive discussion, see:

*{{Sunstone|author=Brant Gardner|article=The Christianization of Quetzalcoatl: A History of the Metamorphosis|start=6|end=10|date=1986|num=11|vol=10}} {{pdflink|url=https://www.sunstonemagazine.com/file-index/7.html}}
* Brant Gardner, “Quetzalcoatl’s Fathers: A Critical Examination of Source Materials,” http://www.ku.edu/~hoopes/aztlan/tripart.htm (1997)
* Blair Dee Hodges, "Method and Skepticism (and Quetzalcoatl....)," ''lifeongoldplates.com'' (29 September 2008) {{link|url=http://www.lifeongoldplates.com/2008/09/method-and-skepticism-and-quetzalcoatl.html}}
*{{FR-19-1-4}}
* {{FR-20-1-3}}

=={{Endnotes label}}==

#{{note|hunt1}}{{JBMS-2-2-9}} 

{{FurtherReading}}

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

[[fr:Jesus Christ/Relationship to Quetzalcoatl]]

Question: Why are there no women prophets in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints today?

2012-08-21T01:25:46Z

DanaRepouille:

{{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}}

{{question}}

=={{Question label}}==
The Old and New Testaments talk of women prophets. Why are there no women prophets in the church today?

=={{Conclusion label}}==

Every one of us should seek the Spirit of the Lord in learning and discerning our paths through life. This interplay between questions and answers from God is one face of the spiritual gift of prophecy. Throughout history, women as well as men have developed this gift as told and foretold by the scriptures. However, the spiritual gift of prophecy is different from the calling the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles have to act as "prophets, seers, and revelators" for the Church and the world in general. Still, their callings do not conflict with the blessing we can all enjoy of being prophets for ourselves, our families, and for our callings in the Church.

Women also participate in prophecy as they become unified with husbands called and ordained to serve as prophets.

== ==
{{Response label}}

The Bible mentions a number of prophetesses. In the Old Testament, we have Miriam ({{b||Exodus|15|20}}), Deborah ({{b||Judges|4|4}}), Huldah ({{b|2|Kings|22|14}},{{b|2|Chronicles|34|22}}), Noadiah ({{b||Nehemiah|6|14}}). The New Testament mentions Anna ({{b||Luke|2|36}}). So why do we not see women designated as "prophetesses" today?

===What is a prophet?===
A "prophet" is often regarded as an office to which one is formally called and set apart. Latter-day Saints often refer to the President of the Church as "The Prophet," although they are not technically the same thing. In ancient days, it was not possible to instantly communicate with the world as it is today. There were multiple prophets on the earth who communicated the Lord's will to the people for whom they were responsible. For example, there were prophets simultaneously in the New and the Old Worlds. Today, however, it is possible to have one prophet who is responsible for communicating the Lord's will worldwide. The fact that there is a person designated as "The Prophet" for the Church does not preclude others from having the gift of prophecy.

From the Bible Dictionary definition for "Prophet," we read the following:

:...In certain cases prophets predicted future events, e.g., there are the very important prophecies announcing the coming of Messiah's kingdom; but as a rule prophet was a forthteller rather than a foreteller. In a general sense a prophet is anyone who has a testimony of Jesus Christ by the Holy Ghost, as in Num. 11: 25-29; Rev. 19: 10.
:—''Bible Dictionary'', [http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bd/p/61 Prophet]

Surely the women called as General Auxiliary Presidency members are forthtellers. They travel the world teaching and testifying; they speak at General Conferences; they produce material for Church publications and do all of it by the spirit of prophecy. Women as well as men in all levels of the church today are blessed with this gift of the spirit to receive revelation. We simply don't recognize them formally.

In a broader sense, all who have a testimony of the Saviour are prophets regardless of their demographic characteristics {{scripture||Joel|2|28-29}}. Perhaps some of those named as prophets and prophetesses in the scriptures were given the title as charismatic/spiritual designations, not formal/official positions in a church hierarchy. Prophecy is a gift of the spirit, not necessarily a priesthood office.

Along with the prophetesses mentioned above, the word “prophetess” is used in two other ways in the Bible and Book of Mormon: the false prophetess and the consort prophetess.

===The False Prophetess===
In the New Testament, the word is applied to “that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess.”{{scripture||Rev|2|20}} According to the Bible Dictionary, the use here is figurative and is part of a historical allusion used by John to communicate a threat of serious apostasy. This reference to the spiritually disastrous reign of King Ahab and his wife Jezebel warns of a situation early church members should have recognized as dramatic and dangerous.

The negative use of “prophetess” shows there must have been real significance attached to the word. Otherwise, its abuse by a Jezebel figure wouldn’t have been put forward as a sign of an insidious and destructive movement within the early church. John probably wasn’t trying to say there was a woman named Jezebel trying to act as the president of the church in Thyatira. Instead, he was warning of the negative influence anyone’s false claim to the spiritual gift of prophecy can have.

===Consort Prophetess===
Both in the Old Testament and in the Book of Mormon passages of Isaiah, the prophet referred to his wife as “the prophetess.” {{scripture||Isa|8|3}} {{scripture||2|Nephi|18|3}} The use of the term here could be two-fold. As Isaiah’s female counterpart, it’s fair to call his wife a prophetess regardless of her spiritual gifts. However, there may be much more to it.

From the beginning, the ideal of marriage relationships has been the one Adam celebrated when he spoke of Eve saying, “This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh…therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.“ {{scripture||Gen|2|23-24}}This ideal was restated by the Lord when he taught his disciples married couples “shall be one flesh: so then shall they be no more twain, but one flesh.” {{scripture||Mark|10|8}}

As it did for Isaiah’s wife, the possibility of achieving oneness in marriage has implications for the wives of men formally called to serve as prophets in the contemporary LDS Church. When male Church leaders grow in oneness with their wives, these women’s influence and inspiration becomes enmeshed with the men’s.

Richard G. Scott explained, “as the Lord intends…a married couple [can] think, act, and rejoice as one – face challenges together and overcome them as one, to grow in love and understanding, and through temple ordinances be bound together as one whole, eternally. That is the plan.” (Richard G. Scott, "The Joy of Living the Great Plan of Happiness," ''Ensign'', November, 1996.)

This oneness doesn’t end when couples are physically separated or serving in different callings in the Church. The connection is inextricable and transcendent. It depends on personal righteousness, devotion, and the atonement of Christ as applied through the marriage covenant. It does not depend on the couple actually sitting beside each other in every presidency or council meeting. Even if specific issues are never discussed between the spouses, the inspired influence and the benefit of the spiritual gifts of wives is carried with husbands.

In a very real and personal way, wives of Church leaders help husbands both to receive inspiration and to shape the practical initiatives that will arise from that inspiration. Without a formal call or ordination, valiance within the covenant of marriage makes the wives of prophets partners in that office. (See {{scripture||DC|131|2-3}} )

===Why are there no female prophets today?===
Knowing that any righteous individual can have gifts of the spirit, one really ought to ask: "Why do you not notice the females in the Church who are prophets?" The Lord has asked His people in ages past, and today to be:

:Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine: And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel. ({{b||Exodus|19|5-6}})

He has also said that this is "a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:" ({{b|1|Peter|2|9}})

Moses desired all the Lord's people to be prophets, he said:

:Enviest thou for my sake? would God that all the Lord's people were prophets, and that the Lord would put his spirit upon them! ({{b||Numbers|11||29}})

[[fr:Women/As prophets]]

Criticism of Mormonism/Books/Do Christians Believe in Three Gods/Relationship between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit

2012-08-21T01:19:53Z

DanaRepouille:

Criticism of Mormonism/Books/Do Christians Believe in Three Gods/Bible and Nicea

2012-08-21T01:19:10Z

DanaRepouille:

Criticism of Mormonism/Books/Do Christians Believe in Three Gods/One God

2012-08-21T01:18:21Z

DanaRepouille:

Criticism of Mormonism/Video/Search for the Truth DVD/What is Hell

2012-08-21T00:50:25Z

DanaRepouille:

{{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}}
<metadesc>Jesus Christ/Joseph Smith Search for the Truth DVD Good News for Mormons</metadesc>
{{DVDHeadingBox|Special Features: What is Hell?}}

{| style="border-spacing:8px;margin:0px -8px"
| class="MainPageBG" style="width:85%;border:1px solid #cedff2;background-color:#f5faff;vertical-align:top"|
{| width="100%" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top;background-color:#f5faff"

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "We see that here [{{b||Revelation|20|11-15}}] is what happens to people that are judged according to their works. They do not go into heaven. If you read this carefully and look at the words, it says 'and death and hell,' not death, part of death, not part of hell—all of them, kit and kaboodle. All the huge vast people that are on that broad road that leads to hell the Bible tells us about—all of them were cast into hell because they insisted on being judged according to their works. It breaks my heart to think people think they're going to be good enough to get to heaven. We're not good. We're lost. We desperately need Jesus. You must realize you're a lost sinner before there's any hope for you." - Floyd McElveen, Author and Lifetime Evangelist</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

John tells us:

:And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. ({{b||Revelation|20|12}})

Mr. McElveen is telling us that this isn't ''all'' the dead, only those that insisted on being judged "according to their works." But does the scripture actually say that? John speaks of "the dead, small and great" being judged from "the book of life."

Judgment is inescapable, whether anyone insists upon it or not. Our actions, our works will be judged by Christ. He and only He will determine if our works are righteous or evil. We must remember that not everyone who saith, Lord, Lord, will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he that ''doeth'' the will of the Father. ({{scripture||Matthew|7|21}}) Certainly keeping the commandants of God have value. Otherwise there would be no purpose in God giving commandments to His children.

But, what is this book of life?

Paul refers to the book of life and tells us that those who labor for the Lord are listed in it:

:And I intreat thee also, true yokefellow, help those women which laboured with me in the gospel, with Clement also, and with other my fellowlabourers, whose names are in the book of life. ({{b||Phillippians|4|3}})

John is told that those who overcome the world will be kept in the book of life:

:He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels. ({{b||Revelation|3|5}})

John further says that a person that alters his book of Revelation will have his name removed from the Book of Life:

:For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book...if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life.... ({{b||Revelation|22|18-19}})

Moses in his pleading on Israel's behalf asks the Lord to blot his name from the Lord's book if God will not forgive Israel. The Lord tells Moses that those who sin against Him are the ones who will be blotted from His book:

:And Moses returned unto the Lord, and said, Oh, this people have sinned a great sin, and have made them gods of gold. Yet now, if thou wilt forgive their sin—; and if not, blot me, I pray thee, out of thy book which thou hast written. And the Lord said unto Moses, Whosoever hath sinned against me, him will I blot out of my book. ({{b||Exodus|3|31-33}})

So how do we get into God's book of life?
*By serving God (Paul).
*By overcoming the world (John).
*By believing God's prophets and apostles and not misquoting what they say (John).
*By trying to live as righteously as we are able (Moses).

True, we will fail to live a perfect life, but we trust in the redemptive power of Christ and His atonement to cleanse us from our imperfections, when we have done our best to follow Him. Paul expresses this well to the Romans:

:What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?
:{{parabreak}}
:Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.
:{{parabreak}}
:Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof. Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God. For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace. What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid. Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?
:{{parabreak}}
:But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life. For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. ({{b||Romans|6|1-2,6,12-16,22-23}})

LDS Christians recognize that their works cannot save them, but believe that by trusting in Christ, who is mighty to save, they can, through their good works, honor Christ, and serve their fellowman. They believe that their names will therefore be written in the Lamb's book of life, and that they will "be found on the right hand of God" at the last day ({{s||Mosiah|5|9}}).

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "We have a beggar [in {{b||Luke|16|19-24}}]. He laid at the gate of the rich man. Dogs licked his sores. Nobody cared whether he lived or died. I can imagine a huge parade when the rich man died. But the rich man was in hell. He'd sold his soul for a mess of porridge, for goods, so many do that today. And yet, the poor man, the man who was starving, the man who was sick, went to be with Jesus because he knew Him—he believed in Him. That's the end of every person that doesn't know Jesus—a place called hell.... Lazarus had nothing. He was poverty stricken, he was sick, he was hurting, he was miserable, probably partly because of malnutrition because he wasn't fed by the rich man. I would think God would give (inaudible) atrocious thing the rich man did. My friend (inaudible) is atrocious when you see somebody in need and let them suffer. And that Lazarus was in heaven forever because he trusted Jesus. But the rich man is in hell." - Floyd McElveen, Author and Lifetime Evangelist</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The story of the rich man and Lazarus was told by Christ to teach humility, love, and compassion. Certainly it also references the inability of the unrepentent to change.

There is a certain irony in Mr. McElveen using this story. For the rich man had all he needed, while the poor man was willing to accept whatever the Lord would give him. Similarly, Biblical inerrantists believe they have all they need and won't allow for modern prophets and revelation, while the LDS are willing to "...believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God." ({{s||Articles+of+Faith|1|9}})

Even more telling is his condemnation of the rich man for failing to do works, such as caring for his poor neighbor. Latter-day Saints also consider such works to be an essential act of someone who is following Christ, and so many of them engage in acts of charity and service to people, in and out of the Church, who need assistance.

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "And yet hell has an end too. Not that people get out of hell, they never do, but in the 20th chapter of Revelation you find out. You see the body has not yet joined the part of man that goes to be in hell—the spirit. But that's going to happen in the resurrection—the second resurrection we spoke of. That body, which will be resurrected, the unsaved dead, will join that soul already in torment and then body and soul both will be cast into hell. And here is that awful picture. Thank God the resurrection of the just! The resurrection of the saved! And they will go to be with Jesus Christ forever." - Floyd McElveen, Author and Lifetime Evangelist</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Latter-day Saints teach the same doctrines. That Mr. McElveen believes they need to learn these truths demonstrates once again that he does not understand LDS doctrine.

Alma<sup>2</sup> taught:

:...the spirits of the wicked, yea, who are evil—for behold, they have no part nor portion of the Spirit of the Lord; for behold, they chose evil works rather than good; therefore the spirit of the devil did enter into them, and take possession of their house—and [after death] these shall be cast out into outer darkness; there shall be weeping, and wailing, and gnashing of teeth, and this because of their own iniquity, being led captive by the will of the devil.
:Now this is the state of the souls of the wicked, yea, in darkness, and a state of awful, fearful looking for the fiery indignation of the wrath of God upon them; thus they remain in this state, as well as the righteous in paradise, until the time of their resurrection.
:{{parabreak}}
:The soul shall be restored to the body, and the body to the soul; yea, and every limb and joint shall be restored to its body; yea, even a hair of the head shall not be lost; but all things shall be restored to their proper and perfect frame.
:And now...this is the restoration of which has been spoken by the mouths of the prophets—
:And then shall the righteous shine forth in the kingdom of God.
:But behold, an awful death cometh upon the wicked; for they die as to things pertaining to things of righteousness; for they are unclean, and no unclean thing can inherit the kingdom of God; but they are cast out, and consigned to partake of the fruits of their labors or their works, which have been evil; and they drink the dregs of a bitter cup. ({{s||Alma|40|13-14,23-26}}.)

|-
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Now let's talk for a moment about that place called hell—hell itself being cast into the lake of fire. There will be torment for ever and ever. James 1:17 says, 'Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.' What it is saying in this verse is that everything that's good, its source is God—everything. There's nothing that's good that didn't come from God. The reason you can breathe is because every moment God gives you breath. The reason your heart is beating is because every moment God propels that heart to beat. Everything." - Floyd McElveen, Author and Lifetime Evangelist</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Again, Latter-day Saints teach these same doctrines.

In the Book of Mormon, King Benjamin explained:

:I say unto you, my brethren, that if you should render all the thanks and praise which your whole soul has power to possess, to that God who has created you, and has kept and preserved you, and has caused that ye should rejoice, and has granted that ye should live in peace one with another—
:I say unto you that if ye should serve him who has created you from the beginning, and is preserving you from day to day, by lending you breath, that ye may live and move and do according to your own will, and even supporting you from one moment to another—I say, if ye should serve him with all your whole souls yet ye would be unprofitable servants. ({{s||Mosiah|2|20-21}}.)

