FAIR - User contributions [en]

The Book of Mormon and the fulness of the gospel

2006-11-28T23:18:41Z

DavidFerguson: Okay, I did something right, then wrong, and I've finally fixed it - this wiki thing is murder sometimes

==Criticism==
The Lord declared that he had given Joseph Smith "power from on high...to translate the Book of Mormon; which contains a record of a fallen people, and ''the fulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ'' to the Gentiles and to the Jews also" ([http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/20/8-9#8 D&C 20:8–9]).

Critics claim that the Book of Mormon cannot contain "the fulness of the gospel" because it doesn't teach certain unique LDS doctrines, such as baptism for the dead, the Word of Wisdom, and the corporeal nature of God the Father.

===Source(s) of the Criticism===
*John Ankerberg and John Weldon, ''Everything You Ever Wanted to Know about Mormonism'' (Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 1992), 292–294.
*Mark J. Cares, ''Speaking the Truth In Love to Mormons,'' (Milwaukee, Wisconsin : Northwestern Pub. House, 1993), 96, 212, 243–244.
*Walter Martin, ''The Maze of Mormonism'' (Santa Ana, California: Vision House, 1979).
*Latayne Colvett Scott, ''The Mormon Mirage : a former Mormon tells why she left the church'' (Grand Rapids : Zondervan Pub. House, 1979), 91.

==Response==

===What does the Book of Mormon contain?===
The Book of Mormon is correct in the doctrines and principles it teaches, but it does not claim to contain all truth. Its own self-described purpose is to "the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that JESUS is the CHRIST, the ETERNAL GOD, manifesting himself unto all nations" ([http://scriptures.lds.org/bm/ttlpg title page]), and that these teachings are "plain and precious" ([http://scriptures.lds.org/1_ne/13/35,40#35 1 Nephi 13:35, 40]; [http://scriptures.lds.org/1_ne/19/3#3 19:3]). For the most part, the Book of Mormon does not concern itself with the deeper mysteries of God.

The book itself admits that it does not contain all the doctrines the Lord wants us to know. The prophet Mormon explained that he only recorded "the lesser part of the things which [Jesus] taught the people," for the intent that "when [the Book of Mormon reader] shall have received this...if it shall so be that they shall believe these things then shall the greater things be made manifest unto them" ([http://scriptures.lds.org/3_ne/26/8-9#8 3 Nephi 26:8–9]; compare [http://scriptures.lds.org/alma/26/22#22 Alma 26:22]).

===What is the gospel?===
In the Book of Mormon, Jesus Christ gave a specific definition of "the gospel":

:Behold I have given unto you my gospel, and ''this is the gospel which I have given unto you''—that I came into the world to do the will of my Father, because my Father sent me.

:And my Father sent me that I might be lifted up upon the cross; and after that I had been lifted up upon the cross, that I might draw all men unto me, that as I have been lifted up by men even so should men be lifted up by the Father, to stand before me, to be judged of their works, whether they be good or whether they be evil—

:And for this cause have I been lifted up; therefore, according to the power of the Father I will draw all men unto me, that they may be judged according to their works.

:And it shall come to pass, that whoso repenteth and is baptized in my name shall be filled; and if he endureth to the end, behold, him will I hold guiltless before my Father at that day when I shall stand to judge the world.

:And he that endureth not unto the end, the same is he that is also hewn down and cast into the fire, from whence they can no more return, because of the justice of the Father.

:And this is the word which he hath given unto the children of men. And for this cause he fulfilleth the words which he hath given, and he lieth not, but fulfilleth all his words.

:And no unclean thing can enter into his kingdom; therefore nothing entereth into his rest save it be those who have washed their garments in my blood, because of their faith, and the repentance of all their sins, and their faithfulness unto the end.

:([http://scriptures.lds.org/3_ne/27/13-19#13 3 Nephi 27:13–19], italics added.)

In this passage, Jesus defines "the gospel" as:

#Christ came into the world to do the Father's will.
#The Father sent Christ to be crucified.
#Because of Christ's atonement, all men will be judged by him according to their works (as opposed to not receiving a judgment at all and being cast out of God's presence by default; [http://scriptures.lds.org/2_ne/9/8-9#8 2 Nephi 9:8–9]).
#Those who repent and are baptized shall be filled (with the Holy Ghost, see [http://scriptures.lds.org/en/3_ne/12/6#6 3 Nephi 12:6]), and
#if they continue in faith by enduring to the end they will be justified (declared "not guilty") by Christ before the Father, but
#if they don't endure they will be subject to the justice of God and cast out of his presence.
#The Father's words will all be fulfilled.
#Because no unclean thing can enter the Father's heavenly kingdom, only those who rely in faith on the atonement of Christ, repent, and are faithful to the end can be saved.

This is "the gospel." The Book of Mormon teaches these concepts with a plainness and clarity unequaled by any other book. It has therefore been declared by the Lord to contain "the fulness of the gospel."

One last point that critics fail to acknowledge is that Latter-day Saints also believe that the Bible contains a fulness of the gospel{{ref|Introduction}}. This gives further credence to the fact that the gospel—while used in this context—does not refer to every teaching of the LDS Church, but its message that the atonement comes through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

==Conclusion==

The primary message of the gospel, the "good news" of Jesus Christ, is that he has atoned for our sins and prepared a way for us to come back into the presence of the Father. This is the message of the Book of Mormon, and it contains it in its fulness.

==Endnotes==

# {{note|Introduction page}} [http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bm/introduction Book of Mormon Introduction page]

==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===
*[[Book of Mormon as the most correct book]]

===FAIR web site===
*{{tg|url=http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai278.html|topic=Fulness of the Gospel}}
*Michael Parker, "The Book of Mormon and the Fulness of the Gospel" {{fairlink|url=http://www.fairlds.org/apol/bom/bom11.html}}

===External links===
*{{Ensign1|author=Noel B. Reynolds|article=Does the scriptural term gospel have the same meaning for us today as it did for the early saints?|date=January 1975|start=22}}{{link|url=http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/1975.htm/ensign%20january%201975.htm/i%20have%20a%20question.htm}}
*{{Ensign1|author=Noel B. Reynolds|article=How to 'Come unto Christ'|date=September 1992|start=7|end=13}}{{link|url=http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/1992.htm/ensign%20september%201992%20.htm/how%20to%20come%20unto%20christ.htm}}
*{{Ensign1|author=Monte S. Nyman|article=Why is the Book of Mormon the 'most correct book,' and how does it contain the fulness of the gospel?|date=September 1976|start=87|}} {{link|url=http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/1976.htm/ensign%20september%201976.htm/i%20have%20a%20question.htm?fn=document-frameset.htm$f=templates$3.0#LPTOC3}}

===Printed material===
*{{BYUS|author=Noel B. Reynolds|article=The Gospel of Jesus Christ as Taught by the Nephite Prophets|vol=31|num=3|date=Summer 1991|start=31|end=50}}
*{{EoM|author=Noel B. Reynolds|article=Gospel of Jesus Christ|vol=2|start=556|end=60}}
*Noel B. Reynolds, "The Gospel As Taught by the Nephites" (Provo, Utah: FARMS, 1994).

The Book of Mormon and the fulness of the gospel

2006-11-28T23:15:43Z

DavidFerguson:

==Criticism==
The Lord declared that he had given Joseph Smith "power from on high...to translate the Book of Mormon; which contains a record of a fallen people, and ''the fulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ'' to the Gentiles and to the Jews also" ([http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/20/8-9#8 D&C 20:8–9]).

Critics claim that the Book of Mormon cannot contain "the fulness of the gospel" because it doesn't teach certain unique LDS doctrines, such as baptism for the dead, the Word of Wisdom, and the corporeal nature of God the Father.

===Source(s) of the Criticism===
*John Ankerberg and John Weldon, ''Everything You Ever Wanted to Know about Mormonism'' (Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 1992), 292–294.
*Mark J. Cares, ''Speaking the Truth In Love to Mormons,'' (Milwaukee, Wisconsin : Northwestern Pub. House, 1993), 96, 212, 243–244.
*Walter Martin, ''The Maze of Mormonism'' (Santa Ana, California: Vision House, 1979).
*Latayne Colvett Scott, ''The Mormon Mirage : a former Mormon tells why she left the church'' (Grand Rapids : Zondervan Pub. House, 1979), 91.

==Response==

===What does the Book of Mormon contain?===
The Book of Mormon is correct in the doctrines and principles it teaches, but it does not claim to contain all truth. Its own self-described purpose is to "the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that JESUS is the CHRIST, the ETERNAL GOD, manifesting himself unto all nations" ([http://scriptures.lds.org/bm/ttlpg title page]), and that these teachings are "plain and precious" ([http://scriptures.lds.org/1_ne/13/35,40#35 1 Nephi 13:35, 40]; [http://scriptures.lds.org/1_ne/19/3#3 19:3]). For the most part, the Book of Mormon does not concern itself with the deeper mysteries of God.

The book itself admits that it does not contain all the doctrines the Lord wants us to know. The prophet Mormon explained that he only recorded "the lesser part of the things which [Jesus] taught the people," for the intent that "when [the Book of Mormon reader] shall have received this...if it shall so be that they shall believe these things then shall the greater things be made manifest unto them" ([http://scriptures.lds.org/3_ne/26/8-9#8 3 Nephi 26:8–9]; compare [http://scriptures.lds.org/alma/26/22#22 Alma 26:22]).

===What is the gospel?===
In the Book of Mormon, Jesus Christ gave a specific definition of "the gospel":

:Behold I have given unto you my gospel, and ''this is the gospel which I have given unto you''—that I came into the world to do the will of my Father, because my Father sent me.

:And my Father sent me that I might be lifted up upon the cross; and after that I had been lifted up upon the cross, that I might draw all men unto me, that as I have been lifted up by men even so should men be lifted up by the Father, to stand before me, to be judged of their works, whether they be good or whether they be evil—

:And for this cause have I been lifted up; therefore, according to the power of the Father I will draw all men unto me, that they may be judged according to their works.

:And it shall come to pass, that whoso repenteth and is baptized in my name shall be filled; and if he endureth to the end, behold, him will I hold guiltless before my Father at that day when I shall stand to judge the world.

:And he that endureth not unto the end, the same is he that is also hewn down and cast into the fire, from whence they can no more return, because of the justice of the Father.

:And this is the word which he hath given unto the children of men. And for this cause he fulfilleth the words which he hath given, and he lieth not, but fulfilleth all his words.

:And no unclean thing can enter into his kingdom; therefore nothing entereth into his rest save it be those who have washed their garments in my blood, because of their faith, and the repentance of all their sins, and their faithfulness unto the end.

:([http://scriptures.lds.org/3_ne/27/13-19#13 3 Nephi 27:13–19], italics added.)

In this passage, Jesus defines "the gospel" as:

#Christ came into the world to do the Father's will.
#The Father sent Christ to be crucified.
#Because of Christ's atonement, all men will be judged by him according to their works (as opposed to not receiving a judgment at all and being cast out of God's presence by default; [http://scriptures.lds.org/2_ne/9/8-9#8 2 Nephi 9:8–9]).
#Those who repent and are baptized shall be filled (with the Holy Ghost, see [http://scriptures.lds.org/en/3_ne/12/6#6 3 Nephi 12:6]), and
#if they continue in faith by enduring to the end they will be justified (declared "not guilty") by Christ before the Father, but
#if they don't endure they will be subject to the justice of God and cast out of his presence.
#The Father's words will all be fulfilled.
#Because no unclean thing can enter the Father's heavenly kingdom, only those who rely in faith on the atonement of Christ, repent, and are faithful to the end can be saved.

This is "the gospel." The Book of Mormon teaches these concepts with a plainness and clarity unequaled by any other book. It has therefore been declared by the Lord to contain "the fulness of the gospel."

==Conclusion==

The primary message of the gospel, the "good news" of Jesus Christ, is that he has atoned for our sins and prepared a way for us to come back into the presence of the Father. This is the message of the Book of Mormon, and it contains it in its fulness.

==Endnotes==

# {{note|Introduction page}} [http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bm/introduction Book of Mormon Introduction page]

==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===
*[[Book of Mormon as the most correct book]]

===FAIR web site===
*{{tg|url=http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai278.html|topic=Fulness of the Gospel}}
*Michael Parker, "The Book of Mormon and the Fulness of the Gospel" {{fairlink|url=http://www.fairlds.org/apol/bom/bom11.html}}

===External links===
*{{Ensign1|author=Noel B. Reynolds|article=Does the scriptural term gospel have the same meaning for us today as it did for the early saints?|date=January 1975|start=22}}{{link|url=http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/1975.htm/ensign%20january%201975.htm/i%20have%20a%20question.htm}}
*{{Ensign1|author=Noel B. Reynolds|article=How to 'Come unto Christ'|date=September 1992|start=7|end=13}}{{link|url=http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/1992.htm/ensign%20september%201992%20.htm/how%20to%20come%20unto%20christ.htm}}
*{{Ensign1|author=Monte S. Nyman|article=Why is the Book of Mormon the 'most correct book,' and how does it contain the fulness of the gospel?|date=September 1976|start=87|}} {{link|url=http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/1976.htm/ensign%20september%201976.htm/i%20have%20a%20question.htm?fn=document-frameset.htm$f=templates$3.0#LPTOC3}}

===Printed material===
*{{BYUS|author=Noel B. Reynolds|article=The Gospel of Jesus Christ as Taught by the Nephite Prophets|vol=31|num=3|date=Summer 1991|start=31|end=50}}
*{{EoM|author=Noel B. Reynolds|article=Gospel of Jesus Christ|vol=2|start=556|end=60}}
*Noel B. Reynolds, "The Gospel As Taught by the Nephites" (Provo, Utah: FARMS, 1994).

The Book of Mormon and the fulness of the gospel

2006-11-28T23:15:38Z

DavidFerguson: /* What is the gospel? */

==Criticism==
The Lord declared that he had given Joseph Smith "power from on high...to translate the Book of Mormon; which contains a record of a fallen people, and ''the fulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ'' to the Gentiles and to the Jews also" ([http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/20/8-9#8 D&C 20:8–9]).

Critics claim that the Book of Mormon cannot contain "the fulness of the gospel" because it doesn't teach certain unique LDS doctrines, such as baptism for the dead, the Word of Wisdom, and the corporeal nature of God the Father.