Mr. EcElveen labors under the false idea that Latter-day Saints believe that their own righteousness and goodness is what qualifies them for exaltation. As we have attempted to explain in this response, Latter-day Saints do good works ''because the Lord asks them to and because they love the Lord and their fellow man.'' We do not believe it is our works that resurrect us and bring us back into the presence of God—only Jesus' atonement can do that. We simply seek to follow his counsel to love and serve others, as true disciples should.

One area where we ''would'' disagree with Mr. McElveen is in his characterization of hell as a ''literal'' lake of fire and brimstone. The Bible and other LDS scriptures certainly describe it that way, but the Book of Mormon makes clear that the "torment [of the wicked] is ''as'' a lake of fire and brimstone" ({{s|2|Nephi|9|16}})—that is to say, it is a torment, but the "fire and brimstone" imagery is metaphorical. (More on this below.)

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Now, you have refused God. You have counted it of no account and you've thought that other things were much more important and so you (inaudible) into living for yourself. You may even be a professing Christian. You may be a Mormon. You may be one who is in a true Church. You may be depending on other things. But according to God if you have not been born again, if you've not been cleansed through the blood of Christ, you are not a child of God." - Floyd McElveen, Author and Lifetime Evangelist</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Latter-day Saints teach the doctrines of adoption through Christ, despite Mr. McElveen's claims.

Speaking to the righteous, the Book of Mormon says:

:And now, because of the covenant which ye have made ye shall be called the children of Christ, his sons, and his daughters; for behold, this day he hath spiritually begotten you; for ye say that your hearts are changed through faith on his name; therefore, ye are born of him and have become his sons and his daughters. ({{s||Mosiah|5|7}}; compare {{s||Mosiah|27|25}})

Speaking to the wicked who die in their sins:

:But behold, your days of probation are past; ye have procrastinated the day of your salvation until it is everlastingly too late, and your destruction is made sure; yea, for ye have sought all the days of your lives for that which ye could not obtain; and ye have sought for happiness in doing iniquity, which thing is contrary to the nature of that righteousness which is in our great and Eternal Head. ({{s||Helaman|13|38}}; compare {{s||Alma|34|35}})

Saying someone is "not a child of God" is misleading unless one uses precise definitions. This is examined in the next heading.

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "You see? Many people think everybody is a child of God. The Bible says that's not true. You have to be born again, receiving Jesus in order to become a child of God. He said 'to as many received him to them gave he power to become the sons of God' ({{b||John|1|12}})."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The Bible—and the Latter-day Saints—teaches two distinct concepts about our relationships to God. Mr. McElveen is incorrectly conflating them.

'''The universal Fatherhood of God'''

All mortals are children of God in the sense that God is the creator of their spirit bodies:

:Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live? ({{b||Hebrews|12|9}})

Note that God is "the Father of spirits" even if we are not in subjection to Him (though we are encouraged to be). Paul also described God as:

:One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all. ({{b||Ephesians|4|6}})

'''Adoptive Fatherhood of God and Christ'''

All mortals squander their inheritance, as it were. By committing sin, they forfeit any right to God's blessings and kingdom. Only Jesus lived a sinless life; only He is a worthy heir. Through the grace of Christ, the rest of us may be adopted as "children of God"—we are readmitted into the family of God.

:For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.
:For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.
:The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:
:And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together. ({{b||Romans|8|14-17}}).

:But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son...
:To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons. ({{b||Galatians|4|4-5}})

:Behold, I am he who was prepared from the foundation of the world to redeem my people. Behold, I am Jesus Christ. I am the Father and the Son. In me shall all mankind have life, and that eternally, even they who shall believe on my name; and they shall become my sons and my daughters. ({{s||Ether|3|14}})

It is interesting that Biblical scholars consider Paul's teachings about adoption through Christ as sons ("filial adoption") to be his way of teaching the doctrine of human deification:

:''Deification (Greek ''Theosis'') is for orthodoxy the goal of every Christian. Man, '''according to the Bible''', is 'made in the image and likeness of God,'...it is possible for man to become like God, to become deified, to become God by grace. This doctrine is based on many passages of both O.T. and N.T. ({{b||Psalms|82|6}}; {{b|2|Peter|1|4}}), and it is essentially the teaching both of St. Paul, though he tends to use the language of filial adoption ({{b||Romans|8|9-17}}, {{b||Galatians|4|5-7}}) and the fourth gospel ({{b||John|17|21-23}}).''
::<small>—Alan Richardson (editor), ''The Westminster Dictionary of Christian Theology'' (Westminster: John Knox Press, 1983). ISBN 0664213987. (emphasis added).</small>

Thus, Mr. McElveen distorts the Bible's teachings on this point. Everyone is a child of God in terms of spiritual parentage; no one lives worthy of that heritage without adoption into the family of God through Christ.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Deification of man]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Now, here you are, you're in hell. What is the situation? The Bible calls it a lake of fire, a furnace of fire, everlasting fire. There are some who say, well surely it couldn't fire. It really is fire. God doesn't kid about things like that. He's not a 'scare God.' He simply tells you the truth. And this is not a parable we read in Luke, the 16th chapter—God never used proper names in a parable. Even (inaudible) a picture of something worse, but here we are now, here's what happens. Every good and perfect thing remember that's a gift from God is gone. Gone is gone. You refused Him, you turned Him down. You turned down Jesus, you turned down His word or if you professed to accept Him and you still went your own way and did your own thing. {{b||Isaiah|53|6}}: All we like sheep have gone astray, we've turned everyone to his own way and the Lord has laid on him the sin of us all."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

It is true that the Bible refers to Hell as a place of fire, but it is also true that the Bible uses other symbolic language to describe Hell. For example, three times in the gospel of Matthew the destination of the unsaved is described as "outer darkness." (See {{b||Matthew|8|12}}, {{b||Matthew|22|13}}, and {{b||Matthew|25|30}}.) Jesus employed much of the imagery and symbols of the Hebrew Scriptures in His teaching, and in particular He frequently alluded to the last verse of the Book of Isaiah. (See {{b||Isaiah|66|24}} and {{b||Mark|9|43-44}}.)

And Jesus did, in fact, use proper names in parables. Jesus frequently used proper names for places, such as Jerusalem and Jericho (see the parable of the Good Samaritan in {{b||Luke|10|30-35}}). Note also that in the parable of the Good Samaritan Jesus used the proper names of various groups, such as Levites and Samaritans. We also have an instance where Jesus used a proper name of a person—it is found in {{b||Luke|16|19-31}} as referenced by Mr. McElveen. It may be that some Bible readers may want to take this parable to be a literal story, but to do so wrests the verses in Luke from their cultural and literary environment.

And despite Mr. McElveen's suggestion that he is avoiding scare tactics, he evokes images of eternal burning and torment for anyone who rejects his preaching.

'''To read more:'''

* {{TTTF1|start=81|article=Hell}} {{link1|url=http://lds.org/portal/site/LDSOrg/menuitem.b3bc55cbf541229058520974e44916a0/?vgnextoid=ed462ce2b446c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=1ecf991a83d20110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&hideNav=1}}

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Here's what happens [in hell]. You will never again hear beautiful music. You will never again see a beautiful cloud. You will never again feel the soft touch of wind on your face. You will never again have a lover's embrace. You will never again have one moment of (inaudible). There will no moment of pleasure, not ever. Eternity rolls on. And the Bible also says you're in outer darkness, you're in (inaudible) darkness and yet in a burning fire. No one can explain that, but God can do it. He had a bush burn and not be consumed that Moses saw.<br><br>
"Listen my friend, hell is so awful that when I think of hell, many, many times I've wept as I think of people going there—and Mormon friends, LDS friends, that's just the beginning. You hear of doctors treating people for depression. You'll have the worst depression the world has ever seen. Nobody will treat. No psychiatrist will be there treating you. No doctor will be giving you aspirin. No doctor will give you something to alleviate the pain. You're there. And interminably it goes on. Every day it seems to be worse than the day before. One minute is like an hour. One hour is like a week. One week is like a month. One month is like a year and still you burn and you scream like the rich man, you'd give everything you ever owned for one drop of water to cool your tongue. Oh my God, oh my God what a fool I've been. I'm in hell. I didn't believe. I knew many of the things in the Bible came true. I don't know I didn't believe hell would come true. You're in hell. You're in hell, you're abandoned by God and man." - Floyd McElveen, Author and Lifetime Evangelist</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Mr. McElveen runs into problems here by interpreting figurative language, symbols, and metaphors as being literal descriptions. He does a disservice to the Gospel of Jesus Christ when he appeals to follow Jesus with lengthy, fearful warnings rather than as an invitation to come to Jesus and partake of the waters of Life. This sort of presentation has the unfortunate result of casting the beautiful gift of the Savior as merely the absence of horrific, eternal punishment.

:For God did not give us a Spirit of fear but of power and love and self-control. ([http://net.bible.org/verse.php?book=2ti&chapter=1&verse=7 2 Timothy 1:7 {NET}])

Many of his assertions about the conditions of hell also have no biblical basis. They are generally derived from medieval and Renaissance depictions of hell, not God's revelation.

Most interesting is that McElveen rejects the Latter-day Saint doctrine of eternal marriage and eternal families, and yet claims here that, in hell, "You will never again have a lover's embrace." Presumably this means that in heaven one ''will'' experience a lover's embrace. If so, is this love within the bounds of marriage and family? If not, how is Mr. McElveen's hell any different from his heaven when it comes to this particular point?

Latter-day Saints admittedly have a different interpretation of the nature of hell than Mr. McElveen does. We believe that God is a loving father who wants the very best for all of His children. It is not consistent to think a loving Father would condemn his children to the kind of place described above. Those who do not receive the fullness of salvation will experience disappointment and limitations on future growth that will be a source of pain and grief suggested by the Bible's symbolic descriptions of hell. There are consequences for failing to follow Christ, but they are tempered by the love of the Father for all of his children.

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "My friends, quit pitying yourself. Hell is awful and God is warning you and warning you—he's warning you through me. I say with all my heart and all my soul I don't want one Mormon to go to hell. I don't want anybody to go to hell. I want you saved by the blood of Jesus and I want to enjoy heaven with you forever." - Floyd McElveen, Author and Lifetime Evangelist</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Likewise, Latter-day Saints wish with all their hearts that Mormons, Evangelicals, and every other person will return to live with God in heaven. Latter-day Saints firmly believe that salvation lies in Christ alone ({{s||Mosiah|3|17}}) and that anyone who has faith in Christ, truly repents, and follows the example of Jesus will be lifted up at the last day by the grace and mercy of God (for example, see {{s|3|Nephi|27|19-22}}, {{s||Mosiah|23|22}}, {{s||Ether|4|19}}). Latter-day Saints invite all men and women of all religions to hear the restored message of the Gospel and to accept the atoning blood of Jesus Christ as the only means of salvation.

'''To read more:'''

[http://lds.org/portal/site/LDSOrg/menuitem.b12f9d18fae655bb69095bd3e44916a0/?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=e88b8949f2f6b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____ LDS Beliefs about the Atonement of Christ]

|-

|}


{{DVDRightColumn}}
|}
{{DoYouHaveQuestions}}
{{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:Search for the Truth DVD/What is Hell]]

Criticism of Mormonism/Video/Search for the Truth DVD/Who is God

2012-08-21T00:47:10Z

DanaRepouille:

{{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}}
<metadesc>Jesus Christ/Joseph Smith Search for the Truth DVD Good News for Mormons</metadesc>
{{DVDHeadingBox|Who Is God?}}

{| style="border-spacing:8px;margin:0px -8px"
| class="MainPageBG" style="width:85%;border:1px solid #cedff2;background-color:#f5faff;vertical-align:top"|
{| width="100%" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top;background-color:#f5faff"
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;"> Claim: According to Joseph, "The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man's; the Son also..." ({{s||D&C|130|22}}) However in John 4:24 we are told "God is Spirit..."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|
President Gordon B. Hinckley recently addressed this very old criticism:

:''In the account of the Creation of the earth, "God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness" ({{b||Genesis|1|26}}).''
:''Could any language be more explicit? Does it demean God, as some would have us believe, that man was created in His express image? Rather, it should stir within the heart of every man and woman a greater appreciation for himself or herself as a son or daughter of God....''
:''I remember the occasion more than 70 years ago when, as a missionary, I was speaking in an open-air meeting in Hyde Park, London. As I was presenting my message, a heckler interrupted to say, "Why don't you stay with the doctrine of the Bible which says in John, 'God is a Spirit'?"''
:''I opened my Bible to the verse he had quoted and read to him the entire verse:''
::''"God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth" ({{b||John|4|24}}).''
:''I said, "Of course God is a spirit, and so are you in the combination of spirit and body that makes of you a living being, and so am I."''
:''...Jesus's declaration that God is a spirit no more denies that He has a body than does the statement that I am a spirit while also having a body.''
:''I do not equate my body with His in its refinement, in its capacity, in its beauty and radiance. His is eternal. Mine is mortal. But that only increases my reverence for Him. I worship Him "in spirit and in truth."''
::<small>—Gordon B. Hinckley, "First Presidency Message: In These Three I Believe," ''Ensign'' (July 2006): 2–8.{{link|url=http://www.lds.org/portal/site/LDSOrg/menuitem.b12f9d18fae655bb69095bd3e44916a0/?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=0adce2270ed6c010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1}}</small>

It is interesting to note that some early Christians actually used John 4:24 as a proof text to support the notion that God has a body. While Origen (''De Principiis'', 242 {{link|url=http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/origen122.html}}) didn't approve, he admits "I know that some will attempt to say that, even according to the declaration of our own scriptures, God is a body, because. . .they find it said in the Gospel according to John that 'God is a spirit, and they who worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth.'. . .Spirit according to them [is] to be regarded as nothing less than a body."

Tertullian (''Against Praxeus'', Chapter 7 {{link|url=http://people.vanderbilt.edu/~james.p.burns/3978_F06/TertullianAgainstPraxeas.html}}) believed "This for certain is He who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God, In what form of God? Of course he means in some form, not none. For who will deny that God is a body although God is a spirit? (John 4:24). For spirit has a bodily substance of its own kind, in its own form."

While evangelical scholar Paul Copan {{link|url=http://www.earlychurch.org.uk/article_augustine_copan.html}} views Tertullian's belief in God's corporeality as anti-intellectual and influenced by stoicism, he writes that in Augustine's time "North African Catholics typically believed [in God's corporeality]." Copan indicated that "neo-Platonist Christians in Milan" helped Augustine adopt a belief in an incorporeal God.

The concept of God which Joseph Smith claimed to restore through revelation is clearly a match for the common beliefs of the early Christians—and, that early perspective was later altered and corrupted by philosophical innovations.

'''To read more:'''
*[[God is a Spirit|God is a Spirit]]
*[[Corporeality of God|Corporeality of God]]
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: God has existed for eternity. But Joseph Smith taught "He was once a man like us, yea, that God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did." Dr. Phil Roberts says, "In Mormonism God is simply an exalted man. He was born as a man, he was conceived in a natural way and by adherence to a system of Mormonism in a previous world and a previous life through his good works in accordance with that system he became God."
</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Very little is known about these matters in LDS doctrine, but Dr. Roberts manages to distort what ''is'' known.

There is no official doctrine on the method by which Christ's mortal body was conceived—apart from that which we are told in scripture (see {{b||Matthew|1|}}, {{b||Matthew|1|20}}, and {{b||Luke|1|35}})—despite speculation by some early members. Latter-day Saints do not deny that God has existed for eternity—they believe all intelligence is eternal and uncreated (see {{s||D&C|93|29}}). Latter-day Saints do not accept the late, non-biblical Trinitarian creeds. Thus, they see God the Father and Jesus Christ as separate beings, as described by a "plain reading" of the Bible.

Jesus Christ was:
* born as a mortal
* conceived with a literal, physical body to a literal, physical mother
* lived as a man/mortal
* died
* was resurrected and glorified

Given that Christ was the only one to lead a sinless life, one might agree with Dr. Roberts that "through his good works," He completed His mortal life and was exalted to divine status.

In the non-canonical King Follet Discourse, Joseph Smith simply taught that the Father went through the same process as Christ.

Although Christ shared aspects of the mortal experience with us, to argue that He was "simply a man" who became exalted is to distort LDS teaching beyond recognition. Jesus Christ has divine status and exaltation by merit and right. By analogy, we presume—but do not know—that the Father proceeded similarly. Exaltation of all other mortals is through the grace, mercy, and atonement of Christ, following the Father's plan.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Jesus Christ's conception|Conception of Jesus Christ]]
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "...the Mormon teachings about many gods is false." – Floyd McElveen</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Members of the Church of Jesus Christ believe in more than one divine personage. Any Christian who does not embrace the late, non-biblical Trinitarian creeds will understand there to be more than one "God," in the sense of "divine person."

Latter-day Saints and scripture often use the term "God" to denote what may be more properly called "the Godhead." This is the divine unity of love, purpose, and will possessed by the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, who are "one God," while remaining distinct divine personages.

While recognizing that more than one being may have divine status, Latter-day Saints reject any attempt to worship any other being, or assume that any other being has greater power than the God of the Bible.

Elder Boyd K. Packer taught:

:''The Father is the one true God. This thing is certain: no one will ever ascend above Him; no one will ever replace Him. Nor will anything ever change the relationship that we, His literal offspring, have with Him. He is Elohim, the Father. He is God. Of Him there is only one. We revere our Father and our God; we worship Him.''
::<small>—{{Ensign1|author=Boyd K. Packer|article=The Pattern of Our Parentage|date=November 1984|start=69}} {{link|url=http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/1984.htm/ensign%20november%201984%20.htm/the%20pattern%20of%20our%20parentage.htm?f=templates$fn=document-frame.htm$3.0$q=$x=}}</small>

'''To read more:'''
* [[Godhead and the Trinity]]
* David L. Paulsen, "The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Joseph Smith: Defending the Faith" {{fairlink|url=http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/2004_God_of_Abraham_Isaac_and_Joseph_Smith.html}}
* {{Restoringancientchurch|chapter=3|title=The Doctrine of God and the Nature of Man}}
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: Paul says in 1 Corinthians 8:4–5 there is only one God, and the rest are simply imaginary (see remarks by Dr. John Whitcomb).</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Mr. McElveen ignores scriptural context and scholarship in his interpretation. The verses in question read:

:As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one.
:For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)

This is followed by a verse not cited by Mr. McElveen:

:But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him. ({{b|1|Corinthians|8|4-6}})

Mr. McElveen would like us to conclude that because idols are mentioned in verse 4, the "gods many, and lords many" mentioned in verse 5 also refer to idols. It is clear, however, that Paul makes the distinction in verse 5. He says that while there are those that are "called gods," it is true, but he clarifies and distinguishes his meaning in two separate ways.

First, Paul follows this statement, referring to those that are called gods, with the words, "whether in heaven or in earth..."—it is unlikely that idols would be found in heaven!

Secondly, Paul acknowledges that "there be gods many, and lords many." Then he brings the point home in the next verse, though it is not cited by Mr. McElveen, since it undermines his interpretation.

Paul says that "to us," however, "there is but one God" and "one Lord." He clarifies his point: We are only to worship one God, not many gods, although they do exist. We only follow one Lord, not many Lords, although they do exist.

This is not merely a Latter-day Saint supposition. Origin (A.D. 185–''ca.''254), head of the Christian Church in Alexandria, wrote:

:''There are some gods of whom God is god, as we hear in the prophecy, "Thank ye the God of gods," and "The God of gods hath spoken, and called the earth." Now God, according to the Gospel, "is not the God of the dead but of the living." ''Those gods, then, are living of whom God is god''. The Apostle, too, writing to the Corinthians, says: "As there are gods many and lords many," and so we have spoken of these gods ''as really existing''. Now there are, besides the gods of whom God is god, certain others.''
::<small>–Origen, "Commentary on John," in Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, eds., ''The Ante-Nicene Fathers'' (1886-1890; reprint, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978-1981), 10:315. {{ea}}</small>

Thus, Paul distinguishes between two groups of things:
# non-existent gods (idols)
# other divine beings that exist, but are not to be worshipped

Mr. McElveen has similar problems interpreting Old Testament scripture in context, discussed below.

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: (cont.) "The Bible says 'before me there were no gods formed (Isaiah 43:10) neither shall there be after me.' That means that all the Mormon teachings about many gods is false. It means there was never a God before this God." - Floyd McElveen.</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Mr. McElveen's interpretation of these passages also ignores much context and Biblical scholarship.

In this portion of Isaiah, Jehovah warned Judah to trust in him alone and not to trust in false gods who had no power to deliver them. The passages portray this as a contest between Jehovah and the gods of other nations.

Consider the passage in {{b||Isaiah|43|10-11}}, where the Lord says

:Ye are my witnesses, saith the Lord, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. I, even I, am the Lord; and beside me there is no saviour.

The context is clear in verse 12, which omitted (as is typical for critics who try to use this proof-text against the Latter-day Saints) from the quotation:

:I have declared, and have saved, and I have shewed, when there was no ''strange god'' among you: therefore ye are my witnesses, saith the Lord, that I am God. {{Ia}}

"Strange god" refers to a false god, an idol.

Likewise for 44:6, 8 — this passage is followed by extensive discussion of "graven images" ({{b||Isaiah|44|9-17}}).

These and similar passages in Isaiah (e.g. {{b||Isaiah|43|10-11}}; {{b||Isaiah|44|6,8}}; {{b||Isaiah|45|5-6}}; {{b||Isaiah|45|21-22}}; and {{b||Isaiah|46|9-10}}) cannot be called upon to disprove LDS beliefs in separate Gods in the Godhead or human deification (see below).

As Dr. Richard Mouw of Fuller Theological Seminary observed:

: ''Most OT scholars see the early stages of OT thought as henotheistic, i.e., ''the view that there are many Gods but that Jehovah is the supreme deity'' before whom we should place no other. Similarly, Paul in Colossians seems to suggest that there are many powers, but we should not placate them, because everything holds together in Jesus Christ. I think the important thing is that we acknowledge that only the God and father of JC is worthy of our worship and obedience.''
::<small>—AOL on-line discussion, cited [http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Reviews/Whats_with_the_Dudes_at_the_Door.html here]. {{ea}}</small>

In sum, the goal of these verses is to encourage Israel to leave off their idols and worship Jehovah alone. Any other use of them distorts Isaiah's meaning and intent.

'''To read more:'''
* [[%22No God beside me%22|Isaiah: "No God beside me"]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">It also means that Mormon men will never become gods. - Floyd McElveen.</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Mr. McElveen's analysis up to here has been superficial and flawed.

LDS doctrine teaches that believers are deified through the grace of Christ. This is a belief common among ancient and modern Christians, though it applies to both men ''and'' women—Mr. McElveen fails to mention the latter.

As one example among many, the early Christian Irenaeus (A.D. 180) wrote:

:''We were not made gods at our beginning, but first we were made men, then, in the end, gods.''
::<small>—{{ECF1|start=94}}</small>

Non-LDS scholar Ernst W. Benz penned a line that responds well to Mr. McElveen's superficial grasp of Christian theology and history:

:One can think what one wants of this doctrine of progressive deification, but one thing is certain: with this anthropology Joseph Smith is closer to the view of man held by the ancient Church than the precursors of the Augustinian doctrine of original sin.
::<small>—{{FR-17-1-10}}</small>

It would seem the Latter-day Saints are closer than Mr. McElveen may want to admit.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Deification of man|Early Christians on deification]]
* [[Deification of man#Modern Christian exegesis|Modern non-LDS Christians on deification]]
* D. Charles Pyle, "Early Christian Doctrine on Deification" {{fairlink|url=http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/1999_Early_Christian_Doctrine_of_Deification.html}}
* {{FR-17-1-10}}

|-

! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: Becoming a God was the lie that the serpent told to Eve in the Garden of Eden. Dave Hunt is quoted saying, "So Mormonism takes the lie of the serpent, it's based on the saying that the lie of the serpent is the truth."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|
Mr. Hunt might want to read a bit further in his Bible:

:And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
:For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. ({{b||Genesis|3|4-5}}.)

At first glance, it appears Mr. Hunt is right. But if Mr. Hunt had bothered to turn the page in his Bible he would have found that he was spectacularly wrong. After Adam and Eve partake of the forbidden fruit, God declares:

:And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever.... ({{b||Genesis|3|22}}.)

So God says the man is become "as one of us." Is Mr. Hunt trying to contradict God?

The serpent did lie, but the lie wasn't what Mr. Hunt claims. The Serpent lied when he said, "Ye shall not surely die." Man did become mortal and God restricted his access to the tree of life.

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "God would never condone lying. Yet in the Pearl of Great Price, Abraham is told by God to 'Let her say unto the Egyptians, she is thy sister, and thy soul shall live.' (Abraham 2:24) This contradicts what is in the Bible. Why would God give us the Bible for instruction and life-molding and later give us another testimony of Jesus Christ only to contradict each other? Does God make mistakes?"</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

This remark betrays an ignorance of extra-Biblical materials, LDS scripture, ''and'' the Bible.

In the ancient ''Genesis Apocryphon'' text, Abraham has the same motives described in the Pearl of Great Price as delivered by Joseph Smith. He tells Sarah that God has given him a dream in which she saves him from being killed. He then tells her:

:[Say to them] of me, 'He is my brother,' and because of you I shall live, and because of your my life shall be saved...'

:And Sarai wept that night on account of my words..."
::<small>—Geza Vermes, ''The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English'' (Penguin Press, 1997), 453–454. ''See also'': ({{link|url=http://www.meta-religion.com/World_Religions/Christianity/Other_Books/Dead_Sea_Scrolls/genesis_apocryphon.htm}}.)</small>

How did Joseph produce this authentic ancient detail, with this text not available until 1948?

The perspective offered by the Book of Abraham and the ''Genesis Apocyphon'' does not ''contradict'' the Bible—the Bible simply does not tell us why Abraham and Sarah claimed she was his sister ({{b||Genesis|20|2}}). God expresses no displeasure at their choice, and even speaks to the king in a dream to save Sarah. Given Abraham's nobility of character, it is hard to picture him taking this course if he felt God would disapprove.

During Israel's captivity in Egypt, God blessed the Egyptian midwives' decision to lie to Pharaoh about their failure to murder Hebrew infants (see {{b||Exodus|1|19-20}}.)

However, there is an even more dramatic Biblical example of God commanding deception for the greater good—Moses himself.

The Lord speaks to Moses and says:

:And I have said, I will bring you up out of the affliction of Egypt unto the land of the Canaanites, and the Hittites, and the Amorites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, unto a land flowing with milk and honey ({{b||Exodus|3|17}})

The Lord announces His intention to liberate the Israelites from slavery. But, in the very next breath, He tells Moses what to tell Pharaoh:

:And they shall hearken to thy voice: and thou shalt come, thou and the elders of Israel, unto the king of Egypt, and ye shall say unto him, The LORD God of the Hebrews hath met with us: and now let us go, we beseech thee, three days' journey into the wilderness, that we may sacrifice to the LORD our God. ({{b||Exodus|3|18}})

The "public stance" of Moses and the Israelite leaders is to be that they only want to go three days' journey to sacrifice. So, here the Lord is advocating some degree of deception. This extends to even deceiving their Egyptian neighbors:

:And I will give this people favour in the sight of the Egyptians: and it shall come to pass, that, when ye go, ye shall not go empty:
:But every woman shall borrow of her neighbour, and of her that sojourneth in her house, jewels of silver, and jewels of gold, and raiment: and ye shall put them upon your sons, and upon your daughters; and ye shall spoil the Egyptians. ({{b||Exodus|3|21-22}})

Because they are just going to make sacrifices, in the public version, the Israelites are to "borrow" valuable goods from the Egyptians. But, the true intent is clearly spelled out: they are to "spoil" (i.e. "loot") the Egyptians. (See {{b||Exodus|11|2}}, {{b||Exodus|12|35-36}}.)

Anti-Moses authors could have a field day—they could mock Moses' "ethical lapse" here, and insist that he did it all for the money. They could contrast his behavior here with the "thou shalt not covet," "thou shalt not bear false witness," and "thou shalt not steal" commands given later at Sinai, and point out that "borrowing" when you don't ever intend to come back looks a lot like "stealing."

Yet, Moses did exactly what the Lord told him to do, according to the Bible. It is therefore not inconsistent with the Bible for God to have Abraham cloud his relationship with Sarah for their own protection.

This claim by the producers and cast of The DVD regarding deceit serves as a double edged sword against them. The many misrepresentations of LDS beliefs in this video begs the question of whether or not their deceit is sanctioned by God whereas the deceit of Abraham as recorded in the Pearl of Great Price should be condemned.
|-

|}


{{DVDRightColumn}}
|}
{{DoYouHaveQuestions}}
{{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:Search for the Truth DVD/Who is God]]

Criticism of Mormonism/Video/Search for the Truth DVD/Who is Jesus

2012-08-20T00:59:16Z

DanaRepouille:

{{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}}
<metadesc>Jesus Christ/Joseph Smith Search for the Truth DVD Good News for Mormons</metadesc>
{{DVDHeadingBox|Who Is Jesus?}}

{| style="border-spacing:8px;margin:0px -8px"
| class="MainPageBG" style="width:85%;border:1px solid #cedff2;background-color:#f5faff;vertical-align:top"|
{| width="100%" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top;background-color:#f5faff"
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">What do the Latter-day Saints believe about Jesus Christ?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The video avoided quoting any of the many LDS statements about Jesus Christ which would allow the LDS and their scriptures to speak for themselves. Instead, the DVD focused on a few ideas out of context, while assuming that the non-biblical (extra-biblical) creeds—to which the producers and contributors apparently subscribe—are the proper (and only) interpretation of the Bible.

The LDS believe that Jesus Christ's role is central to our Heavenly Father's plan. Christ is unique in several respects from all other beings and spirit children of God:
* Jesus is God (See [http://scriptures.lds.org/john/1/1#2 John 1:1-2], [http://scriptures.lds.org/heb/1/6#6 Hebrews 1:6], [http://scriptures.lds.org/1_ne/11/16#26 1 Nephi 11:16–26], [http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/76/13#13 D&C 76:13]).
* Jesus was and is perfect (sinless) (See [http://scriptures.lds.org/heb/4/15 Hebrews 4:15]),
* Jesus is the Creator (See [http://scriptures.lds.org/john/1/3#3 John 1:3], [http://scriptures.lds.org/heb/1/1#6 Hebrews 1:1–6], [http://scriptures.lds.org/mosiah/3/3#3 Mosiah 3:3], [http://scriptures.lds.org/hel/14/12#12 Helaman 14:12], [http://scriptures.lds.org/moses/2/1#1 Moses 2:1]).
* Jesus obeyed the Father in all things (See {{s|3|Nephi|11|11}}).
* Jesus was chosen and foreordained to be the Redeemer (See [http://scriptures.lds.org/isa/43/11#11 Isaiah 43:11], [http://scriptures.lds.org/mosiah/13/28#34 Mosiah 13:28–34], [http://scriptures.lds.org/3_ne/9/15#15 3 Nephi 9:15], [http://scriptures.lds.org/moses/4/2#2 Moses 4:2]).
* Jesus is the Mediator between God and humanity (See [http://scriptures.lds.org/john/14/6#6 John 14:6], [http://scriptures.lds.org/1_tim/2/5#5 1 Timothy 2:5], [http://scriptures.lds.org/heb/8/5#5 Hebrews 8:5], [http://scriptures.lds.org/2_ne/2/28#28 2 Nephi 2:28], [http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/76/69#69 D&C 76:69]).
* Jesus was "the Only Begotten"—only He, of all God's children, had a physical inheritance in His body from God the Father. (See [http://scriptures.lds.org/john/1/14#14 John 1:14], [http://scriptures.lds.org/john/3/16#16 John 3:16], [http://scriptures.lds.org/john/14/3#3 John 14:3], [http://scriptures.lds.org/jacob/4/11#11 Jacob 4:11], [http://scriptures.lds.org/alma/12/33#34 Alma 12:33–34]).
'''To read more:'''
* {{Ensign1|author=Twelve Apostles|article=The Living Christ: The Testimony of the Apostles, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints|date=December 2004|start=4}}{{link|url=http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/2004.htm/ensign%20december%202004.htm/the%20living%20christ%20the%20testimony%20of%20the%20apostles%20the%20church%20of%20jesus%20christ%20of%20latterday%20saints.htm}}
* [[Worship_different_Jesus|Do LDS worship a 'different' Jesus?]]
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "There can be no greater contrast than the Jesus of the Bible with the Jesus of Mormonism." – Dr. Phil Roberts (President, Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Mormons believe in the Biblical Jesus. There is a great contrast, however, between the non-biblical ''creeds'' describing the nature of God and the scriptural record of God in the Bible as understood by the Latter-day Saints. The Saints have no quarrel with the Bible—they love and revere it as part of God's word to His children. They do not accept, however, the later additions of the creeds.