===Source(s) of the Criticism===
*John Ankerberg and John Weldon, ''Everything You Ever Wanted to Know about Mormonism'' (Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 1992), 292–294.
*Mark J. Cares, ''Speaking the Truth In Love to Mormons,'' (Milwaukee, Wisconsin : Northwestern Pub. House, 1993), 96, 212, 243–244.
*Walter Martin, ''The Maze of Mormonism'' (Santa Ana, California: Vision House, 1979).
*Latayne Colvett Scott, ''The Mormon Mirage : a former Mormon tells why she left the church'' (Grand Rapids : Zondervan Pub. House, 1979), 91.

==Response==

===What does the Book of Mormon contain?===
The Book of Mormon is correct in the doctrines and principles it teaches, but it does not claim to contain all truth. Its own self-described purpose is to "the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that JESUS is the CHRIST, the ETERNAL GOD, manifesting himself unto all nations" ([http://scriptures.lds.org/bm/ttlpg title page]), and that these teachings are "plain and precious" ([http://scriptures.lds.org/1_ne/13/35,40#35 1 Nephi 13:35, 40]; [http://scriptures.lds.org/1_ne/19/3#3 19:3]). For the most part, the Book of Mormon does not concern itself with the deeper mysteries of God.

The book itself admits that it does not contain all the doctrines the Lord wants us to know. The prophet Mormon explained that he only recorded "the lesser part of the things which [Jesus] taught the people," for the intent that "when [the Book of Mormon reader] shall have received this...if it shall so be that they shall believe these things then shall the greater things be made manifest unto them" ([http://scriptures.lds.org/3_ne/26/8-9#8 3 Nephi 26:8–9]; compare [http://scriptures.lds.org/alma/26/22#22 Alma 26:22]).

===What is the gospel?===
In the Book of Mormon, Jesus Christ gave a specific definition of "the gospel":

:Behold I have given unto you my gospel, and ''this is the gospel which I have given unto you''—that I came into the world to do the will of my Father, because my Father sent me.

:And my Father sent me that I might be lifted up upon the cross; and after that I had been lifted up upon the cross, that I might draw all men unto me, that as I have been lifted up by men even so should men be lifted up by the Father, to stand before me, to be judged of their works, whether they be good or whether they be evil—

:And for this cause have I been lifted up; therefore, according to the power of the Father I will draw all men unto me, that they may be judged according to their works.

:And it shall come to pass, that whoso repenteth and is baptized in my name shall be filled; and if he endureth to the end, behold, him will I hold guiltless before my Father at that day when I shall stand to judge the world.

:And he that endureth not unto the end, the same is he that is also hewn down and cast into the fire, from whence they can no more return, because of the justice of the Father.

:And this is the word which he hath given unto the children of men. And for this cause he fulfilleth the words which he hath given, and he lieth not, but fulfilleth all his words.

:And no unclean thing can enter into his kingdom; therefore nothing entereth into his rest save it be those who have washed their garments in my blood, because of their faith, and the repentance of all their sins, and their faithfulness unto the end.

:([http://scriptures.lds.org/3_ne/27/13-19#13 3 Nephi 27:13–19], italics added.)

In this passage, Jesus defines "the gospel" as:

#Christ came into the world to do the Father's will.
#The Father sent Christ to be crucified.
#Because of Christ's atonement, all men will be judged by him according to their works (as opposed to not receiving a judgment at all and being cast out of God's presence by default; [http://scriptures.lds.org/2_ne/9/8-9#8 2 Nephi 9:8–9]).
#Those who repent and are baptized shall be filled (with the Holy Ghost, see [http://scriptures.lds.org/en/3_ne/12/6#6 3 Nephi 12:6]), and
#if they continue in faith by enduring to the end they will be justified (declared "not guilty") by Christ before the Father, but
#if they don't endure they will be subject to the justice of God and cast out of his presence.
#The Father's words will all be fulfilled.
#Because no unclean thing can enter the Father's heavenly kingdom, only those who rely in faith on the atonement of Christ, repent, and are faithful to the end can be saved.

This is "the gospel." The Book of Mormon teaches these concepts with a plainness and clarity unequaled by any other book. It has therefore been declared by the Lord to contain "the fulness of the gospel."

One last point that critics fail to acknowledge is that Latter-day Saints also believe that the Bible contains a fulness of the gospel{{ref|Introduction}}. This gives further credence to the fact that the gospel—while used in this context—does not refer to every teaching of the LDS Church, but its message that the atonement comes through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

==Conclusion==

The primary message of the gospel, the "good news" of Jesus Christ, is that he has atoned for our sins and prepared a way for us to come back into the presence of the Father. This is the message of the Book of Mormon, and it contains it in its fulness.

==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===
*[[Book of Mormon as the most correct book]]

===FAIR web site===
*{{tg|url=http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai278.html|topic=Fulness of the Gospel}}
*Michael Parker, "The Book of Mormon and the Fulness of the Gospel" {{fairlink|url=http://www.fairlds.org/apol/bom/bom11.html}}

===External links===
*{{Ensign1|author=Noel B. Reynolds|article=Does the scriptural term gospel have the same meaning for us today as it did for the early saints?|date=January 1975|start=22}}{{link|url=http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/1975.htm/ensign%20january%201975.htm/i%20have%20a%20question.htm}}
*{{Ensign1|author=Noel B. Reynolds|article=How to 'Come unto Christ'|date=September 1992|start=7|end=13}}{{link|url=http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/1992.htm/ensign%20september%201992%20.htm/how%20to%20come%20unto%20christ.htm}}
*{{Ensign1|author=Monte S. Nyman|article=Why is the Book of Mormon the 'most correct book,' and how does it contain the fulness of the gospel?|date=September 1976|start=87|}} {{link|url=http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/1976.htm/ensign%20september%201976.htm/i%20have%20a%20question.htm?fn=document-frameset.htm$f=templates$3.0#LPTOC3}}

===Printed material===
*{{BYUS|author=Noel B. Reynolds|article=The Gospel of Jesus Christ as Taught by the Nephite Prophets|vol=31|num=3|date=Summer 1991|start=31|end=50}}
*{{EoM|author=Noel B. Reynolds|article=Gospel of Jesus Christ|vol=2|start=556|end=60}}
*Noel B. Reynolds, "The Gospel As Taught by the Nephites" (Provo, Utah: FARMS, 1994).

Mormonism and Christianity/Grace and works/Salvation by faith alone

2006-09-23T19:32:50Z

DavidFerguson: minor edit, but I think I am pretty well done with this article - whew!

{{draft}}

==Criticism==
Evangelical Christians claim that salvation comes through "faith alone" (''sola fide'') and they accuse Latter-day Saints of holding to an un-Biblical belief of "works-based salvation."

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

==Response==

The incredible irony of this accusation is that there really shouldn't be any controversy. Because of differing jargon and built-in mistrust between Mormons and other Christians, both sects are generally confused as to exactly what the other sect believes.

===The evangelical position===

Contrary to what many Mormons believe, justification by faith alone does not mean that one can profess belief in Christ and then run amok with one's life. It is much more intricate than what its title suggests.

While each denomination varies slightly in how they define justification by faith, a common place to start is that good works stem from faith.{{ref|1}} In other words, if one has the appropriate amount or type of faith, then they will be driven by their love of Jesus Christ to keep His commandments and ordinances.{{ref|2}}

This position is well supported by scripture:

:If ye love me, keep my commandments ({{s||John|14|15}})

:Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works. ({{s||James|2|18}})

To an Evangelical Christian the word "works" has a negative connotation and is often associated with "works of the law" which Paul roundly condemns (see {{s||Galatians|2|16}}). In fact, many go so far as to prefer the word "deeds" over "works" because the former is nowhere mentioned in connection with the law.

===The mormon position===

Because Mormons consider works separate from faith, many Evangelicals assume that Mormons don't believe faith is important for salvation. The implication here is that the atonement is not necessary since a "righteous" enough person can make it to heaven without it.

This misconception does not take into account Latter-day Saint scripture which emphatically states this is not true.

:They are they who received the testimony of Jesus, and believed on his name and were baptized after the manner of his burial, being buried in the water in his name, and this according to the commandment which he has given— Wherefore, all things are theirs, whether life or death, or things present, or things to come, all are theirs and they are Christ’s, and Christ is God’s. ({{s||DC|76|51,59}}, note this is for inheritance into the Celestial Kingdom, but belief in Jesus is likewise essential for the Terrestrial Kingdom: {{s||DC|76|74}})

:But wo, wo unto him who knoweth that he rebelleth against God! For salvation cometh to none such except it be through repentance and faith on the Lord Jesus Christ.({{s||Mosiah|3|12}})

==Conclusion==

For members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, belief and faith in Jesus Christ is absolutely essential for salvation. Just like our Evangelical brethren we may say, "faith without works is dead," and inversely, "works without faith is likewise dead." These two principles are undeniably connected as means to salvation. The conflict for both groups arises from a misunderstanding.

Sadly, this misunderstanding demonstrates how very far Mormons and Evangelicals are to coming to understand each other and each other's beliefs.

==Endnotes==

#{{note|1}} It should be noted that a few evangelicals do not espouse this view. They believe in "free-grace" which does not even require repentance. This view, however, is not common in Evangelicalism. See William R. Baker, ed., ''Evangelicalism and the Stone-Campbell Movement'' (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2002). pp.76-77
#{{note|2}} An excellent summary is given here by one prominent, though not necessarily Evangelical denomination: Lutheran Church Missouri Synod, "Justification," http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=6477 (accessed 22 September 2006).



==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===
* Does the Church [[Neglect grace|neglect]] the doctrine of grace?
* Relationship between [[Works and grace|works and grace]]{{nw}}

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

===External links===
* Jeff Lindsay, "Salvation by Charity Alone?", ''mormanity.blogspot.com'', 21 September 2006.{{link|url=http://mormanity.blogspot.com/2006/09/salvation-by-charity-alone.html}}

===Printed material===

Mormonism and Christianity/Grace and works/Salvation by faith alone

2006-09-22T22:23:55Z

DavidFerguson: this is what it will look like basically, please edit freely, I'll go over it again tomorrow

{{draft}}

==Criticism==
Evangelical Christians claim that salvation comes through "faith alone" (''sola fide'') and they accuse Latter-day Saints of holding to an un-Biblical belief of "works-based salvation."

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

==Response==

The incredible irony of this accusation is that there really shouldn't be any controversy. Because of differing jargon and built-in mistrust between Mormons and other Christians, both sects are generally confused as to exactly what the other sect believes.

===The evangelical position===

Contrary to what many Mormons believe, justification by faith alone does not mean that one can profess belief in Christ and then run amok with one's life. It is much more intricate than what its title suggests.

While each denomination varies slightly in how they define justification by faith, a common place to start is that good works stem from faith.{{ref|1}} In other words, if one has the appropriate amount or type of faith, then they will be driven by their love of Jesus Christ to keep His commandments and ordinances.{{ref|2}}

This position is well supported by scripture:

:If ye love me, keep my commandments ({{s||John|14|15}})

:Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works. ({{s||James|2|18}})

To an Evangelical Christian the word "works" has a negative connotation and is often associated with "works of the law" which Paul roundly condemns (see {{s||Galatians|2|16}}). In fact, many go so far as to prefer the word "deeds" over "works" because the former is nowhere mentioned in connection with the law.

===The mormon position===

Because Mormons consider works separate from faith, many Evangelicals assume that Mormons don't believe faith is important for salvation. The implication here is that the atonement is not necessary since a "righteous" enough person can make it to heaven without it.

This misconception does not take into account Latter-day Saint scripture which emphatically states this is not true.

:They are they who received the testimony of Jesus, and believed on his name and were baptized after the manner of his burial, being buried in the water in his name, and this according to the commandment which he has given— Wherefore, all things are theirs, whether life or death, or things present, or things to come, all are theirs and they are Christ’s, and Christ is God’s. ({{s||DC|76|51,59}}, note this is for inheritance into the Celestial Kingdom, but belief in Jesus is likewise essential for the Terrestrial Kingdom: {{s||DC|76|74}})

:But wo, wo unto him who knoweth that he rebelleth against God! For salvation cometh to none such except it be through repentance and faith on the Lord Jesus Christ.({{s||Mosiah|3|12}})

==Conclusion==

For members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, belief and faith in Jesus Christ is absolutely essential for salvation. Just like our Evangelical brethren we may say that "faith without works is dead," and "works without faith is likewise dead." These two principles are undeniably connected as means to salvation. The conflict for both groups arises from a misunderstanding.

Sadly, this misunderstanding demonstrates how very far Mormons and Evangelicals are to coming to understand each other and each other's beliefs.

==Endnotes==

#{{note|1}} It should be noted that a few evangelicals do not espouse this view. They believe in "free-grace" which does not even require repentance. This view, however, is not common in Evangelicalism. See William R. Baker, ed., ''Evangelicalism and the Stone-Campbell Movement'' (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2002). pp.76-77
#{{note|2}} An excellent summary is given here by one prominent, though not necessarily Evangelical denomination: Lutheran Church Missouri Synod, "Justification," http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=6477 (accessed 22 September 2006).



==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===
* Does the Church [[Neglect grace|neglect]] the doctrine of grace?
* Relationship between [[Works and grace|works and grace]]{{nw}}

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

===External links===
* Jeff Lindsay, "Salvation by Charity Alone?", ''mormanity.blogspot.com'', 21 September 2006.{{link|url=http://mormanity.blogspot.com/2006/09/salvation-by-charity-alone.html}}

===Printed material===

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

2006-09-17T05:35:06Z

DavidFerguson:

==Criticism==
Critics argue that God would not allow His church to ever deny blessings or privileges based on race. They [[Quote_mining%2C_selective_quotation%2C_and_distortion | mine quotes]] made by Latter-day Saint leaders prior to 1978 to portray the church as racist in its doctrines. They also cite passages from LDS scripture that some have used in the past to provide a rationale for the priesthood restrictions. While some critics recognize that Latter-day Saints have become more enlightened, they question the revelatory process that brought about the policy shift. They portray it as a response to social pressure or government threats to remove the church's tax-free status.