Just because the Saints' interpretation of some biblical passages does not match those of some other denominations does not mean that Mormons are not Christian or that they do not worship Jesus of the Bible. Were this the case, there could be no Christians, since every Christian faith differs from some other group in the interpretation of some Bible passages.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Worship_different_Jesus|Do Latter-day Saints worship a "different Jesus"?]]
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "In the Bible, and according to history as we believe and the actual work of Jesus Christ, He was God in the flesh, He was eternal with God, coequal uncreated." – Dr. Phil Roberts (President, Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|
This claim illustrates the source of the critics' attack on the Church, which has nothing to do with the Bible itself. Dr. Roberts and the video's producers are ''creedal Christians.'' That is, they accept beliefs which were formulated by councils of men hundreds of years after Christ's resurrection in an attempt to define the nature of God and Christ. The Latter-day Saints do not accept many of these creeds because they:
# are not found in the Holy Bible or other scripture
# were not taught or believed by Jesus or the early Christians
# were developed only with the addition of non-scriptural ideas and concepts (e.g., Greek philosophy)

Dr. Roberts believes that his creedal beliefs are scriptural (based on a particular interpretation of Bible verses), thus his appeal to later Christian history as authority in the above statement. The Latter-day Saints and many Christian scholars of religious history believe otherwise—they realize and admit that non-scriptural ideas had to be added to the Bible to formulate the creeds.

Latter-day Saints accept the witness that Jesus was God in the flesh and eternal with God, for this is the testimony of scripture. They do not accept the later additions of being "coequal uncreated," (though they understand 'uncreated' in a different sense than the creeds, as mentioned below).

'''To read more:'''
* [[Godhead and the Trinity]]: History of the creeds by non-LDS Christian authors and historians
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Nothing existed prior to the creator, which is Christ.... Jesus created all things and nothing existed prior to that creation." – Jon McCartney (Pastor, First Baptist Church of Tooele, Utah)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Pastor McCartney demonstrates that, once again, the video's quarrel is not that the Latter-day Saints do not believe the scriptures, but with the Latter-day Saints' reluctance to accept the ''creedal interpretation'' of scripture.

Pastor McCarney advocates the doctrine of creation out of nothing—sometimes called ''creatio ex nihilo.'' This doctrine holds that only God existed, and He created all other beings and things out of absolute nothingness.

This doctrine is not biblical, but draws again on the influence of Greek thought in later Christian centuries—the Latter-day Saints therefore do not accept biblical interpretations which rely on later creeds.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Creatio ex nihilo|Creation out of nothing]]: A non-biblical doctrine from the second century A.D.

|-

! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: Mormons don't believe Jesus was the creator of all things.</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

As noted above, this claim arises out of a commitment to the creed of ''creatio ex nihilo,'' not the Bible itself.

The LDS believe that some things simply cannot be created—"intelligence" and matter (see [http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/93/29#29 D&C 93:29]). Thus, the LDS believe that God created all things ''that required'' creation, through Jesus Christ.

Under the ''ex nihilo'' creed, God cannot be created, so He exists necessarily. Creedal Christians see no contradiction in saying God created all things, even when He did not create Himself. Likewise, LDS Christians see no contradiction in claiming Jesus created all things, even if there are some things (like God) which are eternal and require no creation.

Latter-day Saints believe that, through the power of the Father, Christ is the creative agent behind everything that was, is, or will be created.

'''To read more:'''
* [http://scriptures.lds.org/en/tg/j/31 Jesus Christ, Creator]: LDS scriptures topical guide.
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Does Colossians 1:17 teach that Jesus created all things and even the angels (including Satan) out of nothing?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Creedal Christians believe in the post-Biblical doctrine of ''[[creatio ex nihilo]]'' (creation out of nothing). Because this is how they understand the idea of creation, they read it into these verses.

Latter-day Saints have no quarrel with the doctrine taught in Colossians. They emphatically believe that the Father created all things by Jesus Christ. The video is misleading to suggest otherwise.

As one author observed, the Greek text does not teach ''ex nihilo,'' but creation out of pre-existing raw materials, since the verb ''ktidzo'' "carried an architectural connotation...as in 'to build' or 'establish' a city.... Thus, the verb presupposes the presence of already existing material."(Griffith, 72 {{wikilink|url=Creation_in_Colossians_1:16}}.)

One must not overlook {{b|2|Corinthians|4|18}}, which states that "the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal"—suggesting that aspects of the created "unseen world" are ''eternal'', despite the exercise of God's creative power upon them.

LDS doctrine sees creation as an act of organizing pre-existing, eternal matter and intelligence. (See {{s||DC|93|29}}, {{s||DC|131|7}}.)

Thus, Jesus certainly participated in the creation of all created things—but He worked with preexisting chaotic materials. The angelic ranks of "thrones, dominions, principalities, and powers" were also created by Christ, for these beings did not assume their angelic status or form without divine creative power, even though some aspect of their "intelligence" pre-dated God's creative acts in their behalf.

Each of us, along with Jesus and Lucifer, are children of our Father in Heaven. Our personality and character were developed during the long pre-mortal existence. During this time the Savior, as the first born of the Father, developed the attributes that allowed God the Father to trust Jesus with the creation of all things that would be created and to assume the divine role of The Son. With that same process Lucifer developed the attributes that led him into sin and rebellion.

The difference between Jesus and Lucifer is so great that we cannot fully understand it. The rest of God's children are somewhere in between these two extremes. Because of Jesus' role in the creation Satan's premortal powers and status were dependent upon the creative power and authority of God, exercised through Jesus Christ.

The difference between those who followed the Father and those who followed Lucifer is in part dependent upon the eternal aspect of each individual. This may help to explain Satan's antipathy toward Jesus, and his desire to usurp the power and authority of God possessed by Christ (see {{s||Moses|4|1|3}}).

The claim, then, that Jesus and Satan were merely peers, misunderstands and misrepresents the LDS doctrine of creation, and Jesus' pre-eminent role in it.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Creation in Colossians 1:16]]
*{{Ensign|author=Donald Q. Cannon, Larry E. Dahl, and John W. Welch|article=The Restoration of Major Doctrines through Joseph Smith: The Godhead, Mankind, and the Creation|vol=19|start=27|end=33|date=January 1989}} {{link|url=http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/1989.htm/ensign%20january%201989.htm/the%20restoration%20of%20major%20doctrines%20through%20joseph%20smith%20the%20godhead%20mankind%20and%20the%20creation.htm}}
* {{Restoringancientchurch |title=The Doctrine of God and the Nature of Man:Creatio Ex Nihilo|chapter=3}}
*{{BYUS|author=Keith Norman|article=Ex Nihilo: The Development of the Doctrines of God and Creation in Early Christianity|vol=17|num=3|date=1977|start=291|end=318}} {{link|url=http://byustudies.byu.edu/Products/MoreInfoPage/MoreInfo.aspx?Type=7&ProdID=855}}
*{{FR-11-2-3}}
*{{FR-17-2-8}}
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">What are the implications of claiming that Jesus/God created Satan out of nothing?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The DVD opines that "there is an infinite chasm between Jesus Christ, creator God, and Satan, creature who has sinned."

This conclusion reflects the creedal conviction that God is totally 'other'—i.e., He is completely different in all aspects from His creations, including humanity. However, the video does not explore the implications of the claim that God created Satan out of nothing. If God did, as claimed, create Satan ''ex nihilo,'' then God could have created Satan differently. Satan (and all mankind) could have been created with a nature that would not predispose him to commit sin.

If God could have created Satan (or a mortal) in a different way, then in some sense God is responsible for their evil natures. The sins and evils committed by fallen beings become ''God's'' fault, because He could have made things differently, but did not. How is it then just to judge or punish a sinner for sin if the sinful nature was created by God out of nothing?

This is a major philosophical problem for those who embrace ''creatio ex nihilo.'' The LDS view, in which God creates by ''organizing'' eternal matter and intelligence, does not have these problems. Satan sinned because of his eternal nature: he made free choices based on who he has always been. Likewise, mortals cannot blame God for their sins, because their core nature was not created by God.

A Latter-day Saint Christian would argue that it does not lessen God for Him to allow other beings to make free choices and receive the consequences. Rather, they believe that there is a "vast gulf" between the loving God of the Bible and a belief that God willfully creates degenerate, fallen, and sinful beings and then punishes them for natures which He gave them.

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Satan's potential role in God's plan misrepresented</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The video does not accurately portray all of the LDS ideas regarding the "council in heaven" which are necessary for full understanding. The video correctly notes that two spirit children of God (Jesus and Satan) offered to play a role in God's plan for human happiness. However, it neglects to mention that Satan's offer was not welcome or anticipated. Satan's plan, and his offer to implement it, was never consistent with God the Father's plan of salvation, and if accepted it would have meant the end of any future opportunities for His children. Therefore, God would never have countenanced the implementation of
Satan's offer. God says that Jesus' role was determined from the beginning: "my Beloved Son, which was my Beloved and Chosen from the beginning, said unto me—Father, thy will be done, and
the glory be thine forever" ({{s||Moses|4|2}}).

'''To read more:'''
* [[Jesus_Christ_is_the_brother_of_Satan|Relationship of Jesus and Satan]]
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "The Bible also teaches that Jesus has eternally been God, while Joseph Smith teaches that Jesus had to achieve Godhood."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Latter-day Saint scripture teaches that Jesus is the Eternal God, Alpha and Omega, from everlasting to everlasting. Despite Christ's divinity, He nevertheless was obedient to God His Father, and "received not of the fulness at first, but continued from grace to grace, until he received a fulness" ({{s||DC|93|13}}).

The Saints thus accept the biblical witness that Jesus "increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man" ({{b||Luke|2|52}}). If Jesus increased in wisdom, then there was a time when He had less wisdom than He now has. The Saints also accept the biblical witness that Jesus "learned obedience by the things he suffered" ({{b||Hebrews|5|8}}) and "was in all points tempted as we are" ({{b||Hebrews|4|15}}).

As Paul taught, Jesus meekly obeyed the Father in all things, and accepted a status below the role of God to which He was entitled:

:[Jesus] being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
:But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
:And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
:Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:
:That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;
:And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. ({{b||Philippians|2|6-11}})

Jesus himself in {{b||John|5|19-20}} declared that, "The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do; for what things soever [the Father] doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise. For the Father loveth the Son and showeth him all things that himself doeth....” What did Jesus do? He was born of a woman, lived a sinless life, and after atoning for our sins, was glorified with a resurrected body of "flesh and bones" ({{b||Luke|24|36-39}}). If Christ followed the example of his Father, then the implication is clear.

Jesus humbled Himself in obedience to the Father, and was exalted thereafter ({{b||Hebrews|1|8-9}}).
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Did President Hinckley admit that the Church does not worship the Biblical Jesus?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|
{{main|Did_Gordon_B._Hinckley_say_that_Latter-day_Saints_do_not_believe_in_the_Biblical_Christ%3F|l1=President Hinckley on Biblical Christ?}}

The video makes much of a statement by Church President Gordon B. Hinckley:

:''No I don't believe in the traditional Christ. The traditional Christ of whom they speak is not the Christ of whom I speak. For the Christ of whom I speak has been revealed in this the dispensation of the Fullness of Times.''
::<small>—President Gordon B. Hinckley, ''Deseret News'' (20 June 1998): 7. {{ss|url=DVD-25March2007:HinckleySS1}}</small>

It should be emphasized that the "traditions" alluded to by President Hinckley are the non-Biblical creeds. But, members of the Church do not reject the Biblical witness—it is partly ''because'' the creeds are not Biblical that the LDS do not use them.

President Hinckley continues to explain that revelation teaches more about God than philosophical speculation, and insists that he is a Christian, but the video does not quote this material:

:''[Jesus], together with His Father, appeared to the boy Joseph Smith in the year 1820, and when Joseph left the grove that day, he knew more of the nature of God than all the learned ministers of the gospel of the ages.''
:''Am I Christian? Of course I am. I believe in Christ. I talk of Christ. I pray through Christ. I'm trying to follow Him and live His gospel in my life.''

President Hinckley elsewhere made it clear that we differ with other Christians over the creeds, not over the scriptural witness:

:''As a Church we have critics, many of them. They say we do not believe in the traditional Christ of Christianity. There is some substance to what they say. Our faith, our knowledge is not based on ancient tradition, the creeds which came of a finite understanding and out of the almost infinite discussions of men trying to arrive at a definition of the risen Christ. Our faith, our knowledge comes of the witness of a prophet in this dispensation who saw before him the great God of the universe and His Beloved Son, the resurrected Lord Jesus Christ. They spoke to him. He spoke with Them. He testified openly, unequivocally, and unabashedly of that great vision. It was a vision of the Almighty and of the Redeemer of the world, glorious beyond our understanding but certain and unequivocating in the knowledge which it brought. It is out of that knowledge, rooted deep in the soil of modern revelation, that we, in the words of Nephi, “talk of Christ, we rejoice in Christ, we preach of Christ, we prophesy of Christ, and we write according to our prophecies, that [we and] our children may know to what source [we] may look for a remission of [our] sins” ({{s|2|Nephi|25|26}}).''
::<small>—{{Ensign1|start=90|author=Gordon B. Hinckley|article=We Look to Christ|date=May 2002}}{{link|url=http://beta.lds.org/portal/site/LDSOrg/menuitem.b12f9d18fae655bb69095bd3e44916a0/?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=69e58c6a47e0c010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1}}</small>

'''To read more:'''
* {{Ensign1|author=Daniel C. Peterson and Stephen D. Ricks|article=Comparing LDS Beliefs with First-Century Christianity|date=March 1988|start=7}}{{link|url=http://www.lds.org/portal/site/LDSOrg/menuitem.b12f9d18fae655bb69095bd3e44916a0/?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=9649d7630a27b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1}}
* {{Newera1|author=Stephen E. Robinson|article=Are Mormons Christians?|start=41|date=May 1988}}{{link|url=http://www.lds.org/portal/site/LDSOrg/menuitem.b12f9d18fae655bb69095bd3e44916a0/?vgnextoid=024644f8f206c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=e0710e2cbc3fb010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1}}

|-
|}


{{DVDRightColumn}}
|}
{{DoYouHaveQuestions}}
{{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:Search for the Truth DVD/Who is Jesus]]

The Lamanite curse

2012-08-20T00:57:16Z

DanaRepouille:

Utah/Crime and violence/Crimes critics allege to have been "worthy of death" in the 1800's

2012-08-20T00:56:04Z

DanaRepouille:

{{Articles FAIR copyright}} {{Articles Header 1}} {{Articles Header 2}} {{Articles Header 3}} {{Articles Header 4}} {{Articles Header 5}} {{Articles Header 6}} {{Articles Header 7}} {{Articles Header 8}} {{Articles Header 9}} {{Articles Header 10}}
=={{Criticism label}}==
*Critics expand to idea of [[Blood atonement|blood atonement]] to include a long list of crimes that were alleged to be "worthy of death."

{{CriticalSources}}

=={{Conclusion label}}==
There is no doubt that Brigham Young had strong words for those who committed crimes. One should note, however, that although Brigham had very distinct (and rather harsh) opinions on what should be done, he always deferred to ''God's'' opinion. The historical record shows that in reality people were not being killed for committing the crimes listed by the critics. Critics wish to conflate the concept of "blood atonement" with a variety of comments mined from various sources in order to portray the 19th century church as a bloodthirsty, violent organization.

== ==
{{Response label}}

{{Epigraph|There is also a man down the street who tried to exhibit the endowments to a party who was here. You will see what becomes of that man. Do not touch him. He has forfeited every right and title to eternal life; but let him alone, and you will see by and by what will become of him. His heart will ache, and so will the heart of every apostate that fights against Zion; they will destroy themselves. It is a mistaken idea that God destroys people, or that the Saints wish to destroy them. It is not so. The seeds of sin which are in them are sufficient to accomplish their destruction.<br><br> - {{JDfairwiki|vol=11|start=262|disc=39|author=Brigham Young}} (12 August 1866).}}

Critics have created a long list of crimes for which they claim the 19th century church required death through [[Blood atonement|blood atonement]]. The critics conflate blood atonement with capital punishment in order to promote the idea that the 19th century church was willing to kill anyone who disobeyed the law.

===Blood atonement: what is it?===
{{Main|Blood atonement}}

Blood atonement is a concept taught by Brigham Young and several other early Church leaders. It states that:

1. There are certain sins of ''apostasy'' that may not be covered by Christ's atonement. Such apostasy would involve church members who had already been endowed and made covenants in the temple.

2. That a person willing to repent of such sins might need to be '''willing allow their own blood to be shed'' to do so.

===Critics expand "blood atonement" to include a list of unrelated crimes===
Critics mine statements from early church leaders to make it appear that "blood atonement" was being applied to others for a variety of crimes against their will. The following table lists the crimes that the critics claim were "worthy of death," and the sources that they use to support this assertion.

{| valign="top" border="1" style="width:100%; font-size:85%"
!width="35%"|Crime the critics claim was "worthy of death"
!width="65%"|Critics' [[Use of sources|use of sources]]
|-
|Murder||History of the Church 5:296; Doctrines of Salvation 1:136; Mormon Doctrine, 1958, p.314
|-
|Adultery and immorality||Journal of Discourses 3:247; Journal of Discourses 7:20; Journal of Discourses 6:38; Journal of Discourses 7:19; Journal of Discourses 1:97
|-
|Stealing||Times and Seasons, vol. 4, pp.183-84; History of the Church 7:597; Journal of Discourses 1:108-9; Journal of Discourses 1:73
|-
|Using the name of the Lord in vain||Journal of Hosea Stout, vol. 2, p.71; p.56 of the typed copy at Utah State Historical Society
|-
||Not receiving the Gospel||Journal of Discourses 3:226
|-
|Marrying an African||Journal of Discourses 10:110; Wilford Woodruff's Journal, January 16,1852; Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Spring 1973, p.26
|-
|Lying||"Manuscript History of Brigham Young," December 20, 1846
|-
|Counterfeiting||"Manuscript History of Brigham Young," February 24,1847
|-
|Condemning Joseph Smith||''Quest for Empire—The Political Kingdom of God and the Council of Fifty in Mormon History'', p.127; Daily journal of Abraham H. Cannon, December 6, 1889, pp.205-6
|}

===Murder===
The allegation that murder was a crime worthy of death is based upon a quote from Joseph Smith during a Nauvoo City Council meeting:

:In debate, George A. Smith said imprisonment was better than hanging. I replied, I was opposed to hanging, even if a man kill another, I will shoot him, or cut off his head, spill his blood on the ground, and let the smoke thereof ascend up to God; and if ever I have the privilege of making a law on that subject, I will have it so.{{ref|HC.5:296}}

It is apparent that Joseph Smith had an opinion regarding what should be done with a man who kills another. The quote above shows that Joseph preferred certain other modes of execution to hanging. However, this statement says little regarding the crimes for which this punishment would be applied, other than the statement "even if a man kill another."

The idea that murderers ought to be executed for their crimes is certainly not new or unique to Joseph Smith's time. Even today there is an ongoing and vigorous debate regarding the merits of capital punishment. The question here is whether or not this issue relates to ''blood atonement''. Recall that the concept of "blood atonement" required that an ''apostate'' be ''willing to sacrifice his own life''. This does not seem to relate to Joseph Smith's expressed preference regarding forms of execution.

It appears to have been Bruce R. McConkie who connected the form of execution with blood atonement. In his ''first edition'' of ''Mormon Doctrine'', which was later recalled, Elder McConkie stated:

:As a mode of capital punishment, hanging or execution on a gallows does not comply with the law of blood atonement, for the blood is not shed.{{ref|McConkie.1958.314}}

Joseph Fielding Smith wrote:

:...the founders of Utah incorporated in the laws of the Territory provisions for the capital punishment of those who wilfully shed the blood of their fellow men. This law, which is now the law of the State, granted unto the condemned murderer the privilege of choosing for himself whether he die by hanging, or whether he be shot and thus have his blood shed in harmony with the law of God; and thus atone, so far as it is in his power to atone, for the death of his victim. Almost without exception the condemned party chooses the latter death.{{ref|JFS.136}}

The Tanners conclude that "[a]s long as the Mormon church teaches the doctrine of blood atonement there is probably little chance of Utah using a gas chamber or electric chair for the condemned murderer." Utah, however, replaced hanging with lethal injection in 1980. This provided two choices to the condemned: firing squad or lethal injection. If the condemned failed to make a choice, lethal injection was to be employed.{{ref|utahhistory1}}

===Adultery and immorality===
Among the various references used to "prove" that adultery is "punishable by death," the critics employ a well known quote from Brigham Young. Here is the quote as the Tanners present it:

:Let me suppose a case. Suppose you found your brother in bed with your wife, and put a javelin through both of them, you would be justified, and they would atone for their sins, and be received into the kingdom of God. I would at once do so in such a case; and under such circumstances, I have no wife whom I love so well that I would not put a javelin through her heart, and I would do it with clean hands....

:There is not a man or woman, who violates the covenants made with their God, that will not be required to pay the debt. ''The blood of Christ will never wipe that out, your own blood must atone for it'' ... (Journal of Discourses, vol. 3, p.247).

As is always the case with the Tanners' work, it is always a good idea to fill in the parts that they omit in order to find out what Brigham was actually talking about. Here is the same quote with the parts mined by the Tanners highlighted.

:A few of the men and women who go into the house of the Lord, and receive their endowments, and in the most sacred manner make covenants before the Almighty, go and violate those covenants. Do I have compassion on them? Yes, I do have mercy on them, for there is something in their organization which they do not understand; and there are but few in this congregation who do understand it.

:You say, "That man ought to die for transgressing the law of God." '''Let me suppose a case. Suppose you found your brother in bed with your wife, and put a javelin through both of them, you would be justified, and they would atone for their sins, and be received into the kingdom of God. I would at once do so in such a case; and under such circumstances, I have no wife whom I love so well that I would not put a javelin through her heart, and I would do it with clean hands'''. But you who trifle with your covenants, be careful lest in judging you will be judged.

:Every man and women has got to have clean hands and a pure heart, to execute judgment, else they had better let the matter alone.

:Again, suppose the parties are, not caught in their iniquity, and it passes along unnoticed, shall I have compassion on them? Yes, I will have compassion on them, for transgressions of the nature already named, or for those of any other description. If the Lord so order it that they are not caught in the act of their iniquity, it is pretty good proof that He is willing for them to live; and I say let them live and suffer in the flesh for their sins, for they will have it to do.

:'''There is not a man or woman, who violates the covenants made with their God, that will not be required to pay the debt. The blood of Christ will never wipe that out, your own blood must atone for it'''; and the judgments of the Almighty will come, sooner or later, and every man and woman will have to atone for breaking their covenants.

There are a few things that are important to note.
#Brigham is talking about the breaking of covenants. The adultery example was used to illustrate a point.
#Brigham was talking about having compassion for those people.
#Brigham's reference to the use of a javelin was taken directly from Numbers 25:6-9.

:And, behold, one of the children of Israel came and brought unto his brethren a Midianitish woman in the sight of Moses, and in the sight of all the congregation of the children of Israel, who were weeping before the door of the tabernacle of the congregation. And when Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the priest, saw it, he rose up from among the congregation, and took a javelin in his hand; and he went after the man of Israel into the tent, and thrust both of them through, the man of Israel, and the woman through her belly. So the plague was stayed from the children of Israel. And those that died in the plague were twenty and four thousand. ({{b||Numbers|25|6-9}})

It is clear that the point of Brigham's story is ''not'' to claim that adultery was "punishable by death." Brigham was relating a modern, literal interpretation of the Old Testament account of Phineas.{{ref|parker1}}

===Stealing===
Once again we will examine how the Tanners interpret the words of Brigham Young:

:If you want to know what to do with a thief that you may find stealing, I say kill him on the spot, and never suffer him to commit another iniquity... if I caught a man stealing on my premises I should be very apt to send him straight home, and that is what I wish every man to do.... this appears hard, and throws a cold chill over our revered traditions ... but I have trained myself to measure things by the line of justice.... If you will cause all those whom you know to be thieves, to be placed in a line before the mouth of one of our largest cannon, well loaded with chain shot, I will prove by my works whether I can mete out justice to such persons, or not. I would consider it just as much my duty to do that, as to baptize a man for the remission of his sins (Journal of Discourses, vol. 1, pp.108-9).

Looking at the first part of that quote, with some of the missing parts restored, and the Tanners' quote mining highlighted:

:'''If you want to know what to do with a thief that you may find stealing, I say kill him on the spot, and never suffer him to commit another iniquity'''. That is what I expect I shall do, though never, in the days of my life, have I hurt a man with the palm of my hand. I never have hurt any person any other way except with this unruly member, my tongue. Notwithstanding this, '''if I caught a man stealing on my premises I should be very apt to send him straight home, and that is what I wish every man to do''', to put a stop to that abominable practice in the midst of this people.

:I know '''this appears hard, and throws a cold chill over our revered traditions''' received by early education. I had a great many such feelings to contend with myself, and was as much of a sectarian in my notions as any other man, and as mild, perhaps, in my natural disposition, '''but I have trained myself to measure things by the line of justice''', to estimate them by the rule of equity and truth, and not by the false tradition of the fathers, or the sympathies of the natural mind. '''If you will cause all those whom you know to be thieves, to be placed in a line before the mouth of one of our largest cannon, well loaded with chain shot, I will prove by my works whether I can mete out justice to such persons, or not. I would consider it just as much my duty to do that, as to baptize a man for the remission of his sins.''' That is a short discourse on thieves, I acknowledge, but I tell you the truth as it is in my heart.{{ref|JoD.1.108-109}}

Notice how Brigham's statement that he has never harmed a man except with his tongue is carefully excised from the quote. Also notice that there is no mention of blood atonement, apostasy, or a willingness to give one's life to atone for some grievous sin. Brigham is simply expressing his disgust with thievery.

Brigham's remark was made in 1853—the Saints were in the midst of a serious struggle for subsistence in the Salt Lake Valley. Famine was often a real threat in these years. Those who thieved from their neighbors under such conditions put others' well-being and even lives at risk. If livestock were stolen, for example, this reduced a man's ability to plow his fields or do other animal-powered work. Such theft also took food and dairy animals from poverty-stricken settlers. Supplies, machinery, hardware, tools, or other items imported at great effort from the east could not be easily replaced in the Territory, even had the Saints had the money to do so.

The frontier was also known for lawless behavior among some, far from military or police power. Under these conditions, thievery could well result in the suffering and death of victims and others in their communities—hence Brigham's determination to stamp it out.

===Using the name of the Lord in vain===
The Tanners use a second hand quote to "prove" that Brigham Young considered taking the name of the Lord in vain to be worthy of death:

:In the journal of Hosea Stout, Brigham Young is recorded as saying: "... I tell you the time is coming when that man uses the name of the Lord is used the penalty will be affixed and immediately be executed on the spot ..." (Journal of Hosea Stout, vol. 2, p.71; p.56 of the typed copy at Utah State Historical Society).

As with any Tanner quote, it is best to see the quote in full context before proceeding further:

:If ever we live to see the kingdom of God set up we shall see the judgment poured out upon that man who seeks to overthrow the kingdom, for righteousness shall be put to line. I [Brigham Young] would also caution you against using the name of God in vain; it has been used too much and will be with us; like the ancients of old, they forbade them the frequent use of the same. For '''I tell you, the time is coming when that man [who] uses the name of the Lord [and] is used, the penalty will be affixed and immediately be executed on the spot.''' Why should we use it in our private and public conversation--the ancients have given us an example of reverencing they had for the name of the deity by calling the priesthood not after God, but after Melchizedek. It must be held sacred, nor must it be the common practice from this time and hencefor. If we do not purify ourselves we shall be devoured by our enemies. Even if we are gathered into the wilderness He will there destroy them either by famine or by Indians, who will be brought upon us and thereby destroyed.{{ref|stoutdiary1}}

Notice that Brigham says "the ''penalty'' will be affixed and immediately be executed on the spot." Brigham does not state what the penalty is. He is not saying that the person who takes the Lord's name is vain will be "executed on the spot," although that is what the ''Tanners'' apparently hope to achieve with this quote.

It is interesting that the Tanner's had to dig into secondary sources to make their point. There are plenty of primary sources in which Brigham's own words on the subject of "taking the Lord's name in vain" were recorded:

:No gentleman takes the name of the Deity in vain. Some who do take his name in vain may be called gentleman, but it is a mistake, they are not gentlemen. A gentleman carries himself respectfully before the inhabitants of the earth at all times, in all places and under all circumstances, and his life is worthy of imitation. {{ref|JoD.17:118}}

===Not receiving the Gospel===
The Tanners use the following quote from Brigham Young to conclude that those who do not receive the gospel should be killed:

:The time is coming when justice will be laid to the line and righteousness to the plummet; when we shall ask, 'Are you for God?' and if you are not heartily on the Lord's side, you will be hewn down.{{ref|JoD.3:226}}

The critics would like us to believe that Brigham was literally talking about killing those who were opposed to the Gospel. The first thing to note is that the Tanner have removed a phrase from the quote without indicating it's absence. The actual quote says:

:The time is coming when justice will be laid to the line and righteousness to the plummet; when we shall '''take the old broad sword and''' ask, "Are you for God?" and if you are not heartily on the Lord's side, you will be hewn down. {{ea}}

One wonders why the critics felt they needed to remove the reference to "the old broad sword"—Perhaps it is because this phrase clearly indicated that Brigham was speaking figuratively rather than literally? Consider also, that just prior to the statement shown above, Brigham said:

:I would rather that this people should starve to death in the mountains, than to have the Lord Almighty hand us over to a cursed, infernal mob. I would rather go down to the grave in peace than to fight a mob, unless the Lord would give me enough Saints to fight and kill the poor devils; in such case I wish to live and fight them.{{ref|JoD.3:224}}

Brigham is clearly not advocating that anyone who does not receive the gospel should be put to death.

===Marrying an African?===

{{Main|Brigham Young on race mixing}}

===Lying===
The critics propose that lying is "worthy of death" based upon a statement made by Brigham Young. According to the Tanners:

:Brigham Young made this statement in 1846: "I ... warned those who lied and stole and followed Israel that they would have their heads cut off, for that was the law of God and it should be executed" ("Manuscript History of Brigham Young," December 20, 1846, typed copy; original in LDS church archives).