==Response==
It is important to understand the history behind the priesthood ban to evaluate whether these criticisms have any merit and to contextualize the quotes with which LDS members are often confronted. While definitive answers as to why God allowed the ban to happen await further revelation, it is hoped the following observations and references will aid those troubled by this complex and sensitive issue. Please note, however, that FAIR does not endorse any specific theory on the doctrine or history surrounding this controversy. Ultimately we do not know, and we are left to have faith that God will one day give us the answers to the questions of our mortal existence.

====Permitted, not commanded====

The history behind the withholding the priesthood from individuals based on race is described well by Lester Bush in a 1971 article{{ref|bush1}} and a 1984 book.{{ref|bush2}} The restriction is perhaps better understood as a series of administrative policy decisions rather than a revealed doctrine. For example, early missionaries to the southern states were instructed not to ordain slaves because it was feared that this might encourage a slave revolt. Some free blacks were given the priesthood such as Elijah Abel, Walker Lewis, William McCary, and Abel's descendants. To justify the restrictions, the contemporary ideas and Biblical interpretations of pro-slavery Christians were borrowed and taught.{{ref|smith1}}

The priesthood ban became more comprehensive under Brigham Young's presidency. Later, George Q. Cannon and others concluded that the ban had a revelatory basis. LDS scriptures were used as proof-texts to support this position. B. H. Roberts speculated, based on the Book of Abraham, that the curse of Cain had continued through Ham's descendants and Joseph Fielding Smith opined that blacks may have been less valiant (but not neutral! {{ref|jfs1}}) in the pre-mortal conflict between God and Satan. Thus under this premise it can be said that God permitted the ban, but did not officially command it.

====Test for faithfulness====

Our entire mortal experience revolves around the concept of agency and how we can apply it to relationships with our God (whether to worship or not), our neighbors (whether to be charitable or not), and ourselves (whether to strive for perfection or not). God gives us commandments and permits hardship and temptation a mortal environment, which allow his children to demonstrate righteousness use of moral agency. Consider Job, who was "cursed" with immense hardship; Joseph, who Potiphar's wife tried to tempt; and Abraham, who was given the command to sacrifice his son Isaac.

The Priesthood ban can be seen as a trial in the fullest sense of the word: a hardship for black members, a temptation for racist white members, and a commandment to be obedient for all. This trial for modern Israel is clearly comparable with the trials given ancient Israel. We learn that the hardships, temptations, and commandments that they endured were given to them so they would learn:

:And thou shalt remember all the way which the Lord thy God led thee these forty years in the wilderness, to humble thee, and to prove thee, to know what was in thine heart, whether thou wouldest keep his commandments, or no. ({{s||Deuteronomy|8|2}})

It is important to note that the ancient Hebrews were likely no more monolithic in thought than than modern Church members. While the scriptural account only records the feelings of Israel ''en masse'', it seems certain that each Israelite had his/her own opinions and was just as human as we are. Some of them would have blamed the other Israelites' lack of faith. Others would have charged the prophets with error. In the end, God gave the faithful rest and prosperity in a better land.

It would be ironic if one day—as seems likely in the future—members of the Church will read about the priesthood ban given to "modern" Israel with the same feelings of dismissal that many current members have when they read of events which were great trials to ancient Israel. The lesson seems clear: we are no greater a people than the ancients and evidently need to be given trials so that God could know "what [is] in [our] heart."({{s||Deuteronomy|8|2}})

===Understanding pre-1978 statements===

Critics frequently parade statements and justifications of the ban by past General Authorities that are racist by today's standards. While these have not been officially renounced, there is no obligation for current members to accept such sentiments as the "word of the Lord." Bruce R. McConkie expressed it this way:

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

Elder Dallin H. Oaks pointed out that some leaders and members had ill-advisedly sought to provide ''reasons'' for the ban. The reasons they gave were not accurate:

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

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

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

===LDS scriptures revisited===

Some contend that even though the doctrinal impact of pre-1978 statements have been greatly diminished, the LDS scriptures still retain the passages which were used for proof-texts for the ban and hence cannot be easily dismissed—this even extends to a claim that the LDS scriptures are somehow "racist." A parallel can be drawn between Protestant denominations that have historically reversed their viewpoint on slavery and a modified LDS understanding of the priesthood ban. Through more careful scripture reading and attention to scientific studies, many Protestants have come to differ with previous 'folk' interpretations of Bible passages. A similar rethinking of passages unique to the LDS scriptures, such as {{s||Abraham|1|26-27}} and {{s||Abraham|3|22-23}}, can be made if one shelves erroneous preconceptions. Sociologist Armand Mauss critiqued former interpretations in a recent address:

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

Although critics frequently cite some Book of Mormon passages as being racist, it does not appear to have been used in a justification for the ban. They often cite Book of Mormon passages like {{s|2|Nephi|5|21-25}} and {{s||Alma|3|6-10}} while ignoring the more representative {{s|2|Nephi|26|33}}. John A. Tvedtnes has shown that the Book of Mormon distinguishes between the curse and the mark.{{ref|tvedtnes1}} Of the curse, he writes that "the Lamanites, as a result of their consistent rebellion against God and the hardness of their hearts were cursed by being cut off from the presence of God." Rather than concentrating on a few negative passages written by the political and cultural enemies of the Lamanites, the entire message of the Book of Mormon needs to be considered.

Richard L. Bushman, author of the definitive biography of Joseph Smith, writes:

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

Marcus Martins, chair of the department of religious education at BYU—Hawaii, has said:

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

===Line upon line===
Before introducing the historical context behind the 1978 revelation ending the ban, it is worth reviewing the principles upon which revelation is received. The process of revelation is the process by which our will becomes attuned to the will of our Father in Heaven. It is ''not'' a process whereby we alter the will of God to suit our own purposes. The fundamentals of revelation are:

#It is a process which generally follows a model in which "man inquires and then God inspires." In other words, mortals must generally seek guidance before they receive inspiration. God will generally not arrive, unsought and unpetitioned, to provide answers to questions which have yet to be asked. Rather, God usually responds to our individual efforts to draw near to him, and as we do so, he will guide us more and more.
#Mercifully, God works with us according to our weaknesses. If we are unable to ''receive'' and implement an answer regarding a given issue, due to personal limitations or circumstances which would prevent obedience, God will generally refrain from communicating with us about it. This is not due to any limitation or lack of desire on his part, but due to mortal limitations, sins, or weaknesses.
#God rarely—if ever—uses his prophets as "teletype machines" who mindlessly transmit a word-for-word handbook of "how-to's". In reality, God requires his prophets to not simply inquire, but to inquire with some thought as to potential answer(s). (See {{s||DC|9|7-9}}.) They then seek confirmation, which the Lord can gently correct or confirm. A striking Biblical example of this principle in action concern King David. He announced to Nathan, the prophet, that he wished to build a temple to God. Nathan thought this a grand idea, and replied "Go, do all that is in thine heart; for the LORD is with thee." However, despite Nathan's sincere belief that God concurred with David's plan, he was later to receive revelation which contravened his initial enthusiasm.[See {{s|2|Samuel|7|2-17}}.] It remained for God, and not another, to correct his prophet and enhance his imperfect understanding of the divine will.
#God gives us "modern" prophets to help us build upon our understandings and progress as a people.

Viewing revelation as a process often requiring patient preparation helps us understand why the priesthood ban wasn't lifted sooner. Lester Bush points out "three principle factors," while allowing for others, that created obstacles. "[T]hese were the authority of decades of vigorous and unwavering First Presidency endorsement of the policy; a preconceived and highly literalistic reading of several verses in the Pearl of Great Price; and an ambient culture which was indifferent to, if not supportive of, Mormon attitudes toward blacks."{{ref|bush3}}

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

As McKay's health declined, his counselor, Hugh B. Brown attempted to lift the ban as an administrative decision. However, it became even clearer that a century of precedent was difficult to reverse without a revelation, especially when some members and leaders—echoing George Q. Cannon—felt there might be a revelational basis for the policy. As the church expanded its missionary outreach and temple building programs, the prayerful attempts to obtain the will of God intensified. Finally in June 1978, a revelation that "every faithful, worthy man in the Church may receive the holy priesthood" was received and later canonized as [http://scriptures.lds.org/od/2 Official Declaration 2].

===Social pressure?===
Critics try to raise doubts about the authenticity of the 1978 revelation by claiming that it was dictated by social or governmental pressure. However social pressure was on the decline after the Civil Rights movement and coordinated protests at BYU athletic events ceased in 1971. The allegation that the LDS church's tax-free status was threatened was addressed by a church spokesman,

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

==Conclusion==

Quotations dredged by critics lose much of their shock value when put in the proper historical context. Past church leaders can be viewed as a product of their times, no more racist than many of their American and Christian peers. A mature understanding of the process of revelation creates realistic expectations of the Latter-day Saint prophet. As we learn "line upon line" we can forget past statements that are no longer in harmony with current counsel. Even scriptures can be reinterpreted as further light and knowledge is received. We may not be able to determine all the reasons behind the priesthood ban or the Lord's timing for overruling it, but we can see that the criticisms against the church are largely without merit.

==Endnotes==
#{{note|bush1}}{{Dialogue|author=Lester E. Bush, Jr.|article=Mormonism's Negro Doctrine: An Historical Overview|vol=8|num=1|date=Spring 1973|start=11|end=68}}{{link|url=http://content.lib.utah.edu/cgi-bin/docviewer.exe?CISOROOT=/dialogue&CISOPTR=3439&CISOSHOW=3335}}
#{{note|bush2}}Lester E. Bush, Jr. and Armand L. Mauss, eds., ''Neither White nor Black'' (Midvale, UT: Signature, 1984).{{link|url=http://www.signaturebookslibrary.org/neither/neithertitle.htm}}
#{{note|smith1}}For a history of such ideas in American Christian thought generally, see H. Shelton Smith, ''In His Image, But…Racism in Southern Religion, 1780–1910'' (Durham, North Carolina: Duke University Press, 1972), 131. ISBN 082230273X
#{{note|jfs1}}{{DoS1|vol=1|start=65}}
#{{note|brm1}}Bruce R. McConkie, "All Are Alike unto God," an address to a Book of Mormon Symposium for Seminary and Institute teachers, Brigham Young University, 18 August 1978.
#{{note|oaks1}}Dallin H. Oaks, Interview with Associated Press, in ''Daily Herald,'' Provo, Utah, 5 June 1988.
#{{note|mauss1}}Armand L. Mauss, "The LDS Church and the Race Issue: A Study in Misplaced Apologetics", FAIR Conference 2003 {{fairlink|url=http://www.blacklds.org/mormon/mauss.html}}, {{fairlink|url=http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/conf/2003MauA.html #2}}
#{{note|tvedtnes1}}John Tvedtnes, "The Charge of Racism in the Book of Mormon," (2003 FAIR Conference presentation.){{fairlink|url=http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/conf/2003TveJ.html}}
#{{note|bushman1}}{{RSR1|start=99}}
#{{note|martins1}}Marcus Martins, "A Black Man in Zion: Reflections on Race in the Restored Gospel" (2006 FAIR Conference presentation).
#{{note|bush3}}''Neither White nor Black'', 209–10.
#{{note|prince1}}{{RMM|start=79|end=80}}
#{{note|arrington1}}Leonard J. Arrington, ''Adventures of a Church Historian'' (Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press 1998), 183.
#{{note|prince2}}''David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism,'' 104.
#{{note|olsen1}}Bruce L. Olsen, cited in ''Salt Lake Tribune'' on 5 April 2001.

==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===
*[[Fallibility of prophets]]
*[[Racist statements by Church leaders]]

===FAIR web site===
*FAIR Topical Guide: Blacks and the priesthood{{fairlink|url=http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai080.html}}
*FAIR Topical Guide: Infallibility{{fairlink|url=http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai082.html}}
*FAIR Topical Guide: Personal beliefs of prophets{{fairlink|url=http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai258.html}}
*FAIR Topical Guide: Race and cultural issues{{fairlink|url=http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai086.html}}
*FAIR BlackLDS site{{fairlink|url=http://www.blacklds.org/mormon/priesthood.html}}
*Marcus H. Martins, "A Black Man in Zion: Reflections on Race in the Restored Gospel" (2006 FAIR Conference presentation). {{pdflink|url=http://w2.byuh.edu/academics/religion/martinsm/Papers/Martins-Black%20Man%20in%20Zion-2006.pdf}}

===External links===
*{{Dialogue|author=Lester E. Bush, Jr.|article=Mormonism's Negro Doctrine: An Historical Overview|vol=8|num=1|date=Spring 1973|start=11|end=68}} (Bush argues for Brigham Young as author of the priesthood ban.){{link|url=http://content.lib.utah.edu/cgi-bin/docviewer.exe?CISOROOT=/dialogue&CISOPTR=3439&CISOSHOW=3335}}
*{{BYUS|author=Ronald K. Esplin|article=Brigham Young and Priesthood Denial to the Blacks: An Alternate View|vol=19|num=3|date=Spring 1979|start=394|end=402.}} (Esplin argues for Joseph Smith as the author of the priesthood ban.){{pdflink|url=http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/cgi-bin/docviewer.exe?CISOROOT=/byustudies&CISOPTR=25588&CISOSHOW=22951}}
*Marcus H. Martins, "All Are (Really) Alike Unto God: Personal Reflections on the 1978 Revelation."{{link|url=http://w2.byuh.edu/academics/religion/martinsm/Papers/AllAlike.htm}}
* Marcus H. Martins, "'Thinking Way Back': Considerations on Race, Pre-Existence, and Mortality," expanded version of a talk presented at a meeting of The Genesis Group, a branch of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, held in Salt Lake City, Utah, on 1 August 1999.{{link|url=http://w2.byuh.edu/academics/religion/martinsm/Papers/PreExistence.htm}}
*Mike Parker, "Dispelling the Myth of the Curse of Cain," one-page summary for use as a classroom handout.{{pdflink|url=http://members.cox.net/mikeparkerpublic/gd06_cursemythFINAL.pdf}}
*Seth R. Payne, "A Work in Progress: The Latter-day Saint Struggle with Blacks and the Priesthood," paper submitted at Yale Divinity School, 5 May 2006.{{pdflink|url=http://www.sethpayne.com/pdf/priesthood.pdf}}
*{{FR-15-2-10}}

===Printed material===
*''Neither White Nor Black: Mormon Scholars Confront the Race Issue in a Universal Church,'' Lester E. Bush, Jr. and Armand L. Mauss, eds. Signature Books, 1984. ISBN 0941214222. (Text available online:{{link|url=http://www.signaturebookslibrary.org/neither/neithertitle.html}})
*Armand L. Mauss, ''All Abraham's Children: Changing Mormon Conceptions of Race and Lineage.'' University of Illinois Press, 2003. ISBN 0252028031.

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

2006-09-15T20:17:04Z

DavidFerguson: How's this?

==Criticism==
Critics argue that God would not allow His church to ever deny blessings or privileges based on race. They [[Quote_mining%2C_selective_quotation%2C_and_distortion | mine quotes]] made by Latter-day Saint leaders prior to 1978 to portray the church as racist in its doctrines. They also cite passages from LDS scripture that some have used in the past to provide a rationale for the priesthood restrictions. While some critics recognize that Latter-day Saints have become more enlightened, they question the revelatory process that brought about the policy shift. They portray it as a response to social pressure or government threats to remove the church's tax-free status.

==Response==
It is important to understand the history behind the priesthood ban to evaluate whether these criticisms have any merit and to contextualize the quotes with which LDS members are often confronted. While definitive answers as to why God allowed the ban to happen await further revelation, it is hoped the following observations and references will aid those troubled by this complex and sensitive issue. Please note, however, that FAIR does not endorse any specific theory on the doctrine or history surrounding this controversy. Ultimatily we do not know, and we are left to have faith that God will one day give us the answers to the questions of our mortal existence.

====Permitted, not commanded====

The history behind the withholding the priesthood from individuals based on race is described well by Lester Bush in a 1971 article{{ref|bush1}} and a 1984 book.{{ref|bush2}} The restriction is perhaps better understood as a series of administrative policy decisions rather than a revealed doctrine. For example, early missionaries to the southern states were instructed not to ordain slaves because it was feared that this might encourage a slave revolt. Some free blacks were given the priesthood such as Elijah Abel, Walker Lewis, William McCary, and Abel's descendents. To justify the restrictions, the contemporary ideas and Biblical interpretations of pro-slavery Christians were borrowed and taught.{{ref|smith1}}

The priesthood ban became more comprehensive under Brigham Young's presidency. Later, George Q. Cannon and others concluded that the ban had a revelatory basis. LDS scriptures were used as proof-texts to support this position. B. H. Roberts speculated, based on the Book of Abraham, that the curse of Cain had continued through Ham's descendents and Joseph Fielding Smith opined that blacks may have been less valiant (but not neutral! {{ref|jfs1}}) in the pre-mortal conflict between God and Satan. Thus under this premiss it can be said that God permitted the ban, but did not officially command it.

====Test for faithfulness====

Our entire mortal experience revolves around the concept of agency and how we can apply it to relationships with our God (whether to worship or not), our neighbors (whether to be charitable or not), and ourselves (whether to strive for perfection or not). God gives us hardship, temptation, and commandments which allow his children to demonstrate righteousness with our agency. Consider Job, who was "cursed" with immense hardship; Joseph, who potiphar's wife tried to tempt; and Abraham, who was given the command to sacrifice his son Isaac.

The Priesthood ban can be seen as a trial in the fullest sense of the word: a hardship for black members, a temptation for racist white members, and a commandment to be obedient for us all. This trial for modern day Israel is very comparable with the trials of ancient Israel. We learn that the hardships, temptations, and commandments that they endured were given to them so they would learn:

:And thou shalt remember all the way which the LORD thy God led thee these forty years in the wilderness, to humble thee, and to prove thee, to know what was in thine heart, whether thou wouldest keep his commandments, or no. (Deuteronomy 8:2)

It is important to note that the ancient Hebrews were no more monolithic in thought then than we are now. While the scriptural account only records the feelings of Israel ''en masse'', we can be certain that each Israelite had a different opinion and was just as human as we are. Some of them would have blamed the other Israelites' lack of faith. Others would have accused their prophet's misguidance. In the end God gave them rest and prosperity in a better land.

It is very ironic that one day, in the future, members of the Church will read about the priesthood ban given to "modern" Israel with the same feelings of dismissal that many members have in regards to the great trials among ancient Israel. The lesson being: we are no greater a people than the ancients and evidently need to be given trials so that God could know "what [is] in [our] heart."

===Understanding pre-1978 statements===

Critics frequently parade statements and justifications of the ban by past General Authorities that are racist by today's standards. While these have not been officially renounced, there is no obligation for current members to accept such sentiments as the "word of the Lord." Bruce R. McConkie expressed it this way:

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

Elder Dallin H. Oaks pointed out that some leaders and members had ill-advisedly sought to provide ''reasons'' for the ban. The reasons they gave were not accurate:

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

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

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

===LDS scriptures revisited===

Some contend that even though the doctrinal impact of pre-1978 statements have been greatly diminished, the LDS scriptures still retain the passages which were used for proof-texts for the ban and hence can't be easily dismissed. A parallel can be drawn between Protestant denominations that have historically reversed their viewpoint on slavery and a modified LDS understanding of the priesthood ban. Through more careful scripture reading and attention to scientific studies, many Protestants have come to differ with previous 'folk' interpretations of Bible passages. A similar rethinking of passages unique to the LDS scriptures, such as [http://scriptures.lds.org/abr/1/26-27#26 Abraham 1:26-27] and [http://scriptures.lds.org/abr/3/22-23#22 Abraham 3:22-23] can easily be made if one shelves erroneous preconceptions. Sociologist Armand Mauss critiqued former interpretations in a recent address:

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

Although critics frequently cite some Book of Mormon passages as being racist, it does not appear to have been used in a justification for the ban. They often cite Book of Mormon passages like [http://scriptures.lds.org/2_ne/5/21-25#21 2 Nephi 5:21-25] and [http://scriptures.lds.org/alma/3/6-10#6 Alma 3:6-10] while ignoring the more representative [http://scriptures.lds.org/2_ne/26/33#33 2 Nephi 26:33]. John A. Tvedtnes has shown that the Book of Mormon distinguishes between the curse and the mark.{{ref|tvedtnes1}} Of the curse, he writes that "the Lamanites, as a result of their consistent rebellion against God and the hardness of their hearts were cursed by being cut off from the presence of God." Rather than concentrating on a few negative passages written by the political and cultural enemies of the Lamanites, the entire message of the Book of Mormon needs to be considered.

Richard L. Bushman, author of the definitive biography of Joseph Smith, writes:

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

Marcus Martins, chair of the department of religious education at BYU—Hawaii, has said:

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

===Line upon line===
Before introducing the historical context behind the 1978 revelation ending the ban, it is worth reviewing the principles upon which revelation is received. The process of revelation is the process by which our will becomes attuned to the will of our Father in Heaven. It is ''not'' a process whereby we alter the will of God to suit our own purposes. The fundamentals of revelation are:

#It is a process which generally follows a model in which "man inquires and then God inspires." In other words, mortals must generally seek guidance before they receive inspiration. God will generally not arrive, unsought and unpetitioned, to provide answers to questions which have yet to be asked. Rather, God usually responds to our individual efforts to draw near to him, and as we do so, he will guide us more and more.
#Mercifully, God works with us according to our weaknesses. If we are unable to ''receive'' and implement an answer regarding a given issue, due to personal limitations or circumstances which would prevent obedience, God will generally refrain from communicating with us about it. This is not due to any limitation or lack of desire on his part, but due to mortal limitations, sins, or weaknesses.
#God rarely—if ever—uses his prophets as "teletype machines" who mindlessly transmit a word-for-word handbook of "how-to's". In reality, God requires his prophets to not simply inquire, but to inquire with some thought as to potential answer(s). (See [http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/9/7-9#7|D&C 9:7–9].) They then seek confirmation, which the Lord can gently correct or confirm. A striking Biblical example of this principle in action concern King David. He announced to Nathan, the prophet, that he wished to build a temple to God. Nathan thought this a grand idea, and replied "Go, do all that is in thine heart; for the LORD is with thee." However, despite Nathan's sincere belief that God concurred with David's plan, he was later to receive revelation which contravened his initial enthusiasm.[See [http://scriptures.lds.org/2_sam/7/2-17#2|2 Samuel 7:2–17].] It remained for God, and not another, to correct his prophet and enhance his imperfect understanding of the divine will.
#God gives us "modern" prophets to help us build upon our understandings and progress as a people.

Viewing revelation as a process often requiring patient preparation helps us understand why the priesthood ban wasn't lifted sooner. Lester Bush points out "three principle factors," while allowing for others, that created obstacles. "[T]hese were the authority of decades of vigorous and unwavering First Presidency endorsement of the policy; a preconceived and highly literalistic reading of several verses in the Pearl of Great Price; and an ambient culture which was indifferent to, if not supportive of, Mormon attitudes toward blacks."{{ref|bush3}}

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

As McKay's health declined, his counselor, Hugh B. Brown attempted to lift the ban as an administrative decision. However, it became even clearer that a century of precedent was difficult to reverse without a revelation, especially when some members and leaders—echoing George Q. Cannon—felt there might be a revelational basis for the policy. As the church expanded its missionary outreach and temple building programs, the prayerful attempts to obtain the will of God intensified. Finally in June 1978, a revelation that "every faithful, worthy man in the Church may receive the holy priesthood" was received and later canonized as [http://scriptures.lds.org/od/2 Official Declaration 2].

===Social pressure?===
Critics try to raise doubts about the authenticity of the 1978 revelation by claiming that it was dictated by social or governmental pressure. However social pressure was on the decline after the Civil Rights movement and coordinated protests at BYU athletic events ceased in 1971. The allegation that the LDS church's tax-free status was threatened was addressed by a church spokesman,

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

==Conclusion==

Quotations dredged by critics lose much of their shock value when put in the proper historical context. Past church leaders can be viewed as a product of their times, no more racist than many of their American and Christian peers. A mature understanding of the process of revelation creates realistic expectations of the Latter-day Saint prophet. As we learn "line upon line" we can forget past statements that are no longer in harmony with current counsel. Even scriptures can be reinterpreted as further light and knowledge is received. We may not be able to determine all the reasons behind the priesthood ban or the Lord's timing for overruling it, but we can see that the criticisms against the church are largely without merit.

==Endnotes==
#{{note|bush1}}{{Dialogue|author=Lester E. Bush, Jr.|article=Mormonism's Negro Doctrine: An Historical Overview|vol=8|num=1|date=Spring 1973|start=11|end=68}}{{link|url=http://content.lib.utah.edu/cgi-bin/docviewer.exe?CISOROOT=/dialogue&CISOPTR=3439&CISOSHOW=3335}}
#{{note|bush2}}Lester E. Bush, Jr. and Armand L. Mauss, eds., ''Neither White nor Black'' (Midvale, UT: Signature, 1984).{{link|url=http://www.signaturebookslibrary.org/neither/neithertitle.htm}}
#{{note|smith1}}For a history of such ideas in American Christian thought generally, see H. Shelton Smith, ''In His Image, But…Racism in Southern Religion, 1780–1910'' (Durham, North Carolina: Duke University Press, 1972), 131. ISBN 082230273X
#{{note|jfs1}}{{DoS1|vol=1|start=65}}
#{{note|brm1}}Bruce R. McConkie, "All Are Alike unto God," an address to a Book of Mormon Symposium for Seminary and Institute teachers, Brigham Young University, 18 August 1978.
#{{note|oaks1}}Dallin H. Oaks, Interview with Associated Press, in ''Daily Herald,'' Provo, Utah, 5 June 1988.
#{{note|mauss1}}Armand L. Mauss, "The LDS Church and the Race Issue: A Study in Misplaced Apologetics", FAIR Conference 2003 {{fairlink|url=http://www.blacklds.org/mormon/mauss.html}}, {{fairlink|url=http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/conf/2003MauA.html #2}}
#{{note|tvedtnes1}}John Tvedtnes, "The Charge of Racism in the Book of Mormon," (2003 FAIR Conference presentation.){{fairlink|url=http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/conf/2003TveJ.html}}
#{{note|bushman1}}{{RSR1|start=99}}
#{{note|martins1}}Marcus Martins, "A Black Man in Zion: Reflections on Race in the Restored Gospel" (2006 FAIR Conference presentation).
#{{note|bush3}}''Neither White nor Black'', 209–10.
#{{note|prince1}}{{RMM|start=79|end=80}}
#{{note|arrington1}}Leonard J. Arrington, ''Adventures of a Church Historian'' (Urbana and Chicago: University of Illnois Press 1998), 183.
#{{note|prince2}}''David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism,'' 104.
#{{note|olsen1}}Bruce L. Olsen, cited in ''Salt Lake Tribune'' on 5 April 2001.

==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===
*[[Fallibility of prophets]]
*[[Racist statements by Church leaders]]

===FAIR web site===
*FAIR Topical Guide: Blacks and the priesthood{{fairlink|url=http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai080.html}}
*FAIR Topical Guide: Infallibility{{fairlink|url=http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai082.html}}
*FAIR Topical Guide: Personal beliefs of prophets{{fairlink|url=http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai258.html}}
*FAIR Topical Guide: Race and cultural issues{{fairlink|url=http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai086.html}}
*FAIR BlackLDS site{{fairlink|url=http://www.blacklds.org/mormon/priesthood.html}}
*Marcus H. Martins, "A Black Man in Zion: Reflections on Race in the Restored Gospel" (2006 FAIR Conference presentation). {{pdflink|url=http://w2.byuh.edu/academics/religion/martinsm/Papers/Martins-Black%20Man%20in%20Zion-2006.pdf}}

===External links===
*{{Dialogue|author=Lester E. Bush, Jr.|article=Mormonism's Negro Doctrine: An Historical Overview|vol=8|num=1|date=Spring 1973|start=11|end=68}} (Bush argues for Brigham Young as author of the priesthood ban.){{link|url=http://content.lib.utah.edu/cgi-bin/docviewer.exe?CISOROOT=/dialogue&CISOPTR=3439&CISOSHOW=3335}}
*{{BYUS|author=Ronald K. Esplin|article=Brigham Young and Priesthood Denial to the Blacks: An Alternate View|vol=19|num=3|date=Spring 1979|start=394|end=402.}} (Esplin argues for Joseph Smith as the author of the priesthood ban.){{pdflink|url=http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/cgi-bin/docviewer.exe?CISOROOT=/byustudies&CISOPTR=25588&CISOSHOW=22951}}
*Marcus H. Martins, "All Are (Really) Alike Unto God: Personal Reflections on the 1978 Revelation."{{link|url=http://w2.byuh.edu/academics/religion/martinsm/Papers/AllAlike.htm}}
* Marcus H. Martins, "'Thinking Way Back': Considerations on Race, Pre-Existence, and Mortality," expanded version of a talk presented at a meeting of The Genesis Group, a branch of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, held in Salt Lake City, Utah, on 1 August 1999.{{link|url=http://w2.byuh.edu/academics/religion/martinsm/Papers/PreExistence.htm}}
*Mike Parker, "Dispelling the Myth of the Curse of Cain," one-page summary for use as a classroom handout.{{pdflink|url=http://members.cox.net/mikeparkerpublic/gd06_cursemythFINAL.pdf}}
*Seth R. Payne, "A Work in Progress: The Latter-day Saint Struggle with Blacks and the Priesthood," paper submitted at Yale Divinity School, 5 May 2006.{{pdflink|url=http://www.sethpayne.com/pdf/priesthood.pdf}}
*{{FR-15-2-10}}

===Printed material===
*''Neither White Nor Black: Mormon Scholars Confront the Race Issue in a Universal Church,'' Lester E. Bush, Jr. and Armand L. Mauss, eds. Signature Books, 1984. ISBN 0941214222. (Text available online:{{link|url=http://www.signaturebookslibrary.org/neither/neithertitle.html}})
*Armand L. Mauss, ''All Abraham's Children: Changing Mormon Conceptions of Race and Lineage.'' University of Illinois Press, 2003. ISBN 0252028031.

Talk:Bob McCue/Quotes and Responses

2006-07-10T04:08:41Z

DavidFerguson: asking for an opinion about adding to McCue section

The article says:

:Robert "Bob" McCue is a lawyer from Calgary, Alberta. A former LDS bishop, McCue has left the Church and now writes large amounts of material about his former faith.

Would it be appropriate to add something like:

:He is regarded as one of the premier anti-Mormons in Canada who's research on the subject of Mormonism is highly regarded by skeptics and antagonists.

And then move on to the rest:

:Sadly, McCue is not always straightforward with his readers. On occasion, he changes his claims to suit the needs of the moment. In addition, a comparison between the LDS doctrine which he taught before his apostasy, and LDS doctrine as he describes it after leaving the Church is instructive:

I think adding something like that middle part would be helpful for people who are reading this article and have never heard of McCue. Does anyone agree? Or at least agree that something like that should be added in, though not those exact words?

Jesus Christ bled from every pore

2006-06-27T19:50:52Z

DavidFerguson: minor edit

{{draft}}

==Criticism==

The Book of Mormon contains a reference to the intense agony endured by Jesus Christ as he atoned for the sins of all humanity:

:And lo, he shall suffer temptations, and pain of body, hunger, thirst, and fatigue, even more than man can suffer, except it be unto death; for behold, ''blood cometh from every pore'', so great shall be his anguish for the wickedness and the abominations of his people. ([http://scriptures.lds.org/mosiah/3/7#7 Mosiah 3:7], emphasis added.)

Critics claim that the reference to blood coming from a pore is anachronistic, since Nephite authors would not have known about skin pores. Joseph Smith, it is claimed, ''would'' have known about pores, and so the Book of Mormon's addition of the word "pore" to the Bible's account in [http://scriptures.lds.org/luke/22/44#44 Luke 22:44] of Christ's suffering reflects Joseph Smith's 19th century worldview, and not an ancient author's.

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

''Walter Martin''?

==Response==

===When were skin pores discovered?===

Contrary to the critics' assertion, the medicine of antiquity had long speculated and written about "pores."

* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empedocles Empedocles], a Greek philosopher who lived from about 490–430 B.C., belived that air and vapour could pass into or out of the body via pores.{{ref|note1}}
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galen Galen], the Greek physician of the Roman era (A.D. 129–c. 210) likewise believed that "innnumerable skin pores" drew air into the body, and also expelled wastes.{{ref|note2}} Galen was of multiple opinions on sweat (Gk ιδρο&sigmaf;=hidros), but he sometimes claimed that it leaked out from skin pores in droplet form.{{ref|note3}}
* A variety of other classical physicians (such as Ascelepiades, Petronas, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soranus Soranus], Themison) believed that tightening of the pores was a potential cause of disease, and a variety of regimens were recommended to overcome this (e.g. purging, hot baths and drinks, heavy bedclothes to cause sweats, induced vomiting).{{ref|note4}}
* John of Gaddesdon (c.1280-1349?1361) was physician to the Royal Household in England during the 14th century, and the first English author of a published medical book.{{ref|note5}} He wrote of a disease that:

:The cause of it is in the grossness of the matter of the body or the blocking up of the pores from an external cause ... the heat of the sun or a fire, or from cold water; briefly anything that closes the pores and prevents the escape of vapours.{{ref|note6}}

* French physician [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambroise_Pare Ambroise Paré] (1510–1590) wrote in 1554 that the skin "is penetrated by many pores or breathing places, as we may see by the flowing out of sweat."{{ref|note7}}

Despite at least two millenia of theory and discussion in the medicine of antiquity, the skin's pores had not been seen! English anatomist [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Cumberland_Cruikshank William Cumberland Cruikshank ] (1745-1800) indicated that "after some pains, and assisted with a pretty good microscope, I have not been able
to discover perforations in the cuticle or rete mucosum [i.e. pores in the skin].... I believe, nevertheless, that they certainly exist."{{ref|note8}}

===What did Joseph Smith's day believe about sweat and pores?===

American medicine at the time of Joseph Smith was still exceedingly primitive. Medical practitioners still drew heavily on the theories and works of antiquity for medical theory, diagnosis, and treatment.

As discussed above, the concept of "pores" in the skin for sweat and other substances is an ancient one in western medicine. Despite this, the pores had never been definitively demonstrated throughout the skin.

A popular medical textbook of the time, ''Buchan's Domestic Medicine Modernized, etc.'' (1807) blamed the following diseases on blocked perspiration: most fevers, gout, rheumatism, scurvy, asthma, epilepsy, hypochondria, and inflammation of lung, kidney, bowel, and brain.{{ref|note9}}

Thus, contrary to the critics' claims, Joseph Smith or his contemporaries were no better suited to know the facts about skin pores or sweat than classical writers of 2500 years earlier. Theory and knowledge on the subject had not advanced much, and a rural farmboy such as Joseph would hardly have been aware of any of the learned discussions taking place on the topic, which were not terribly advanced anyway.

Sweat glands and associated structures were finally demonstrated to exist in 1835, six years after the translation of the Book of Mormon.{{ref|note10}} The modern understanding of sweat and the role of the skin in fluid homeostasis was fixed around the turn of the century.{{ref|note11}}

Joseph Smith had as much chance at being right about the relationship between sweat and pores as an ancient author writing thousands of years earlier.

===Can skin pores produce blood?===

Critics of Christianity generally have sometimes questioned Luke's account of Christ sweating "drops of blood."

But, the phenomenon of "hemohidrosis" or "hematidrosis" (blood in the sweat), while rare, is certainly known from both historical and modern accounts.

An epidemic disease (called the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweating_sickness sweating sickness]) in England between 1485 and 1581 caused "[http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Bloody_sweat bloody sweat]." Suggested causes have included hantavirus,{{ref|hanta1}}, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relapsing_fever relapsing fever] (a tick-borne disease), or anthrax.{{ref|anthrax1}} Influenza has also been considered, but recent reviewers remain unconvinced.{{ref|influenza1}}

A Chinese study reported a case of bloody sweat which described a patient in which "episodes of skin bleeding occurred on any site of the body spontaneously and promptly." The blood was identical to blood drawn from the patient's circulatory system, and the sweat glands were normal. It was hypothesized that this case was the result of a vasculitis (inflammation of blood vessels) which allowed the leak of blood. {{ref|chinesestudy1}}

Another review of the literature found that the causes of modern cases of "bloody sweat" have included:
* other systemic disease
* excessive exertion
* psychologic distress
* unknown{{ref|review1}}

Thus, it seems clear that severe mental and/or physical anguish can cause this condition, just as reported by the Book of Mormon and the gospel of Luke.

==Conclusion==

The concept of having pores in the skin through which sweats, fluids, or gases could pass originates in great antiquity. Pores and the associated sweat gland apparatus were not demonstrated microscopically until 6 years after the publication of the Book of Mormon.

Latter-day Saints regard the Atonement of Christ, during which he suffered incomprehensible and unbearable agonies, as the most important event in human history. While the technical details of that experience are of minor importance, the Book of Mormon's account is consistent with ancient medical and anatomical concepts, as well as well-documented case reports from the modern era.

However, rather than focus on microscopy or physiology, members of the Church hope to spend far more time obeying Jesus' command to repent, which he gave in a description of the atonement as revealed to Joseph Smith:

:15 Therefore I command you to repent—repent, lest I smite you by the rod of my mouth, and by my wrath, and by my anger, and your sufferings be sore—how sore you know not, how exquisite you know not, yea, how hard to bear you know not.
:16 For behold, I, God, have suffered these things for all, that they might not suffer if they would repent;
:17 But if they would not repent they must suffer even as I;
:18 Which suffering caused myself, even God, the greatest of all, to tremble because of pain, and to bleed at every pore, and to suffer both body and spirit—and would that I might not drink the bitter cup, and shrink—
:19 Nevertheless, glory be to the Father, and I partook and finished my preparations unto the children of men.
:20 Wherefore, I command you again to repent, lest I humble you with my almighty power; and that you confess your sins, lest you suffer these punishments of which I have spoken, of which in the smallest, yea, even in the least degree you have tasted at the time I withdrew my Spirit. ([http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/19/15-20#15 D&C 19:15–20].)

==Endnotes==
#{{note|note1}} E.T. Renbourn, "The Natural History of Insensible Transpiration: A Forgotten Doctrine of Health and Disease," ''Medical History'' 4/2 (April 1960): 135.[http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/pagerender.fcgi?artid=1034547&pageindex=1 *]
#{{note|note2}} Renbourn, 135–136.
#{{note|note3}} Renbourn, 136.
#{{note|note4}} Renbourn, 136–137.
#{{note|note5}} "John of Gaddesden's ''Rosa Anglica''," King's College London,[http://kcl.ac.uk/depsta/iss/library/speccoll/medtre/ra.html *]
#{{note|note6}} John of Gaddesden, ''Rosa Anglica practica medicine a capita ad pedes'' (Pavia: Joanes-Antonius Birreta, 1492); translation and cited by Renbourn, 137.
#{{note|note7}} Ambrose Paré, ''Works'' (1554); Trans. from Latine by J. Johnston, 1664; cited by Renbourn, 137.
#{{note|note8}}W.C. Cruikshank, ''Experiments on the Insensible Perspiration of Huamn Bodies, etc.'' (1785); cited by Renbourn, 146.
#{{note|note9}} Renbourn, 147–148.
#{{note|note10}} Renbourn, 149.
#{{note|note11}} Renbourn, 150.
#{{note|hanta1}} Eric Bridson, "The English 'sweate' (''Sudor Anglicus'') and Hantavirus pulmonary syndrome," ''British Journal of Biomedical Science'' 58/1 (1 January 2001): 1–6; first published in ''Medical Sciences History'' 14 (1998): 20–32.[http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3874/is_200101/ai_n8939673 *]
#{{note|anthrax1}} E McSweegan, "Anthrax and the etiology of the English sweating sickness," ''Medical Hypotheses'' 62/1 (1 Jan 2004): 155–7.[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=14729023&query_hl=10&itool=pubmed_docsum *]
#{{note|influenza1}} Burke A. Cunha, "Influenza: historical aspects of epidemics and pandemics," ''Infectious Disease Clinics of North America'' 18/1 (March 2004): 141–155.[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15081510&query_hl=14&itool=pubmed_DocSum *]
#{{note|chinesestudy1}} FK Zhang, Zhonghua Xue Ye Xue Za Zhi ("Clinical and laboratory study of a case of hematidrosis") in ''Chung-Hua Hsueh Yeh Hsueh Tsa Chih ¦ (Chinese Journal of Hematology)'' 25(3) (01 March 2004): 147-50. [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15182582&query_hl=3&itool=pubmed_docsum *]
#{{note|review1}} JE Holoubek, "Blood Sweat and Fear: A classification of hematidrosis," ''Journal of Medicine'' 27/3–4 (1 Jan 2006): 115–133.[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=8982961&query_hl=8&itool=pubmed_docsum *]

==Further reading==

===External links===

*E.T. Renbourn, "The Natural History of Insensible Transpiration: A Forgotten Doctrine of Health and Disease," ''Medical History'' 4/2 (April 1960): 135–152.[http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/pagerender.fcgi?artid=1034547&pageindex=1 *]
*Sidney B. Sperry, "Did Jesus Bleed From Every Pore?" ''Answers to Book of Mormon Questions'' (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1967), 137–145.[http://www.shields-research.org/Books/Sperry/AChap16.PDF *]

Latter-day Saint Temples/Work for Holocaust victims

2006-06-02T23:30:17Z

DavidFerguson: thats all I have for this article

==Criticism==
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has done and continues to carry out proxy baptisms (baptizing for the dead) for Jewish Holocaust victims. These baptisms continue to be performed in spite of continual requests from the Jewish community to end the practice and remove all Jewish Holocaust names from the Church's genealogical records used for posthumous baptisms.

==Response==
===History===
In 1995 an agreement was signed between the Church and leading Jewish authorities which officially ended baptizing Jewish Holocaust victims after it was found that that there was a substantial number of Holocaust victims in the Church's temple records as having been baptized.

Controversy over the matter sparked up again in 2002 when it was found that there was still thousands of names of Holocaust victims in the Church's records. The Church responded by re-enforcing it's policy which required members to only perform proxy baptisms for their traceable ancestors, and established a committee with Jewish leaders to investigate why there were still names of Holocaust victims in the database.

Controversy over the subject again came up in 2006 when it was discovered that there were still many Holocaust victims' names in the database.

===Mistakes in the database===
Despite critics' claims, fingers should not be pointed at the Church in this instance.
:Gary Mokotoff [...] who will head the Jewish side of the joint commission, said that individual church members had managed to circumvent the current monitoring process by misspelling names. "There's guaranteed to be a trickle going through the screen," he said, "but it's been very embarrassing for the Mormons." Mike Otterson, director of media relations for the church, told the Post that the church was working on creating a mechanism to prevent "overzealous members" from violating the agreement.{{ref|jpost}}

===Counsel of LDS leaders===
Church general authorities have asked members to concentrate on completing the work for their own ancestors. Elder Russell M. Nelson of the Quorum of the Twelve taught:
:Here, on this side of the veil, there are limitations of available time and temples. This means that choosing to identify and perform ordinances for our own kindred should receive our highest priority. The Spirit of Elijah will inspire individual members of the Church to link their generations, rather than submit lists of people or popular personalities to whom they are unrelated. Now, we are mindful of those not of our faith who are concerned about or even offended by the practice of temple ordinances for the dead. To them we say, our Heavenly Father directed the restoration of keys of priesthood authority and surely intended no offense to any of His children. Quite to the contrary. He intended to bless them. This doctrine and its ordinances are laden with love and are intended to perpetuate the sweetest of all relationships — in families forever.

:Nevertheless, the Church is sensitive to these concerns. The First Presidency has asked that, as far as possible, individual rights of privacy be protected. In 1972, they wrote, "Persons submitting names for other than direct ancestors [should] have obtained approval from the closest living relative of the deceased before submitting records of persons born within the last ninety-five years." In addition, reminders of rights of precedence and privacy appear each time our computer programs are used.{{ref|rmn}}

==Conclusion==
While work toward the complete removal of all Holocaust victims' names from the Church's database continues, controversy and frustration will undoubtedly continue to surface. It is important to remember that progress is in fact being made and that eventually this conflict will slip into non-existence.

==Endnotes==
#{{note|jpost}} Jerusalem Post, "[https://secure.pqarchiver.com/jpost/access/823852711.html?dids=823852711:823852711&FMT=FT&FMTS=ABS:FT&date=Apr+15%2C+2005&author=SAM+SER&pub=Jerusalem+Post&desc=Jews+and+Mormons+tackle+%27proxy+baptism%27+controversy.+Huge+numbers+of+Holocaust+victims+are+in+church%27s+baptism+database Jews and Mormons tackle 'proxy baptism' controversy]" ''jpost.com'' (accessed 2 June 2006).
#{{note|rmn}}Elder Russell M. Nelson, "[http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/1994.htm/ensign%20november%201994.htm/the%20spirit%20of%20elijah.htm?f=templates$fn=default.htm$3.0 The Spirit Of Elijah]," General Conference, October 1994.

==Sources==
*SAM SER, "Jews and Mormons tackle 'proxy baptism' controversy. Huge numbers of Holocaust victims are in church's baptism database," ''Jerusalem Post'', Online Edition (26 April 2005)(accessed 1 June 2006).[https://secure.pqarchiver.com/jpost/access/823852711.html?dids=823852711:823852711&FMT=FT&FMTS=ABS:FT&date=Apr+15%2C+2005&author=SAM+SER&pub=Jerusalem+Post&desc=Jews+and+Mormons+tackle+%27proxy+baptism%27+controversy.+Huge+numbers+of+Holocaust+victims+are+in+church%27s+baptism+database *]

==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===
*Links to related articles in the wiki

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

===External links===
*Daniel C. Peterson and William J. Hamblin, [http://www.meridianmagazine.com/ideas/041018Holocaust.html "Reflections on the Holocaust”]

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

Latter-day Saint Temples/Work for Holocaust victims

2006-06-02T05:53:02Z

DavidFerguson: switched tinyurl for real url

{{draft}}
==Criticism==
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has done and continues to carry out proxy baptisms (baptizing for the dead) for Jewish Holocaust victims. These baptisms continue to be performed in spite of continual requests from the Jewish community to end the practice and remove all Jewish Holocaust names from the Church's geneological records used for posthumous baptisms.

==Response==
===History===
In 1995 an agreement was signed between the Church and leading Jewish authorities which officially ended baptizing Jewish Holocaust victims after it was found that that there was a substantial number of Holocaust victims in the Church's temple records as having been baptized.

Controversy over the matter sparked up again in 2002 when it was found that there was still thousands of names of Holocaust victims in the Church's records. The Church responded by re-enforcing it's policy which required members to only perform proxy baptisms for their traceable ancestors, and established a committee with Jewish leaders to investigate why there were still names of Holocaust victims in the database.

Controversy over the subject again came up in 2006 when it was discovered that there were still many Holocaust victims' names in the database.

===Mistakes in the database===

===Counsel of LDS leaders===
Church general authorities have asked members to concentrate on completing the work for their own ancestors. Elder Russell M. Nelson of the Quorum of the Twelve taught:
:Here, on this side of the veil, there are limitations of available time and temples. This means that choosing to identify and perform ordinances for our own kindred should receive our highest priority. The Spirit of Elijah will inspire individual members of the Church to link their generations, rather than submit lists of people or popular personalities to whom they are unrelated. Now, we are mindful of those not of our faith who are concerned about or even offended by the practice of temple ordinances for the dead. To them we say, our Heavenly Father directed the restoration of keys of priesthood authority and surely intended no offense to any of His children. Quite to the contrary. He intended to bless them. This doctrine and its ordinances are laden with love and are intended to perpetuate the sweetest of all relationships — in families forever.

:Nevertheless, the Church is sensitive to these concerns. The First Presidency has asked that, as far as possible, individual rights of privacy be protected. In 1972, they wrote, "Persons submitting names for other than direct ancestors [should] have obtained approval from the closest living relative of the deceased before submitting records of persons born within the last ninety-five years." In addition, reminders of rights of precedence and privacy appear each time our computer programs are used.{{ref|rmn}}

==Conclusion==
While work toward the complete removal of all Holocaust victims' names from the Church's database continues, controversy and frustration will undoubtedly continue to surface. It is important to remember that progress is in fact being made and that eventually this conflict will slip into non-existence.

==Endnotes==
#{{note|rmn}}Elder Russell M. Nelson, "[http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/1994.htm/ensign%20november%201994.htm/the%20spirit%20of%20elijah.htm?f=templates$fn=default.htm$3.0 The Spirit Of Elijah]," General Conference, October 1994.

==Sources==
*SAM SER, "Jews and Mormons tackle 'proxy baptism' controversy. Huge numbers of Holocaust victims are in church's baptism database," ''Jerusalem Post'', Online Edition (26 April 2005)(accessed 1 June 2006).[https://secure.pqarchiver.com/jpost/access/823852711.html?dids=823852711:823852711&FMT=FT&FMTS=ABS:FT&date=Apr+15%2C+2005&author=SAM+SER&pub=Jerusalem+Post&desc=Jews+and+Mormons+tackle+%27proxy+baptism%27+controversy.+Huge+numbers+of+Holocaust+victims+are+in+church%27s+baptism+database *]
*

==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===
*Links to related articles in the wiki

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

===External links===
*Daniel C. Peterson and William J. Hamblin, [http://www.meridianmagazine.com/ideas/041018Holocaust.html "Reflections on the Holocaust”]

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

User talk:DavidFerguson

2006-06-02T03:52:11Z

DavidFerguson:

Latter-day Saint Temples/Work for Holocaust victims

2006-06-02T02:51:09Z

DavidFerguson: I'll finish the rest of it when I get the source for the conference talk I asked about on the elist

Mormonism and priesthood/Restoration/Aaronic/Hebrews 7

2006-01-12T00:30:13Z

DavidFerguson: please make any changes in style etc. you see fit

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

==Answer==
You are correct in saying that the Melchizedek Priesthood replaced the Aaronic Priesthood. But that doesn't necessarily imply that there is no Aaronic Priesthood. As other Christians see it, the Aaronic Priesthood is like a small glass of water being taken off the table and being replaced by a fruit juice (the Melchizedek Priesthood). They are distinguished from each other as quite seperate things.

LDS would use a different metaphore to explain things — one which better reflects the concept as I think you will find before the end of my response. LDS view it as if the Aaronic Priesthood is a glass of water that is filled only part way. Instead of being replaced by an entirely different drink, more water is poured into it
until it is a full glass (the Melchizedek Priesthood). The two priesthoods are really the same substance. Not a very illogical
assumption when one thinks about it. Where do they originate from? The same source — God. What is the purpose of the two priesthoods? They bring us to the Lord (note that only the Melchizedek Priesthood can do so entirely as shown in [http://scriptures.lds.org/query?words=Hebrews+7%3A11&search.x=34&search.y=16 Hebrews 7:11], but the Aaronic Priesthood was instrumental in keeping ancient Israel holy and pure). The Aaronic Priesthood is merely a limited form of the Melchizedek Priesthood.

Let me replace metaphores with actual teachings on the topic by a latter-day apostle — Elder Ballard:

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

So why would the Church use the Aaronic Priesthood today? Very simply answered by another name it is given: the Preparatory
Priesthood. As you probably noticed, the Aaronic Priesthood has a different structure to it than it did in ancient Israel. The structure it had then was perfect for its purpose. Levites — who performed the ordinances, and a High Priest — who officiated over the Levites and performed one additional ordinance once a year.

Today it is composed of Deacons, Teachers, and Priests. Each one in sequential order is trusted with more responsibility as they progress and mature until they are ready to receive the priesthood in full, or the Melchizedek Priesthood. And yet, the Aaronic Priesthood is not all that different now as it was in ancient times.

What two ordinances does the Aaronic Priesthood perform? First is
baptism. This is quite easily grounded in scripture as John the Baptist held the Aaronic Priesthood. His father, after all, was the High Priest. And baptism is of course a fundamental part of salvation through Christ (see [http://scriptures.lds.org/query?words=Acts+2%3A38 Acts 2:38)]. The second is sacrifice. Now of course we do not sacrifice animals anymore because Jesus Christ sacrificed Himself for us, giving us the last great sacrifice (see [http://scriptures.lds.org/query?words=Ephesians+5%3A2&search.x=17&search.y=16 Ephesians 5:2)]. And the way that we rejoice in His sacrifice for us, and remember it, is by partaking of the sacrament (communion — see [http://scriptures.lds.org/query?words=Matthew+26%3A26-29&search.x=31&search.y=10 Matthew 26:26-29)].

And by having Aaronic Priesthood holders today brake, bless, and pass
the sacrament, they are officiating in an ordinance which allows everone to partake of the blessings of Christ's sacrifice (effectively the same thing that was done in ancient Israel).

==Endnotes==
# {{note|Priesthood}} Compilation. ''Priesthood''. (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1981). p. 72

User talk:DavidFerguson

2005-11-05T21:40:46Z

DavidFerguson: ignore

=Return to=
==The Bible==
*all
==Book of Mormon==
===Anachronisms===
-adieu, animals, Jerusalem vs. Bethlehem, metals, reformed Egyptian, Shiz article, and Snow
===Authorship Theories===
-author and proprietor article,
===Other Book of Mormon topics===
-The Hill Cumorah, fulness of the Gospel, Historicity, Moroni as an Angel of Satan, Olive Culture, Condemnation of Polygamy, textual changes

Book of Mormon/Olive horticulture

2005-11-05T21:36:32Z

DavidFerguson: minor edits

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

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

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

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

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

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

|}

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

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

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

{{Joseph Smith BoM against expectations}}

==Endnotes==
#{{note|olive1}} See the exhaustive Stephen D. Ricks & John W. Welch, ''Allegory of the Olive Tree: The Olive, the Bible, and Jacob 5'' (Salt Lake City, Utah : Deseret Book Co. ; Provo, Utah : Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 1994) ISBN 0875797679.[http://gospelink.com/library/toc?book_id=587 GospeLink]
#{{note|olive2}}{{BoMRC|start=618|end=621}}
#{{note|olive3}} WM Hess, DJ Fairbanks , JW Welch, JK Driggs, "Botanical Aspects of Olive Culture Relevant to Jacob 5" in Ricks and Welch, 484–562 unless otherwise indicated.
#{{note|olive4}} Hess ''et al.'', 529.
#{{note|olive5}} Royal Skousen, (editor), ''The original manuscript of the Book of Mormon : typographical facsimile of the extant text'' (Provo, Utah: FARMS, 2001), 200–203.

==Further reading==
===FAIR wiki articles===
*
===FAIR web site===
* FAIR Topical Guide:
===External links===
*
===Printed material===
* Stephen D. Ricks & John W. Welch, ''Allegory of the Olive Tree: The Olive, the Bible, and Jacob 5'' (Salt Lake City, Utah : Deseret Book Co. ; Provo, Utah : Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 1994) ISBN 0875797679.[http://gospelink.com/library/toc?book_id=587 GospeLink]

Talk:Moroni's visit/Angel of Satan

2005-11-05T21:09:38Z

DavidFerguson: question requiring concensus

Should the last part of the conclusion (second paragraph to end) be taken out? It is a good read, but it is not at all related to the article.

Thoughts?

Moroni's visit/Angel of Satan

2005-11-05T21:06:32Z

DavidFerguson: changed a 1st person pronoun

==Criticism==

Some critics have charged that Moroni — the resurrected prophet who gave the Book of Mormon plates to Joseph Smith — was really an angel of Satan. They base this charge on two passages in the New Testament:

:For such are false apostles, deceitful workers transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness, whose end shall be according to their works. ([http://scriptures.lds.org/2_cor/11/13-15#13 2 Corinthians 11:13–15])

:But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. ([http://scriptures.lds.org/gal/1/8#8 Galatians 1:8])

Critics ask, "If Satan can appear as an angel of light, couldn't he have deceived Joseph Smith by claiming to be Jesus Christ or Moroni or any of the other messengers who appeared to him?"

==Response==

This is certainly possible in LDS belief, since the Book of Mormon describes two instances where this occurred ([http://scriptures.lds.org/2_ne/9/9#9 2 Nephi 9:9]; [http://scriptures.lds.org/alma/30/53#53 Alma 30:53]). Joseph Smith also briefly described several incidents of this nature associated with the restoration ([http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/128/20#20 D&C 128:20]; ''Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith'', p. 214 ). Nevertheless, it appears that Joseph became aware of this tactic early on and taught the members how to recognize this ruse (''Teachings'', pp. 202, 204, 214, 227; see also Bruce R McConkie, ''Doctrinal New Testament Commentary'', 2:440–441).

The Bible also contains a test to enable us to judge or, as John says, to "try spirits whether they are of God" ([http://scriptures.lds.org/1_jn/4/1#1 1 John 4:1]). If Jesus Christ or Moroni or any of the other messengers who appeared to Joseph Smith failed this test we would know they were ministers of Satan.

John states, "Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God" ([http://scriptures.lds.org/1_jn/4/2-3#2 1 John 4:2–3]). Joseph Smith likewise taught, "...if I profess to be a witness or teacher, and have not the spirit of prophecy, which is the testimony of Jesus, I must be a false witness.... [A]ny man who says he is a teacher or preacher of righteousness, and denies the spirit of prophecy, is a liar, and the truth is not in him; and by this key false teacher and impostors may be detected" (''Teachings'', p. 269).

In the First Vision Jesus Christ was introduced by God the Father as his "Beloved Son" ([http://scriptures.lds.org/js_h/1/17#17 Joseph Smith—History 1:17]). God the Father was, in essence, witnessing that Jesus Christ was his Only Begotten Son just as he had done when Jesus "came in the flesh" and was baptized ([http://scriptures.lds.org/matt/3/17#17 Matthew 3:17]; [http://scriptures.lds.org/mark/1/11#11 Mark 1:11]). In a subsequent appearance Jesus identified himself as "the first and the last...he who liveth...he who was slain" ([http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/110/4#4 D&C 110:4]). Jesus Christ was testifying that he was the same person who lived in the Holy Land and crucified for our sins. He confirmed that he indeed came "in the flesh" to accomplish the atonement.

The angel Moroni who appeared to Joseph Smith also confirmed that "Jesus Christ was come in the flesh" by quoting Old and New Testament scriptures which were fulfilled with his coming ([http://scriptures.lds.org/js_h/1/40#40 Joseph Smith—History 1:40]). He also stated that his (Moroni's) purpose was to reveal a book "giving an account of the former inhabitants of this continent" and containing the "everlasting Gospel...as delivered by the Savior" following his mortal ministry. The stated purpose of the Book of Mormon is in fact to convince both "Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ" ([http://scriptures.lds.org/bm/ttlpg title page]); as such, it is subtitled ''Another Testament of Jesus Christ''. Latter-day Saints believe it to be a second witness, after the Bible, of Jesus Christ's divine mission. If Moroni were Satan or one of Satan's ministers acting as an instrument of evil, he surely would not have done so much to convince mankind to believe in Christ; it goes counter to Satan's purpose ([http://scriptures.lds.org/matt/12/25#25 Matthew 12:25]).

In the Book of Mormon, Jacob told us:

:"Yea, I know that ye know that in the body he shall show himself unto those at Jerusalem, from whence we came; for it is expedient that it should be among them; for it behooveth the great Creator that he suffereth himself to become subject unto man in the flesh, and die for all men, that all men might become subject unto him. For as death hath passed upon all men, to fulfil the merciful plan of the great Creator, there must needs be a power of resurrection, and the resurrection must needs come unto man by reason of the fall; and the fall came by reason of transgression; and because man became fallen they were cut off from the presence of the Lord." ([http://scriptures.lds.org/2_ne/9/5-6#5 2 Nephi 9:5–6].)

Jacob's brother Nephi taught:

:"And now, my beloved brethren, and also Jew, and all ye ends of the earth, harken unto these words and believe in Christ; and if ye believe not in these words believe in Christ. And if ye shall believe in Christ ye will believe in these words, for they are the words of Christ, and he hath given them unto me; and they teach all men that they should do good. And if they are not the words of Christ, judge ye — for Christ will show unto you with power and great glory, that they are his words, at the last day; and you and I shall stand face to face before his bar; and ye shall know that I have been commanded of him to write these things, notwithstanding my weakness." ([http://scriptures.lds.org/2_ne/33/10-11#10 2 Nephi 33:10–11])

The Book of Mormon also contains an account of Christ's visit to those upon this continent wherein he allows them to "feel the prints of the nails" in his flesh ([http://scriptures.lds.org/3_ne/11/14#14 3 Nephi 11:14]) that they might understand that he died for them also. Thus Moroni and the book which he brought, both testify that Jesus Christ is the Messiah and was come in the flesh "manifesting himself unto all nations" ([http://scriptures.lds.org/bm/ttlpg title page]; [http://scriptures.lds.org/1_ne/10/4-11#4 1 Nephi 10:4–11]; [http://scriptures.lds.org/1_ne/11/18-21,27-33#18 11:18–21, 27–33]; [http://scriptures.lds.org/1_ne/15/13#13 15:13]; [http://scriptures.lds.org/mosiah/7/27#27 Mosiah 7:27]; [http://scriptures.lds.org/mosiah/15/1-2#1 15:1–2]; [http://scriptures.lds.org/ether/3/6,9,16-17#6 Ether 3:6, 9, 16–17]; [http://scriptures.lds.org/moro/9/25#25 Moroni 9:25]).

None of the messengers which appeared to Joseph Smith ever denied that Jesus Christ was the Messiah come in the flesh ([http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/13/1#1 D&C 13:1]; [http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/18/11-12#11 18:11–12]; [http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/19/16-19#16 19:16–19]; [http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/20/1#1 20:1]; [http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/110/4#4 110:4]) and all had a "testimony of Jesus." Paul gave us a final key to detection of false messengers; he said that their "end shall be according to their works" ([http://scriptures.lds.org/2_cor/11/15#15 2 Corinthians 11:15]). If their works be evil or unrighteous we will know they are not from God. "By their fruits ye shall know them" ([http://scriptures.lds.org/matt/7/20#20 Matthew 7:20]).

==Conclusion==

Some have argued that Joseph Smith might have been deceived by Satan or been misled by his imagination but these objections fail an objective analysis using the scriptures as our standard of truth. The teachings of Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon, and the LDS Church affirm that Jesus is the Christ and that he "came in the flesh" as prophesied and affirmed in scripture. For Satan to inspire these latter-day truths goes counter to Christ's own teachings ([http://scriptures.lds.org/matt/12/25-26#25 Matthew 12:25–26]; also [http://scriptures.lds.org/matt/9/33-34#33 Matthew 9:33–34]; [http://scriptures.lds.org/mark/3/22-30#22 Mark 3:22–30]; [http://scriptures.lds.org/luke/11/14-26#14 Luke 11:14–26]; ''Jesus the Christ'', pp. 265–266).

To believe that an uneducated farm boy could have imagined these things and convinced so many others of their veracity is difficult to justify especially in view of the testimonies of all those who were also intimately involved as eyewitnesses to many of these same events. Indeed, to deny these events took place as so many witnesses testified takes more faith than to accept their accounts as factual. Joseph Fielding McConkie pointed out:

:"Many a pretender to the prophetic office has claimed to entertain angels or to have spoken with God, but who other than Joseph Smith introduced his angels to others? Joseph Smith introduced Moroni to Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer, and Martin Harris. He was never alone when priesthood or keys were restored.... He and Sydney Rigdon received the revelation on the degrees of glory together. Together they saw legions of angels, along with the Father and the Son (see [http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/76/21-23#21 D&C 76:21–23]). Oliver Cowdery was with Joseph Smith when John the Baptist came to restore the Aaronic Priesthood, and when Peter, James, and John came to restore the Melchizedek Priesthood. Oliver was also with Joseph Smith when Christ came to accept the dedication of the Kirtland Temple, and Moses, Elias, and Elijah restored their keys, powers, and authorities." (''Sons and Daughters of God'', pp. 194–195)

The accounts of these and other eyewitnesses stand as a testimony to the world that Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God and that the Church of Jesus Christ was in fact restored through divine messengers.

Talk:Book of Mormon hebraisms

2005-11-05T20:34:06Z

DavidFerguson:

The title on the Pages to Create list is spelled wrong. I don't know how to fix that, so I will leave it up to you Mike.

The Book of Mormon and the fulness of the gospel

2005-11-05T20:31:42Z

DavidFerguson: 1 spelling error

==Criticism==
The Lord declared that he had given Joseph Smith "power from on high...to translate the Book of Mormon; which contains a record of a fallen people, and ''the fulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ'' to the Gentiles and to the Jews also" ([http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/20/8-9#8 D&C 20:8–9]).

Critics claim that the Book of Mormon cannot contain "the fulness of the gospel" because it doesn't teach certain unique LDS doctrines, such as baptism for the dead, the Word of Wisdom, and the corporeal nature of God the Father.

===Source(s) of the Criticism===
*John Ankerberg and John Weldon, ''Everything You Ever Wanted to Know about Mormonism'' (Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 1992), 292-4.
*Mark J. Cares, ''Speaking the Truth In Love to Mormons,'' (Milwaukee, Wis. : Northwestern Pub. House, 1993), 96, 212, 243-4.
*Walter Martin, ''The Maze of Mormonism'' (Santa Ana, California: Vision House, 1979).
*Latayne Colvett Scott, ''The Mormon Mirage : a former Mormon tells why she left the church'' (Grand Rapids : Zondervan Pub. House, 1979), 91.

==Response==

===What does the Book of Mormon contain?===
The Book of Mormon is correct in the doctrines and principles it teaches, but it does not claim to contain all truth. Its own self-described purpose is to "the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that JESUS is the CHRIST, the ETERNAL GOD, manifesting himself unto all nations" ([http://scriptures.lds.org/bm/ttlpg title page]), and that these teachings are "plain and precious" ([http://scriptures.lds.org/1_ne/13/35,40#35 1 Nephi 13:35, 40]; [http://scriptures.lds.org/1_ne/19/3#3 19:3]). For the most part, the Book of Mormon does not concern itself with the deeper mysteries of God.

The book itself admits that it does not contain all the doctrines the Lord wants us to know. The prophet Mormon explained that he only recorded "the lesser part of the things which [Jesus] taught the people," for the intent that "when [the Book of Mormon reader] shall have received this...if it shall so be that they shall believe these things then shall the greater things be made manifest unto them" ([http://scriptures.lds.org/3_ne/26/8-9#8 3 Nephi 26:8–9]; compare [http://scriptures.lds.org/alma/26/22#22 Alma 26:22]).

===What is the gospel?===
In the Book of Mormon, Jesus Christ gave a specific definition of "the gospel":

:Behold I have given unto you my gospel, and ''this is the gospel which I have given unto you''—that I came into the world to do the will of my Father, because my Father sent me.

:And my Father sent me that I might be lifted up upon the cross; and after that I had been lifted up upon the cross, that I might draw all men unto me, that as I have been lifted up by men even so should men be lifted up by the Father, to stand before me, to be judged of their works, whether they be good or whether they be evil—

:And for this cause have I been lifted up; therefore, according to the power of the Father I will draw all men unto me, that they may be judged according to their works.

:And it shall come to pass, that whoso repenteth and is baptized in my name shall be filled; and if he endureth to the end, behold, him will I hold guiltless before my Father at that day when I shall stand to judge the world.

:And he that endureth not unto the end, the same is he that is also hewn down and cast into the fire, from whence they can no more return, because of the justice of the Father.

:And this is the word which he hath given unto the children of men. And for this cause he fulfilleth the words which he hath given, and he lieth not, but fulfilleth all his words.

:And no unclean thing can enter into his kingdom; therefore nothing entereth into his rest save it be those who have washed their garments in my blood, because of their faith, and the repentance of all their sins, and their faithfulness unto the end.

:([http://scriptures.lds.org/3_ne/27/13-19#13 3 Nephi 27:13–19], italics added.)

In this passage, Jesus defines "the gospel" as:

#Christ came into the world to do the Father's will.
#The Father sent Christ to be crucified.
#Because of Christ's atonement, all men will be judged by him according to their works (as opposed to not receiving a judgment at all and being cast out of God's presence by default; [http://scriptures.lds.org/2_ne/9/8-9#8 2 Nephi 9:8–9]).
#Those who repent and are baptized shall be filled (with the Holy Ghost, Nephi 12:6), and
#if they continue in faith by enduring to the end they will be justified (declared "not guilty") by Christ before the Father, but
#if they don't endure they will be subject to the justice of God and cast out of his presence.
#The Father's words will all be fulfilled.
#Because no unclean thing can enter the Father's heavenly kingdom, only those who rely in faith on the atonement of Christ, repent, and are faithful to the end can be saved.

This is "the gospel." The Book of Mormon teaches these concepts with a plainness and clarity unequaled by any other book. It has therefore been declared by the Lord to contain "the fulness of the gospel."

==Conclusion==

But the primary message of the gospel, the "good news" of Jesus Christ, is that he has atoned for our sins and prepared a way for us to come back into the presence of the Father. This is the message of the Book of Mormon, and it contains it in its fulness.

==Further reading==

===FAIR web site===
*FAIR Topical Guide: [http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai278.html Fulness of the Gospel]
*Michael Parker, "[http://www.fairlds.org/apol/bom/bom11.html The Book of Mormon and the Fulness of the Gospel]."

===External links===
*Noel B. Reynolds, "Does the scriptural term gospel have the same meaning for us today as it did for the early saints?", I Have A Question, ''Ensign'' (Jan. 1975): 22. [http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/1975.htm/ensign%20january%201975.htm/i%20have%20a%20question.htm]
*Noel B. Reynolds, "How to 'Come unto Christ,'" ''Ensign'' (September 1992): 7-13.[http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/1992.htm/ensign%20september%201992%20.htm/how%20to%20come%20unto%20christ.htm]

===Printed material===
*Noel B. Reynolds, "The Gospel of Jesus Christ as Taught by the Nephite Prophets," ''BYU Studies'' 31:3 (Summer 1991): 31-50.
*Noel B. Reynolds, "Gospel of Jesus Christ," in ''Encyclopedia of Mormonism'' 2:556-60.
*Noel B. Reynolds, "The Gospel As Taught by the Nephites" (Provo, Utah: FARMS, 1994).

The Hill Cumorah

2005-11-05T20:18:46Z

DavidFerguson: minor editing

{{question}}

==Question==
"While trying to finish the Book of Mormon by year end, I read [http://scriptures.lds.org/morm/6 Mormon chapter 6], which describes the last great battle at the hill of Cumorah. Assuming the chapter is pretty much a literal description of what happened — approximately 100 thousand were killed by swords and axes — why hasn't any evidence of the battle been found at the site the Church identifies as hill Cumorah in western New York state?"

==Answer==
There are a couple of incorrect assumptions in this question.

===Where is the hill Cumorah?===
First, it is not the case that the Church authoritatively identifies the drumlin in western New York as the same Hill Cumorah mentioned in the text of the Book of Mormon. The Church has consistently made it clear that it does not endorse any particular view of Book of Mormon geography.

While we call the drumlin in New York "Hill Cumorah" based on a usage initiated early in Church history (probably by Oliver Cowdery or W. W. Phelps), that does not necessarily make the two hills the same. Most LDS scholars do not think they are the same, because the New York drumlin does not meet the textual requirements for the geographic placement of the hill in relation to the narrow neck of land.

Also note that the Book of Mormon does not state that the plates of Mormon were buried in the Cumorah; in fact, it says exactly the opposite:

:"And it came to pass that when we had gathered in all our people in one to the land of Cumorah, behold I, Mormon...made this record [the plates of Mormon] out of the plates of Nephi, and hid up in the hill Cumorah all the records which had been entrusted to me by the hand of the Lord, save [except] it were these few plates which I gave unto my son Moroni." ([http://scriptures.lds.org/morm/6/6#6 Mormon 6:6])

This took place in approximately A.D. 385. Moroni did not bury the plates of Mormon until A.D. 421. During this 36-year period Moroni explained:

:"[The Lamanites] put to death every Nephite that will not deny the Christ. And I, Moroni, will not deny the Christ; wherefore, I wander whithersoever I can for the safety of mine own life." ([http://scriptures.lds.org/moro/1/2-3#2 Moroni 1:3])

During that 36-year wandering to escape the Lamanites, it seems likely that he would have traveled a great distance, eventually coming to modern New York state where he buried the plates.

===Large population counts in the scriptures===
A second questionable premise is that the numbers recited in the text should be understood as accurate in the same sense we would understand those numbers today. Ancient militaristic texts, including those of the Bible, frequently exaggerated the numbers involved in battle for their own propagandistic purposes. Very large numbers in the scriptures should always be taken with a grain of salt.


==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===
*[[Book of Mormon archeology]]
*[[Book of Mormon demographics]]

===FAIR web site===
*FAIR Topical Guide: [http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai178.html Book of Mormon Geography]

===Printed material===
*John Clark, "[http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=jbms&id=347 Archaeology and Cumorah Questions]," ''Journal of Book of Mormon Studies'' 13/1 (2004), pp. 144–51.

Book of Mormon/Anachronisms/Shiz struggles to breathe

2005-11-05T20:13:59Z

DavidFerguson: more minor edits

==Criticism==
[[Image:Brain_1.gif|frame|Right|The human brain. The midbrain is located at the level marked 'cerebral peduncle'. From: Henry Gray, ''Anatomy of the Human Body'', 1918, Fig 677. [http://www.bartleby.com/107/illus677.html].]]

In [http://scriptures.lds.org/ether/15/31#31 Ether 15:31], a final showdown occurs between two warriors, Shiz and Coriantumr. Coriantumr "smote off the head of Shiz...[and] after he had smitten off the head...Shiz raised up on his hands and fell; and after that he had struggled for breath, he died."

Critics insist that this would not, or could not, happen.

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

*John R. Farkas and David A. Reed, ''Mormonism: Changes, Contradictions, and Errors'' (Grand Rapids, Mich. : Baker Books, 1995), 152.
*Ed Decker, ''Decker's Complete Handbook on Mormonism'' (Eugene: Harvest House, 1995), 114.
*Latayne Colvett Scott, ''The Mormon Mirage : a former Mormon tells why she left the church'' (Grand Rapids : Zondervan Pub. House, 1979), 90.

[[Image:mesencephalon_1.gif|frame||Closeup of mid- and hind-brain; the mid-brain is the area above the pons. From: Henry Gray, ''Anatomy of the Human Body'', 1918, Fig 681. [http://www.bartleby.com/107/illus681.html].]]

==Response==

Contrary to the critics' assumptions,

:''Shiz's death struggle illustrates the classic reflex posture that occurs in both humans and animals when the upper brain stem (midbrain/mesencephalon) is disconnected from the brain. The extensor muscles of the arms and legs contract, and this reflex action could cause Shiz to raise up on his hands'' [Hadfield, 324].

Cutting the brainstem in this location causes the muscles which ''extend'' (straighten) the arms and legs to contract. This makes the arms and legs rigid, which would raise a corpse up until lack of oxygen and blood loss caused eventual muscle failure.

[[Image:decerbrate_posturing_1.JPG|frame|left|'''Decerebrate posturing''' - Notice how the arms and legs are rigidly extended.''This information was provided by Clinical Tools, Inc., and is copyrighted by Clinical Tools, Inc. Non-commericial use is permitted.'' [[http://images2.clinicaltools.com/images/trauma/posturing.jpg]].]]

People in this "decerebrate" reflex posture can also display "opisthotonos," a position "characterized by rigidity and severe arching of the back, with the head thrown backwards. This is such that if a person were laid on his or her back, only the back of the head and the heels would touch the supporting surface." [http://health.allrefer.com/health/opisthotonos-info.html] If the person — as in Shiz's case — were face down, the body would appear to rise up, with the neck bent backward and the face upraised. This dramatic positioning would make it appear as if the person was 'struggling for breath,' even though such behavior is a mere reflex, and not intentional.

==Conclusion==
With the death scene of Shiz, Joseph Smith provides the reader with a vivid example of a catastrophic injury which is consistent with a weary, sloppy cut made by the exhausted Coriantumr. A seasoned warrior, Moroni likely knew that such behavior would be relatively rare on the battlefield, even if he did not understand the rather precise neuroanatomy needed to cause it.

Shiz's death throes are a realistic touch, and a phenomenon that went unrecognized in the medical literature of the modern era until 1898. It is one more mark of the Book of Mormon's status as genuine history.

{{Joseph Smith BoM against expectations}}

==Further reading==

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

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

===External links===
*John W. Welch, in "The 'Decapitation' of Shiz," ''Insights'' (November 1994): 2. [http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=insights&id=33]

===Printed material===
*M. Gary Hadfield, "Neuropathology and the Scriptures," ''BYU Studies'' 33:2 (1993): 313-28. [http://gospelink.com/library/doc?doc_id=283097]

Reformed Egyptian and the Book of Mormon

2005-11-05T20:12:32Z

DavidFerguson: same minor edits

==Criticism==
Critics claim that
* Jews or Israelites (like the Nephites) would not have used the language of their slave period — Egyptian — to write sacred records.
* there is no evidence in Egyptology of something called "Reformed Egyptian," and that the Book of Mormon's claim to have been written in this language is therefore suspect.

===Source(s) of the Criticism===
*John Ankerberg and John Weldon, ''Everything You Ever Wanted to Know about Mormonism'' (Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 1992), 294-5.
*Francis J. Beckwith, Carl Mosser, et al., ''The New Mormon Challenge: Responding to the Latest Defenses of a Fast-Growing Movement'' (Grand Rapids, Mich. : Zondervan, 2002). ISBN 0310231949.
*Marvin W. Cowan, ''Mormon Claims Answered'', (Salt Lake City: Utah Lighthouse Ministry, 1997), chapter 4.
*Latayne Colvett Scott, ''The Mormon Mirage : a former Mormon tells why she left the church'' (Grand Rapids : Zondervan Pub. House, 1979),63-4.
*Jerald and Sandra Tanner, ''The Changing World of Mormonism'' (Chicago: Moody Press, 1980), 141-5.
*Kurt Van Gorden, ''Mormonism'' (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995), 8, footnote 7.

==Response==
===Would an Israelite use Egyptian?===
The claim that Israelites would not use Egyptian is clearly false. By the ninth to sixth centuries before Christ, Israelites used Egyptian numerals mingled with Hebrew text. The ''Papyrus Amherst'' 63 contains a text of Psalms 20:2-6 written in Aramaic (the language of Jesus) using Egyptian characters. This text was originally dated to the second century B.C., but this has since been extended to the 4th century B.C.{{ref|GeeTved1}}

:More significant, however, was an ostracon uncovered at Arad in 1967. Dating "toward the end of the seventh century B.C.," it reflects usage from shortly before 600 B.C., the time of Lehi. The text on the ostracon is written in a combination of Egyptian hieratic and Hebrew characters, but can be read entirely as Egyptian. Of the seventeen words in the text, ten are written in [Egyptian] hieratic and seven in Hebrew. However, all the words written in Hebrew can be read as Egyptian words, while one of them, which occurs twice, has the same meaning in both Egyptian and Hebrew.19 Of the ten words written in hieratic script, four are numerals (one occurring in each line).20 One symbol, denoting a measure of capacity, occurs four times (once in each of the four lines), and the remaining Egyptian word occurs twice. Thus, while seventeen words appear on the ostracon, if one discounts the recurrence of words, only six words are written in hieratic (of which four are numerals), and six in Hebrew.{{ref|TvedRicks1}}

===What is "Reformed Egyptian"?===
Moroni makes it clear that "reformed Egyptian" is the name which ''the Nephites'' have given to a script based upon Egyptian characters, and modified over the course of a thousand years (See [http://scriptures.lds.org/morm/9/32#32 Mormon 9:32]). So, it is no surprise that Egyptians or Jews have no script called "reformed Egyptian," as this was a Nephite term.

There are, however, several varient Egyptian scrips which are "reformed" or altered from their earlier form. Hugh Nibley and others have pointed out that the change from Egyptian hieroglphics, to hieratic, to demotic is a good description of Egyptian being "reformed." By 600 BC, hieratic was used primarily for religious texts, while demotic was used for daily use.[http://www.ancientscripts.com/egyptian.html *]

[[Image:180px-Egyptian_hieroglyphs_Black_Schist_sarcophagus_Ankhnesneferibre.jpg|frame|left|'''Hieroglyphics''': Hieroglyphs from the Black Schist sarcophagus of Ankhnesneferibre. Twenty-Sixth Dynasty, about 530 BC, Thebes.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_language *]]]

[[Image:180px-Prisse_papyrus.jpg|frame|left|'''Hieratic''': A section of the Prisse papyrus from the Bibliothèque nationale de France, containing the ''Precepts of Kakemna'' and the ''Precepts of Ptahhotep'' in hieratic. [http://www.fairwiki.org/wiki/index.php/Image:800px-Prisse_papyrus.jpg Enlarge] ''Source'': Plate IV. ''The S.S. Teacher's Edition: The Holy Bible'', (New York: Henry Frowde, Publisher to the University of Oxford, 1896).[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hieratic *]]]

[[Image:180px-DemoticScriptsRosettaStoneReplica.jpg|frame|left|'''Demotic''': Inscription from the Rosetta Stone in demotic.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_language *]]]
 

One can see how hieroglphics developed into the more stylized hieratic, and this process continued with the demotic:

[[Image:Hieratic Script.png|center|frame|Development of hieratic script from hieroglyphs; after Jean-François Champollion.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hieratic *]]]

What could be a better term for this than an Egyptian script that has been "reformed"?

==Conclusion==

There was a clear evolution of Egyptian script in the Old World, and these modified scrips were in use in Lehi's day. People of Lehi's time and place did use both Hebrew and Egyptian, just as Nephi claimed (See [http://scriptures.lds.org/1_ne/1/2#2 1 Nephi 1:2]).

Given that Moroni says the Nephites then modified the scripts further, "reformed Egyptian" is an elegant description of both the Old World phenomenon, and what Moroni says happened among the Nephites.

{{Joseph Smith BoM against expectations}}

==Endnotes==
# {{note|GeeTved1}} John Gee and John A. Tvedtnes, "Ancient Manuscripts Fit Book of Mormon Pattern," ''Insights'' 19:2 (February 1999): 4–5.[http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=insights&id=58 *]
# {{note|TvedRicks1}} John A. Tvedtnes and Stephen D. Ricks, "Jewish and Other Semitic Texts Written in Egyptian Characters," ''Journal of Book of Mormon Studies'' 5:2 (1996): 156.[http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?id=128&table=jbms *]

==Further reading==

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

===FAIR web site===
*FAIR Topical Guide: [http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai091.html Reformed Egyptian]

===External links===
*Ariel Crowley, "The Anthon Transcript," ''Improvement Era'', 45:1 (January 1942) and 45:2 (February 1942), 45:3 (March 1942). [http://www.shields-research.org/Scriptures/BoM/Anthon_Transcript-Crowley/Anthon_Transcript-Crowley.htm *]
*John Gee and John A. Tvedtnes, "Ancient Manuscripts Fit Book of Mormon Pattern," ''Insights'' 19:2 (February 1999): 4–5.[http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=insights&id=58 *]
*John L. Sorenson, "Digging into the Book of Mormon: Our Changing Understanding of Ancient America and Its Scripture, Part 2," ''Ensign'' (October 1984): 17.[http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/1984.htm/ensign%20october%201984%20.htm/digging%20into%20the%20book%20of%20mormon%20our%20changing%20understanding%20of%20ancient%20america%20and%20its%20scripture%20part%202%20.htm *]
* John A. Tvedtnes and Stephen D. Ricks, "Jewish and Other Semitic Texts Written in Egyptian Characters," ''Journal of Book of Mormon Studies'' 5:2 (1996): 156–163.[http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?id=128&table=jbms *]
* {{FARMSReview| author=John A. Tvedtnes and Matthew Roper|article=One Small Step|vol=15|num=1|date=2003|start=147|end=199}}[http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=review&id=472 *]

===Printed material===
*William J. Hamblin, "Reformed Egyptian" (Provo, Utah: FARMS, 1995).
*Carl H. Jones, "The 'Anthon Transcript' and Two Mesoamerican Cylinder Seals," ''Newsletter and Proceedings of the Society for Early Historical Archaeology'' 122 (September 1970): 1–8.
*Hugh W. Nibley, ''Since Cumorah'', 2d edition, (Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book Co., 1988), 149–150.

Plants in the Book of Mormon

2005-11-05T20:11:13Z

DavidFerguson: same minor editing

==Criticism==
A brief explanation of the criticism.

===Source(s) of the Criticism===
*William Edward Biederwolf, ''Mormonism Under the Searchlight'' (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1947).
*Rick Branch, "Nephite Nickels," ''The Utah Evangel'' 29:10 (October 1982): 1.
*Gordon Fraser, ''Is Mormonism Christian?'' (Chicago: Moody Press, 1977), 141.
*Gordon Fraser, ''What Does the Book of Mormon Teach? An Examination of the Historical and Scientific Statements of the Book of Mormon'' (Chicago: Moody Press, 1964), 90.