The quote in context:

:I instructed the Bishops to hold meetings where the Saints might assemble, confess their sins, pray with and for each other, humble themselves before the Lord and commence a reformation that all might exercise themselves in the principles of righteousness; and, if those who had received the Holy Priesthood did not abide their covenants and walk uprightly before the Lord and their brethren, that those who did would be taken away from their midst, and the wicked would be smitten with famine, pestilence and the sword, and would be scattered and perish on the prairies. I said I would prefer traveling over the mountains with the Twelve only than to be accompanied with the wicked and those who continued to commit iniquity; and '''warned those who lied and stole and followed Israel that they would have their heads cut off, for that was the law of God and it should be executed'''.

It is obvious that Brigham had strong words for "the wicked." Brigham Young himself once said on March 2, 1856:

:I will tell you what this people need, with regard to preaching; you need, figuratively, to have it rain pitchforks, tines downwards, from this pulpit, Sunday after Sunday. Instead of the smooth, beautiful, sweet, still, silk-velvet-lipped preaching, you should have sermons like peals of thunder, and perhaps we then can get the scales from our eyes. This style is necessary in order to save many of this people.{{ref|JoD.3:22}}

What is not obvious in this quote is what relationship this is supposed to have to "blood atonement." Brigham is ''not'' talking about apostates who willingly wish to sacrifice their lives to atone for their sins—He is talking about thieves and liars, and he is expressing his desire that harsh judgment be brought upon them. It is also important to note that, despite the harsh words and rhetoric, the historical evidence shows that people didn't get their throats cut for committing such crimes.

===Counterfeiting===
Again, a quote from Brigham Young is used to imply that the penalty for counterfeiting is "blood atonement."

:Brigham Young declared: "I swore by the Eternal Gods that if men in our midst would not stop this cursed work of stealing and counterfeiting their throats should be cut" ("Manuscript History of Brigham Young," February 24,1847, typed copy).

The quote in context:

:Wednesday, 24 -- I met with the brethren of the Twelve. We investigated several orders purporting to be drawn by J. Allen, Lieut. Col., signed by James Pollick; which I requested should be burned. I swore by the Eternal Gods that if men in our midst would not stop this cursed work of stealing and counterfeiting their throats should be cut.

As mentioned previously, there is no doubt that Brigham had harsh feelings toward those who committed crimes. And again, there is no historical evidence that any such punishment was ever applied to such perpetrators.

===Condemning Joseph Smith===
The critics really have to stretch on this one, since if everyone who condemned Joseph Smith were "worthy of death," there would have been few critics left! This was obviously not the case during the 19th century, and the only support that the critics can gather for such a far-fetched idea is a second-hand quote from Brigham Young and a single entry in Apostle Abraham H. Cannon's journal. Cannon's journal says:

:Bro. Joseph F. Smith was traveling some years ago near Carthage when he met a man who said he had just arrived five minutes too late to see the Smiths killed. Instantly a dark cloud seemed to overshadow Bro. Smith and he asked how this man looked upon the deed. Bro. S. was oppressed by a most horrible feeling as he waited for a reply. After a brief pause the man answered, "Just as I have always looked upon it—that it was a d—d cold-blooded murder." The cloud immediately lifted from Bro. Smith and he found that he had his open pocket knife grasped in his hand in his pocket, and he believes that had this man given his approval to that murder of the prophets he would have immediately struck him to the heart.{{ref|cannon1}}

The only other evidence offered by the critics is a second hand quote said to have come from Brigham Young. Norton Jacob claims that Brigham said:

:A man may live here with us and worship what God he pleases or none at all, but he must not blaspheme the God of Israel or damn old Jo Smith or his religion, for we will salt him down in the lake.{{ref|jacob1}}

The critics take the story about Joseph F. Smith's emotional reaction to hearing of the death of Joseph and Hyrum, along with an alleged quote from Brigham Young from a second hand source, and ridiculously expand this to mean that "blood atonement" requires death for ''anyone who condemns Joseph Smith''. The evidence for such an assertion by the critics is practically non-existent, and one must assume that they added this for the simple reason that they wanted to make the list of "crimes" that they relate to "blood atonement" more impressive.

=={{Endnotes label}}==
#{{note|HC.5:296}}{{HoC1 | vol=5|start=296}}
#{{note|McConkie.1958.314}}Bruce R. McConkie, ''Mormon Doctrine'', 1958, p.314.
#{{note|JFS.136}}Joseph Fielding Smith, ''Doctrines of Salvation'', vol. 1, p.136.
#{{note|utahhistory1}}[http://www.media.utah.edu/UHE/c/CAPITOLPUN.html CAPITAL PUNISHMENT IN UTAH], ''Utah History Encyclopedia''
#{{note|parker1}}Mike Parker, [http://www.fairlds.org/Misc/Did_Brigham_Young_Say_He_Would_Kill_an_Adulterous_Wife_with_a_Javelin.html Did Brigham Young Say that He Would Kill an Adulterous Wife with a Javelin?], FAIR Web Site
#{{note|JoD.1.108-109}} {{JDfairwiki|author=Brigham Young|vol=1|disc=19|start=108|end=109}}
#{{note|stoutdiary1}}[http://www.boap.org/LDS/Early-Saints/HStout.html Diary of Hosea Stout (1810 - 1899)]
#{{note|JoD.17:118}}{{JDfairwiki| author=Brigham Young|vol=17 |start=118|disc=18}}
#{{note|JoD.3:226}}{{JDfairwiki|author=Brigham Young|vol=3|disc=30|start=226}}
#{{note|JoD.3:226}}{{JDfairwiki|author=Brigham Young|vol=3|disc=30|start=224}}
#{{note|cannon1}}"Daily journal of Abraham H. Cannon," December 6, 1889, pp.205-6.
#{{note|jacob1}}Klaus J. Hansen, ''Quest for Empire—The Political Kingdom of God and the Council of Fifty in Mormon History'', (1967), p.127; Hansen in turn quotes Dale Morgan, ''The Great Salt Lake'' (New York 1947) p. 202.

[[Category:Mormon Reformation]]

[[fr:Utah/Crime and violence/Crimes critics allege to have been "worthy of death" in the 1800's]]

Book of Mormon/Plagiarism accusations/Westminster Confession

2012-08-20T00:16:46Z

DanaRepouille:

Spiritual manifestations at the dedication of the Kirtland temple

2012-08-20T00:14:59Z

DanaRepouille:

{{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}}
{{question}}

=={{Question label}}==
Were there really spiritual manifestations attending the dedication of the Kirtland temple? I have heard allegations that it was in fact a drunken orgy.

{{CriticalSources}}

=={{Conclusion label}}==

There is no contemporaneous evidence of drunkenness at the Kirtland temple dedication or associated events. There is extensive evidence from both leaders and lay members of a miraculous spiritual outpouring. An early apostate, John Corrill, minimized or dismissed accounts of drunkenness. Another apostate, Winchester, continued with the Church until Nauvoo, and only later reported the drunkenness about which he did nothing for five years. McLellin is the richest source for the charges of drunkenness, but an examination of his account makes it clear that he speaks of only one meeting in the temple, and the problem was at worst confined to a few members who unintentionally fell under the influence of wine on an empty stomach.

Subsequent anti-Mormon authors have often relied on Wyl or accepted such remarks uncritically, and have ignored a rich vein of contemporary source material attesting to the pentecost of Kirtland. While the critics are anxious to dismiss reports of spiritual manifestations by any means necessary, theories of mass drunkenness are simply not up to the task.

== ==
{{Response label}}

===The Kirtland "Pentecost"===
It is ironic that critics refer to the Kirtland Temple dedication as some form of "Pentecost" for the early Church, when, at the first pentecost, the Apostles were also accused of being drunken. "Others mocking said, These men are full of new wine." (See [http://scriptures.lds.org/en/acts/2/13-15#13-15 Acts 2:13-15])

:4 '''And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.'''
:5 And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven.
:6 Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language.
:7 And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans?
:8 And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?
:9 Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia,
:10 Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes,
:11 Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God.
:12 And they were all amazed, and were in doubt, saying one to another, What meaneth this?
:13 Others mocking said, '''These men are full of new wine.'''
:—{{b||Acts|2|4-13}} {{ea}}

In November 2002, an early account of the dedication of the Kirtland temple surfaced, confirming the spiritual outpouring. This account provides an excellent contemporary window into the event:

:Sunday evening after joseph spoke opened & told them the day of penticost was continued the the [sic] Brethren began to to prophesy many prophesied in the name of the Lord then began speaking in tongues and it filled as it were the whole house, perhaps there were forty speaking at once cloven tongues of fire was seen to sit on many of them an hand was seen laid upon one when he spake in tongues to the lamanites many Visions seen, one saw a pillow or cloud rest down upon the house bright as when the sun shines on a cloud like as gold, two others saw three personages hovering in the room with bright keys in their hands, and also a bright chain in their hands....{{ref|byus.1}}

Significantly, there is no contemporaneous record of drunken behavior associated with the dedication. A great deal ''was'' written about miraculous events, but the stories of drunkenness occur only later. One LDS historian noted:

:...Latter-day Saints, like so many other Christians of the 1830s, regarded intemperance as a serious transgression, and there is no evidence that any of the visions described by numerous witnesses followed the consumption of large amounts of wine. Contemporary testimonies of these events are so numerous that they cannot be dismissed with such an oversimplification. {{ref|backman.309}}

===First mention of "drunken behavior"===

John Corrill, an LDS dissenter, wrote a book in 1839 that described the Church's history and gave his reasons for leaving. Of the Kirtland dedication, Corrill wrote:

:At length the time arrive for this [solemn] assembly to meet, previous to which, Smith exhorted the elders to solemnize their minds by casting away every evil from them in thought, word, or deed, and let their hearts become sanctified, because they need not expect a blessing from God without being duly prepared for it; for the Holy Ghost would not dwell ini unholy temples....

:The sacrament was then administered, in which they partook of the bread and wine freely, and a report went abroad that some of them got drunk; as to that every man must answer for himself. A similar report, the reader will recollect, went out concerning the disciples, at Jerusalem, on the day of penticost. This was followed by a marvellous spirit of prophecy. Every man's mouth was full of prophecying, and for a number of days or weeks their time was spent in visitng from house to house, making feasts, prophecying, and pronouncing blessings on each other, to that degree, that from the external appearance, one would have supposed that the last days had truly come, in which the spirit of the Lord was poured out upon all flesh....{{ref|corrill.23}}

This account is significant because of what Corrill does not say. At this writing, Corrill was disenchanted with the Church, and had decided that Joseph Smith was a false prophet. Corrill acknowledges that some charged that the Saints were merely under the influence of wine; he notes that each person would have to respond for themselves, but does not seem to give this story much credence. Corrill even goes so far as to point out that the pentecost at Jerusalem had similar charges made—a strange claim to make if he wishes to claim that Church members were drunk. Corrill goes on to say that to all outward appearances, "the last days had truly come"—i.e., there was nothing about the conduct of the members in those days to suggest that they were not having revelations, prophecies, etc.

Corrill would have had motive for disparaging the Saints' claims to revelations. Indeed, he insisted that he did not believe the Church's revelations, but this was because of the difficulties which the Church encountered up to his departure. He no where blames wine for the Kirtland events.{{ref|corrill.48}}

===Wilhelm Wyl===

In 1886, Wilhelm Ritter von Wymetal, writing under the pen name Wilhelm Wyl, published a book of lurid anti-Mormon tales called ''Mormon Portraits''.

Wyl quoted former apostle William McLellin on the topic of the Kirtland dedication:

:The "Endowments" in the Kirtland temple were nothing but a big spree, so big, that the "apparitions of angels," etc., were not miraculous at all. I quote from a letter by Dr. McLellin, one of the first quorum of Mormon apostles :

::"About five hundred ministers entered that great temple about sunrise and remained fasting until next morning sunrise, except a little bread and wine in the evening. The Twelve were required to take large servers and set glasses of wine and lumps of bread, and go through the house and serve the brethren. I did my part of the serving. During the night a purse was made up and a wagon sent to Painesville and a barrel of wine procured, and ''then it was a time''. All the latter part of the night I took care of Samuel H. Smith [brother of the prophet] , perfectly unable to help himself. And I [309] had others removed from the house because they were ''unfit- to be in decent company''" {{io}}."{{ref|wyl.308.309}}

One must then ask—was McLellin in a position to know about such things at the Kirtland temple dedication, and what did he say or do about it prior to Wyl's citation in 1886?

===William McLellin===

McLellin was among the first apostles called in this dispensation, on 14 February 1835.{{ref|porter.314}} McLellin was present for the dedication, but was disappointed with it. He wrote, "We passed through it [the Kirtland endowment]; but I, in all candor say, we were most egregiosly mistaken or disappointed!"{{ref|mclellin.158}} McLellin went on to describe the reason for his disappointment:

:In a few days I said to Joseph: "I am disappointed! I supposed—yet, I believed that during the endowment, I should get knowledge but I have not."

:He said to me, "What do you want?"

:I said, "I want to ''know'' for ''myself'' {{io}}."{{ref|mclellin.158b}}

There is no mention here of those who claim to receive knowledge being drunk—we learn only that McLellin did not receive what he sought. This was a recurring theme of McLellin's—he often mentioned the endowment and the fact that it was a disappointment, or did not achieve was was anticipated. For example:

; Feb 1847: McLellin forms "Church of Christ" with Martin Harris and others. The new Church faults Joseph Smith for "Engineering the 'endowment' at the Kirtland Temple in March and April 1836, which failed to meet expectation because the Lord would not endow His spirit in those who had drifted so far from divine purpose."{{ref|petrel.19}}
;1870: "disappointed" because he did not know for himself.{{ref|mclellin.158c}}
;December 1878: "I told him [Joseph] I wanted knowledge and power from God; that as an Apostle I might go forth to the nationis of the earth, and preach to them in their own ''lip'' the pure gospel of the Lord."{{ref|mclellin.1878}}
;1880: "''I don't believe,'' in the attempted endowment in the Temple in Kirtland in 1836. It was an entire failure."{{ref|mclellin.1880}}
;1880: "I do not believe in the authority that dedicated Zion or the Temple in Kirtland. There was no power from God shown forth in those pretended dedications; as was seen and known when Solomon's Temple was dedicated in Jerusalem. If ceremony and nothing but form was seen in Joseph's dedications then we are prepared to say they were not of God; but only manism and nothing more.{{ref|mclellin.1880b}}

===McLellin and drink===
There are, however, several instances in which McLellin mentioned drinking in association with the temple:

; April 1854: "Orson, you cannot have forgotten the scenes of drunkenness during the pretended enduement [sic] in Kirtland in 1836. I shall never forget them, nor the hundreds of false prophecies delivered in the Temple on that occasion.{{ref|mclellin.436}}
; October 1871: "As to the endowment in Kirtland, I state positively, it was no endowment from God. Not only myself was not endowed but no other man of the five hundred who was present—except it was with wine!{{ref|mclellin.1871}}
; July 1872: "In 1836 when they undertook to get an endowment in the Kirtland Temple. All washed and with oil anointed themselves, and appeared in the Temple at sunrise...and about five hundred ministers took their places, and solem[n]ly prayed. We remained there fasting until sunrise next morning. We however partook of some bread and wine in the evening. And some partook so freely, on their empty stomachs, that they became '''drunk!''' I took care of S[amuel] H. Smith in one of the stands so deeply intoxicated that he could not nor did sense anything. I kept him hid from the crowd in the stand, but he vomited the spit-box five times full, and his dear brother [Don] Carlos would empty it out of the window.{{ref|mclellin.1872}}
; August 1872: "In 1836 when they undertook to get an endowment in the Temple. All washed, and with oil anointed themselves, and appeared in the Temple at sun rise, then all their feet were washed, and about five hundred ''ministers'' dedicated themselves by solemn prayr [sic]. We remained there fasting until sun rise next morning. We however partook of some bread and wine in the evening. And some partook so freely, on their empty stomachs, that they became '''drunk!''' I took care of S[amuel] H. Smith, in one of the stands, so deeply intoxicated that he could not nor did not sense any thing. I kept him hid from the company but he vomited the spit-box full five times, and his dear brother [Don] Carlos would empty it out at the window. But I would prefer to draw a curtain over the awful drunken scene! Others imbibed to[o] much also. But let the curtain fall!!...But no ''power'' in Jos. Smith's dedication...If it was not transgression, what was the cause of so much disappointment?{{ref|mclellin.498}}
; December 1878: "On the 6th of April, 1836, the ministerial authorities, about five hundred in number, entered that house at sunrise, and remained fasting until next morning, sun-rise, in order to receive an ''endowment'', but utterly failed in their endeavor! It was more an endowment with ''wine'' than power from God.{{ref|wine.god}}
; January 1879: ''Quotation as cited by Wyl [[Reports_of_Drunken_Behavior_at_the_Kirtland_Temple_Dedication#Wilhelm_Wyl|above]].''{{ref|wyl.source.1}}
; Circa 1880: "The endowment was sought for in Kirtland, O. on April 6th 1836, but was not received, and was an entire failure....[the members] assembled at sunrise, and remained fasting until the next morning sunrise. Then about five hundred ministers began to wend their way home from than noble building, many of them disappointed and dispirited. The scene through which they had passed was one long to be remembered. No display of power from God was given. Al the power given was the power of man....They had a little bread, sent in by the sisters in the evening, The Twelve as servants carried round to them on servers a little bread and wine, and some of them partook of the wine so freely so as to become badly intoxicated!{{ref|mclellin.1880c}}
; Circa 1880: "The morning arrived and some five hundred ministers assembled in the Temple at sunrise....We remained until sunrise next morning fasting, excepting a little bread and wine furnished us in the evening. Some partook of the wine so freely on an empty stomach, that they actually became drunken! And a scene ensued that would be hard to describe. One thing I state candidly, I saw no one man in that assembly that was endowed with super-human power–no not one. This wonderful enduement [sic] then was only a farce—a very great failure.{{ref|mclellin.1880d}}

===Points gleaned from McLellin===

Thus, McLellin describes an event on the 6 April. We learn the following things:

* the men involved had been fasting all day, and so the wine brought them to break their fast had a more dramatic effect than intended. Even in McLellin's account, the drunkenness is not intentional.
* "a little bread and wine" is provided—this is clearly not intended to be a time of excess, gorging, or over-indulgence.
* "some" partook too "freely on an empty stomach."
* the food and drink was provided by the women of the Church—unlikely candidates for trying to get the religious community drunk. In one account (the one cited by Wyl) McLellin says only bread was sent up, and then a "purse" collected to send for wine from a neighboring town. This is a strange deviation from the story told everywhere else—it seems calculated to make it seem as if the wine was sent for with the intent of getting drunk. It seems more likely that wine was procured for breaking the fast, and that McLellin told the story in this way to produce the worst impression possible. It is small wonder that Wyl chose to cite this version, likely for the same reasons.
* The Twelve—including McLellin himself—helped distribute the food and wine—so, if the intention was to get everyone drunk to induce visions, McLellin participated. Yet, he was clearly horrified by those who were affected.
* McLellin names only one person specifically as being drunk: Samuel Smith. This presumably means that other more prominent members (e.g., Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery) who reported visions that day were ''not'' inebriated, or McLellin would have named them, the better to shock his audience and prove the falsity of the Church's claims.
* Samuel Smith is said to have been so affected that "he could not nor did sense anything." If this is so, then Samuel cannot have simultaneously been under the delusion that he was seeing celestial visions. While his state might be regrettable, it cannot explain the visions which others reported.
* McLellin says that he tried to "hide" Samuel from the crowd—this suggests that the majority of those there were perfectly capable of noticing that Samuel was drunk. It also suggests that Samuel was an exception, rather than the rule—if all (or most) of the crowd is drunk, why would anyone notice Samuel's illness, and why would any of them care?
* McLellin's August 1872 account says that Samuel was drunk, and then notes almost as an afterthought that "Others imbibed to[o] much too." Samuel seems the most dramatic case, and something of an exception—one wonders if the necessity of preventing Samuel's condition from making a scene and disturbing the worship service soured the experience for McLellin, leading him later to ascribe an air of drunkenness to the whole group, which is clearly unwarranted.
* McLellin's Jan 1879 account says that he had others removed from the temple because of the problem—but, this would again seem to imply that the majority were not misbehaving, were not drunk, and were not rowdy or out of control.

In short, at most McLellin tells us that a few members were unintentionally made drunk after fasting and taking wine on an empty stomach. McLellin's account dovetails well with John Corrill's—Corrill had responded to the charge of drunkenness by saying that every man needed to answer for himself, but downplayed the idea that the Saints' behavior at Kirtland could in general be explained by drunkenness. Thus, some may have been influenced by the wine, but they would have been the exception, rather than the rule.

And, McLellin's tellings often omitted the wine altogether, and focused on the "failure" of the endowment, demonstrating that the wine was probably not his biggest concern, or the scandal which he sometimes made it out to be. McLellin goes on to insist that no one reported or experienced anything—but the record clearly contradicts him. McLellin makes his own failure to experience anything into a universal experience, when it clearly was not.

We note too that April 6th was well ''after'' the dedication of the temple; a great many visions and experiences had been reported, which predate McLellin's account of the wine. McLellin was present at these events, and says nothing of them—the April 6 meeting seems to be the only anomaly, and then only for a relatively few participants.

Of McLellin's remarks, historian D. Michael Quinn noted that:

:he [McLellin] was among those responsible for having served too much wine to the fasting men, something which undoubtedly embarrassed him in retrospect....

:McLellin admonished Mormon antagonist James T. Cobb as follows: 'I know a man can sit down and find crookedness in almost any thing by prying closely into it.' It was wise advise and unusually temperate. That said, [McLellin's] treatment of the drunkenness in the temple would fall into the same category of hyper-criticism.

:Of course, he wanted to emphasize the more substantive issue of truthfulness or falsehood in later claims about heavenly manifestations in the temple. On this score, it is interesting that he conflated several solemn assemblies and successive days of temple dedication into one incident, leaving the reader to wonder whether he was implying that the drunkenness was representative or anomalous....{{ref|quinn.73.74}}

Quinn discusses the many contemporaneous reports of visions and miracles from leaders and lay members of the Church, and then writes:

:One may legitimately disobelieve these testimonials or dismiss them as delusional, but McLellin denied that such claims even existed....Since even the rank-and-file made contemporary notations about spiritual events in the temple at this time, it is difficult to believe that Apostle McLellin was unaware of these reports from January through the spring of 1836 [we again recall that McLellin only speaks of April 6 — ed.]. It would have been more accurate (and charitable) for McLellin to say that he saw no otherworldly manifestations himself, even though others made such claims.{{ref|quinn.74.75}}

===Other accounts===

====Benjamin F. Winchester====
Another account comes from Benjamin F. Winchester, who was a friend of Joseph Smith’s, an LDS leader in the early 1840s. In 1889, he wrote that the Kirtland temple dedication “ended in a drunken frolic.”{{ref|winchester.1889}} Winchester left the Church during the Nauvoo era in the 1840s, but the temple dedication occurred in March of 1836. Winchester had thus remained a member even ''after'' the supposed events in Kirtland that he later condemned. Why? Why didn’t he leave earlier if he knew that such things were serving as the surrogate for spirituality five years earlier?

====John L. Traughber====

Traughber, a member of the RLDS Church, carried on a correspondence with McLellin, and would later acquire the McLellin collection with the intention of writing a book about Mormonism. Despite creating a manuscript of over three hundred pages, he never successfully completed his book.{{ref|traughber.1}}

In May 1884, Traughber cited some of McLellin's material, and then claimed that in April 1881 he visited McLellin:

:I talked with Dr. McLellan and his wife about the endowment at the Kirtland temple, 1836. They stated that before Samuel H. Smith became dead drunk, he staggered up on the stand of the First Presidency and delivered a prophecy. Mrs. McLellan remarked that the Latter Day Saints seemed to think that it was all right for Samuel to be drunk, and spoke of it as almost a miracle that he could deliver a prophecy when he was so drunk he could hardly stand.{{ref|traughber.518}}

This version seems an exaggeration or fabrication. McLellin's numerous accounts never mention Samuel giving a prophecy or speech. Furthermore, McLellin twice indicated that he tried to keep Samuel's condition a secret from the rest of the congregation—hardly necessary or possible if Samuel had been seen to be "so drunk he could hardly stand," and if the Saints had regarded this as "all right" and "a miracle." If this was so, why was McLellin trying to keep Samuel's state a secret? Why did McLellin expel others who had taken too much wine on an empty stomach? Why did he never tell this even more damning version of events in his multiple accounts?

The story is dubious, and the fault of fabrication likely lies with either Mrs. McLellin, or with Traughber himself.

===The story spreads===

In 1890, the Reverend Theodore Schroeder went to Salt Lake City, and stayed for ten years digging through libraries and collections for ammunition with which to attack the Church. He returned to Wisconsin in 1900 and donated all his books and papers to the Wisconsin State Historical Society Library, in Madison, Wisconsin. He also wrote several anti-Mormon articles for publication, and used Wyl's material frequently. In 1901, Traughber offered to sell the McLellin collection to Schroeder, but the latter declined.



=={{Endnotes label}}==
#{{note|byus.1}} {{BYUS1|author=Steven C. Harper|vol=42|num=2|date=2003|article=Pentecost Continued: A Contemporaneous Account of the Kirtland Temple Dedication|start=4–}}
#{{note|backman.309}} {{HeavensResound1| start=309}}
#{{note|corrill.23}} John Corrill, ''A Brief History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, (Commonly Called Mormons;) Including an account of their doctrines and discipline; with the reasons of the author for leaving the church'' (Published for the author, St. Louis, Mo., 1839), 23. Photomechanical reprint available [http://books.google.ca/books?id=00mQAAAAMAAJ&dq=%22A+Brief+History+of+the+Church%22+%22john+corrill%22&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=Hu_rrxEniL&sig=Bm7wBAFgYUan87KKuQZZPt9vxWc&hl=en&ei=N74pSpz_KJ2ctgPGlv3pCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1 online].
#{{note|corrill.48}} Corrill, 48, gives as his reasons for leaving that "I can see nothing that convinces me that God has been our leader; calculation after calculation has failed, and plan after plan has been overthrown, and our Prophet seemed not to know the event till too late....But where now may you look for deliverance? You may say, in God; but I say, in the exercise of common sense and that sound reason with which God has endowed you; and my advice is to follow that, in preference to those pretended visions and revelations which have served no better purpose than to increase your trouble...."
#{{note|wyl.308.309}} {{CriticalWork:Wyl:Mormon Portraits Volume First|pages=308–309}}
#{{note|porter.314}} Larry C. Porter, "The Odyssey of William Earl McLellin: Man of Diversity, 1806–86," in {{McLellinJournal1 |start=314}}
#{{note|mclellin.158}} William E. McLellin in ''Saints' Herald'' 17 (15 September 1870): 554; cited in Porter, "Man of Diversity," 320.
#{{note|mclellin.158b}} McLellin, ''Saints Herald'' (15 September 1870): 554.
#{{note|petrel.19}} Richard P. Howard, "Mormonism's Stormy Petrel," in {{McLellinPapers1|start=19}} Also available in {{DifferingVisions1|author=Richard P. Howard|article=William E. McLellin: 'Mormonism's Stormy Petrel'|start=76–97}}
#{{note|mclellin.158c}}McLellin, ''Saints Herald'' (15 September 1870): 554.
#{{note|mclellin.1878}} McLellin to John L. Traughber, 14 December 1878, in {{McLellinPapers1|start=512}}
#{{note|mclellin.1880}} McLellin, "Reasons Why I am Not A ''Mormon'', ca. 1880 {{io}}; cited in {{McLellinPapers1|start=383}}
#{{note|mclellin.1880b}} McLellin, "Reasons Why I am Not A ''Mormon'', ca. 1880 {{io}}; cited in ''McLellin Papers'', 390.

#{{note|mclellin.436}} McLellin to Orson Pratt, 29 April 1854, p. 2; cited in ''McLellin Papers'', 436.
#{{note|mclellin.1871}} McLellin to Mark H. Forscutt, 1 October 1871; cited in ''McLellin Papers'', 476.
#{{note|mclellin.1872}} McLellin to Joseph Smith III, July 1872; cited in ''McLellin Papers'', 493–494.
#{{note|mclellin.498}} McLellin to Dear Mary, 3- August 1872; cited in ''McLellin Papers'', 498.
#{{note|wine.god}} McLellin to John L. Traughber, 14 December 1878, in ''McLellin Papers'', 512.
#{{note|wyl.source.1}} McLellin to John L. Traughber, 5 January 1879, in ''McLellin Papers'', 517. See previous section for Wyl's citation.
#{{note|mclellin.1880c}} McLellin, "Reasons Why I am Not A ''Mormon'', ca. 1880 {{io}}; cited in ''McLellin Papers'', 396.
#{{note|mclellin.1880d}} McLellin, "Reasons Why I am Not A ''Mormon'', ca. 1880; cited in ''McLellin Papers'', 421-422.
#{{note|quinn.73.74}} D. Michael Quinn, "'My Eyes Were Holden in Those Days': A Study of Selective Memory," in ''McLellin Papers'', 73–74.
#{{note|quinn.74.75}} D. Michael Quinn, "'My Eyes Were Holden in Those Days': A Study of Selective Memory," in ''McLellin Papers'', 74–75.
#{{note|winchester.1889}} Benjamin Winchester, "Primitive Mormonism," ''Salt Lake Tribune'' (22 September 1889): 2.
#{{note|traughber.1}} See "The John L. Traughber Papers," Marriot Library, Special Collections, University of Utah (accessed 5 June 2009) {{link|url=http://db3-sql.staff.library.utah.edu/lucene/Manuscripts/null/Ms0666.xml/complete}}
#{{note|traughber.518}} Traughber cited in ''McLellin Papers'', 518 note.

[[fr:Temples/Reports of Drunken Behavior at the Kirtland Temple Dedication]]

Mormonism and Christianity/Grace and works/Unforgivable sin

2012-08-20T00:13:36Z

DanaRepouille:

{{Articles FAIR copyright}} {{Articles Header 1}} {{Articles Header 2}} {{Articles Header 3}} {{Articles Header 4}} {{Articles Header 5}} {{Articles Header 6}} {{Articles Header 7}} {{Articles Header 8}} {{Articles Header 9}} {{Articles Header 10}}
=={{Criticism label}}==
Why did LDS apostle Bruce McConkie write that a man may commit a sin so grievous that it will place him beyond the atoning blood of Christ (''Mormon Doctrine'', 1979, p. 93) when the Bible says that the blood of Christ cleanses us from all sin ({{b|1|John|1|7}})?

{{CriticalSources}}

=={{Conclusion label}}==

"Mormon Doctrine" is not an [[Fallibility_of_prophets#Standard_of_doctrine_in_the_Church|official publication]] of the LDS Church.

In this particular case, however, Elder McConkie is in good company since Jesus taught that there was an unforgivable sin:

:31 Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.
: 32 And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, '''it shall not be forgiven him''', neither in this world, neither in the world to come. ({{b||Matthew|12|31–32}}, emphasis added)

Thus, it seems that 1 John is best interpreted as meaning that any forgivable sin is cleansed through—and only through—the blood of Christ. Latter-day Saints understand the "blasphemy against the Holy Ghost" to be rejecting the atonement of Christ when one has a perfect knowledge of it.

John later qualifies his statement making clear there is a sin that is unforgivable.

:If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it [http://scriptures.lds.org/en/1_jn/5/16#16 1 John 5:1].

The counsel here is to pray for those who sin unless they have committed the "sin unto death" which cannot be forgiven. Obviously, if one rejects the atonement of Christ, one cannot be saved by it, and so one will not be forgiven for that sin.

{{SeeAlso|Blood_of_the_Prophets:_Brigham_Young_and_the_Massacre_at_Mountain_Meadows/Use_of_sources/Unpardonable_sin|l1=Unpardonable sin in anti-Mormon polemic}}

{{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:Grace and works/Unforgivable sin]]

Mormonism and scripture interpretation/First Corinthians 15 and spirit bodies

2012-08-20T00:12:10Z

DanaRepouille:

Mormon ordinances/Marriage/Eternal marriage

2012-08-20T00:10:30Z

DanaRepouille:

{{Articles FAIR copyright}} {{Articles Header 1}} {{Articles Header 2}} {{Articles Header 3}} {{Articles Header 4}} {{Articles Header 5}} {{Articles Header 6}} {{Articles Header 7}} {{Articles Header 8}} {{Articles Header 9}} {{Articles Header 10}}
=={{Criticism label}}==
Critics attack the LDS view of marriage as essential on the following grounds:

# If marriage is essential to achieve exaltation, why did Paul say that it is good for a man not to marry? ({{b|1|Corinthians|7|1}})
# Why does the Mormon Church teach that we can be married in heaven when Jesus said in {{b||Matthew|22|30}} that there is no marriage in the resurrection?
# Since not all members of the Church are married, doesn't this mean there will be many otherwise good Mormons who will not be exalted?
{{CriticalSources}}

=={{Conclusion label}}==

There is no Biblical obstacle to the doctrine of eternal marriage.

# Some of Paul's statements addressed specific situations (e.g., missionaries wishing to leave their labors to be married), and some refuted false ideas in the Christian churches about avoiding marriage. There is textual evidence for the importance of marriage in the early Church, and evidence from early Fathers and the Bible that Paul was, in fact, married.
# It will be too late for weddings after the resurrection, but the state of marriage itself can exist eternally, if entered into via the Lord's way. This is supported by the details of the situation described in Matthew, and the original Greek.

Latter-day Saints do not draw their doctrine from a reading of the Bible—as in all things, they are primarily guided by modern revelation. That same revelation assures them that no worthy person who was unable to marry will be denied any blessing in the hereafter.

=={{Subarticles label}}==
{{SummaryItem
|link= Mormon_ordinances/Marriage/As_a_requirement_for_exaltation#Jesus_and_.22neither_marry_nor_given_in_marriage.22
|subject="Neither marry nor are given in marriage"
|summary=
}}
{{SummaryItem
|link= Mormon_ordinances/Marriage/As_a_requirement_for_exaltation#Paul_and_.22good_not_to_marry.22
|subject=Paul: it is good "not to marry"?
|summary=
}}
{{SummaryItem
|link= Mormon_ordinances/Marriage/As_a_requirement_for_exaltation#What_of_members_who_are_not_married.3F
|subject=Unmarried Latter-day Saints and others
|summary=
}}

== ==
{{Response label}}

In brief, the critics misstate the Biblical evidence.

#Paul does not say it is good not to marry. Paul was probably married himself. But, married or not, his advice to the Corinthians — that the unmarried remain unmarried and that the married be as if they were not married — is a response to a particular situation, probably regarding missionary work.
#Jesus' response to the Pharisees in Matt 22 says nothing about the marital status of the righteous in heaven. It responds to a particular question about an actual case that the Sadducees were using to try to trick the Savior.

The critics also misunderstand or misrepresent LDS doctrine on the necessity of marriage for salvation. Each of these points is discussed below.

{{main|../Jews and early Christians on marriage after death|l1=Jews and early Christians on marriage after death}}

==Paul and "good not to marry"==

The basis for the suggestion that Paul counseled against marriage and sexual relations is found in {{b|1|Corinthians|7|1-2}}:

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

There are several things that should be understood if one is to correctly interpret this passage and, indeed, the entire seventh chapter of Paul's letter to the Corinthians. These are:

:# The statement, "it is good for a man not to touch a woman" was probably not Paul's.
:# Paul may well have been married himself, but traveling in the ministry without his wife.
:# Paul taught the importance of marriage in many places.
:# The reason for Paul's advice to the unmarried was for an unusual and a temporary situation.
:# Paul is careful to point out that this advice to remain single for the time being is not God's commandment, but was only his personal (though very wise) opinion.
:# Paul is clear that marriage, not celibacy, is a requirement for church leadership.

{{Detail|Marriage/As_a_requirement_for_exaltation/Paul_said_it_is_good_not_to_marry|l1=Further discussion of Corinthians 7}}

==Jesus and "neither marry nor given in marriage"==

{{b||Matthew|22|23-30}} (or its counterparts, {{b||Mark|12|18-25}} and {{b||Luke|20|27-36}}) is often used by critics to argue against the LDS doctrine of eternal marriage. The Sadducees, who didn't believe in the resurrection, asked the Savior about a case where one woman successively married seven brothers, each of which died leaving her to the next. They then tried to trip up Jesus by asking him whose wife she will be in the resurrection. Jesus' answer is almost identical in all three scriptural versions.

:Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven. ({{b||Matthew|22|29-30}})

This scripture is one of the most misunderstood scriptures in the Bible. If one is to understand it properly, one must take into account the following:

:# The question that the Sadducees asked was not a hypothetical one but was based on a real case of a woman who married seven brothers in succession, and that Jesus is commenting on this particular case.
:# The original Greek of this passage makes it clear that Jesus intended no statement concerning the marital status of the righteous in heaven.
:# The eternal unmarried state <i>is</i> the state of the angels in heaven, but it is <i>not</i> that of the heirs of salvation.

{{Detail|Marriage/As_a_requirement_for_exaltation/Jesus_said_%22neither_marry_nor_given_in_marriage%22|l1=Further discussion of Matthew 22:23-30}}

==What of members who are not married?==

In discussing the nature of marriage for time and eternity, McKeever and Johnson ask the following:

:Although continued good works are essential, Mormonism teaches that a person must be married in the temple to have a chance at exaltation. But what happens if a person does not get married, for whatever reason, and dies single? {{ref|fn32}}

In his article in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism, James T. Duke explains the LDS doctrine on this subject:

:People who live a worthy life but do not marry in the temples, for various reasons beyond their control, which might include not marrying, not having heard the gospel, or not having a temple available so that the marriage could be sealed for eternity, will at some time be given this opportunity. Latter-day Saints believe it is their privilege and duty to perform these sacred ordinances vicariously for deceased progenitors, and for others insofar as possible.{{ref|fn33}}

This is not a new teaching. In 1957 Joseph Fielding Smith said to the single sisters of the Church:

:You good sisters, who are single and alone, do not fear that blessings are going to be withheld from you. You are not under any obligation or necessity of accepting some proposal that comes to you which is distasteful for fear you will come under condemnation. If in your hearts you feel the gospel is true and would under proper conditions receive these ordinances and sealing blessings in the temple of the Lord, and that is your faith and your hope and your desire, and that does not come to you now, the Lord will make it up, and you shall be blessed, for no blessing shall be withheld.{{ref|fn34}}

Likewise Harold B. Lee counseled the single women of the Church:

:You young women advancing in years who have not yet accepted a proposal of marriage, if you make yourselves worthy and ready to go to the House of the Lord and have faith in this sacred principle, even though the privilege of marriage dies not come to you now, the Lord will reward you in due time and no blessing will be denied you. You are not under obligation to accept a proposal from some one unworthy of you for fear you will fail of your blessings.{{ref|fn35}}

Bruce R. McConkie also taught this principle when he wrote:

:I am perfectly aware that there are people who did not have the opportunity [of celestial marriage] but who would have lived the law had the opportunity been afforded. Those individuals will be judged in the providences and mercy of a gracious God according to the intents and desires of their hearts. That is the principle of salvation and exaltation for the dead.{{ref|fn36}}

While LDS doctrine states that Celestial marriage is necessary for exaltation with God, the doctrine also states that worthiness is more important than an ordinance, and that the worthy will be provided with all the opportunities necessary so that they do not lose their chance at any blessings. This is one of the great purposes of the LDS temple work for the dead.

=={{Endnotes label}}==
#{{note|albright1}} W.F. Albright and C.S. Mann, ''The Anchor Bible, vol. 26: Matthew'' (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1971), 273-274.
#{{note|fn32}} McKeever and Johnson, ''Mormonism 101'', 218-219
#{{note|fn33}} {{EoM1|author=James T. Duke|article=Marriage: Eternal Marriage|vol=2|start=859}}
#{{note|fn34}} Joseph Fielding Smith, ''Elijah the Prophet and His Mission'' (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1957), 51.
#{{note|fn35}} Harold B. Lee, ''Youth and the Church'' (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1955), 132.
#{{note|fn36}} Bruce R. McConkie, "Celestial Marriage," ''The New Era'' (June 1978): 17.

{{Articles Footer 1}} {{Articles Footer 2}} {{Articles Footer 3}} {{Articles Footer 4}} {{Articles Footer 5}} {{Articles Footer 6}} {{Articles Footer 7}} {{Articles Footer 8}} {{Articles Footer 9}} {{Articles Footer 10}}
[[de:Ehe notwendig für die Erhöhung]]
[[fr:Marriage/As a requirement for exaltation]]

Mormonism and priesthood/What does the Bible teach

2012-08-20T00:09:20Z

DanaRepouille:

{{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}}
{{EarlyChristianityPortal}}
=={{Criticism label}}==

What does the Bible teach about priesthood in the Church of Jesus Christ?

=={{Conclusion label}}==
There is much more about the priesthood that is contained in the scriptures. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints observes all the Biblical principles taught about priesthood, including:

# That the Priesthood is the authority for man to act in God's name.
# The priesthood is given directly from God, though Jesus Christ.
# That Christ was not the only one to have the higher priesthood.
# Christ ordained the 12 Apostles with the priesthood.
# The Apostles ordained others with the priesthood.
# The church is identified as having the priesthood.
# The priesthood is necessary to act in God's name.

== ==
{{Response label}}

''Note:'' for the claim that Jesus' priesthood is "non-transferrable," see: [[Priesthood non-transferable]].

===Jesus Christ establishes His Church===

When Christ was on the earth during His mortal ministry, He set up a specific organization (called the Church).

Does it make sense that if Jesus Christ organized a Church, that the true Church would have the same positions today? What are some of the offices or positions in the church Christ established?

:For they that have used the office of ''a deacon'' well purchase to themselves a good degree, and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus. ({{b|1|Timothy|3|13}}){{ea}}

:Is any sick among you? Let him call for ''the elders'' of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord:({{b||James|5|14}}){{ea}}

:''11 And he [Jesus Christ] gave some, apostles; (12) and some, prophets; ({{b||Ephesians|4|11}})

(12 Apostles collectively, and the one leading the church with his counselors -- Peter, James, and John)

:''and some, evangelists;'' [i.e., Patriarchs in the modern LDS Church] and some, pastors [i.e., Bishops, Stake Presidents in the modern Church] and teachers;

* ''12 For the perfecting ({{b||Ephesians|4|12}})

("Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect." {{b||Matthew|5|48}})

*''of the saints

(the members of the Church -- interesting that they are called Saints, just as we are called Latter-day Saints today.),

*''for the work of the ministry

(The administration and performing the ordinances of the Church),

*''for the edifying of the body of Christ: 13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith ({{b||Ephesians|4|13}})

(Even though all Christians claim to believe in Christ, and the Bible, there certainly is no unity of faith or doctrine, therefore these offices are still needed.)

*''and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:

(unto a perfect man—NOT some incomprehensible being as the creeds declare.)

*''14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine ({{b||Ephesians|4|14}})

(The creeds came by councils of men, not a singular pronouncement of revelation by a prophet of God, as all other scripturally based doctrines are. The creeds directly contradict scripture. The creeds are not declared to be scripture. The creeds have not been declared to have been given by revelation. The creeds came about by political power struggles. Hence, the creeds are a wind of doctrine.),

*''by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;'' ({{b||Ephesians|4|14}})

*''But speaking the truth in love, may grow up unto him in all things, which is the head, even Jesus Christ: '' ({{b||Ephesians|4|15}})

(Without prophets who are regularly receiving inspired direction from the Lord, the church will be led by men and not by Jesus Christ)

===Priesthood authority from God===

So how can we tell true teachers? First, they will have authority (priesthood) directly from God. Christ was given the priesthood authority from God the Father.

: For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son
to have life in himself; 27 And ''hath given him authority'' to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man. ({{b||John|5|26-27}}.)

The works that Christ performed were by this priesthood authority:

:And they were all amazed, insomuch that they questioned among themselves, saying, What thing is this? what new doctrine is this? for with authority commandeth he even the unclean spirits, and they do obey him. ({{b||Mark|1|27}})

Christ passed on this very same authority to His apostles.

:1 THEN he called his twelve disciples together, and ''gave them power and authority'' over all devils, and to cure diseases. 2 And he sent them to preach the kingdom of God, and to heal the sick. ({{b||Luke|9|1-2}}){{ea}}

This authority is necessary in order to preach the gospel.

:And he ''ordained twelve'', that they should be with him, and that he might send them forth to preach ({{b||Mark|3|14}}) {{ea}}

:Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ''ordained'' to be a witness with us of his resurrection. ({{b||Acts|1|22}}){{ea}}

:Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not;) a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity. ({{b|1|Timothy|2|7}})

The apostles ordained others with this authority:

For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ''ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee''...({{b||Titus|1|5}}) {{ea}}

:And when they had ''ordained them elders'' in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed.({{b||Acts|14|23}}){{ea}}

This authority was passed directly from God the Father, to Jesus Christ, to the Apostles, to the Elders, and to others. It was a priesthood which any worthy man could have, if called. It was also necessary for the establishment of the Church. Christ left this priesthood authority on he earth when He left, so that the Church could still function.

:For the Son of man is as a man taking a far journey, who left his house, and ''gave authority to his servants'', and to every man his work, and commanded the porter to watch.({{b||Mark|13|34}}) {{ea}}

In fact, the church would be known as the true church because of the priesthood, for so the church is described in scripture.

This priesthood authority is sacred and cannot be bought.

:18 And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles' hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money, 19 Saying, Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I lay hands, he
may receive the Holy Ghost. 20 But Peter said unto him, Thy money perish with thee, because thou
hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money.({{b||Acts|8|18-20}})

We cannot choose this priesthood authority for ourselves.

:Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.({{b||John|15|16}})

===How to obtain the priesthood===

As shown above, you can't buy it, you can't take it upon yourself, and you can't choose for yourself to have it. So how can we obtain the priesthood?

:And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron. ({{b||Hebrews|5|4}})

How was Aaron called? He was called by Moses—as God instructed Moses—in other words, Aaron did not decide to accept this for himself, but was called by Moses, who was instructed by the Lord, who has authority over him.

:13 And thou shalt put upon Aaron the holy garments, and anoint him, and sanctify him; that he may minister unto me in the priest's office. 14 And thou shalt bring his sons, and clothe them with coats: 15 And thou shalt anoint them, as thou didst anoint their father, that they may minister unto me in the priest's office: for their anointing shall surely be an everlasting priesthood throughout their generations. 16 Thus did Moses: according to all that the LORD commanded him, so did he. ({{b||Exodus|40|13-16}})

===From whence comes your authority?===

Finally, the question must be asked of anyone who claims to preach the gospel and proclaim its doctrines, where do you get your authority to speak and act in the name of God? Many people claim that they receive their authority from the Bible. However, that cannot be, for the Bible has no priesthood authority, it is a book and cannot perform any ordinance, it cannot choose you as it cannot make decisions, nor can it ordain you as it can not perform any actions. Seminaries and Universities have no priesthood authority, for their purpose is to grant educational degrees, whose requirements are developed and designed by men. Priesthood Authority comes only from God.

:LET every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.{{{b||Romans|13|1}})

{{Articles Footer 1}} {{Articles Footer 2}} {{Articles Footer 3}} {{Articles Footer 4}} {{Articles Footer 5}} {{Articles Footer 6}} {{Articles Footer 7}} {{Articles Footer 8}} {{Articles Footer 9}} {{Articles Footer 10}}
[[de:Biblische Lehren über das Priestertum]]
[[fr:Priesthood/What does the Bible teach]]

MormonFAQ/Terms

2012-08-20T00:06:27Z

DanaRepouille:

MormonFAQ/Myths and Questions

2012-08-20T00:05:07Z

DanaRepouille: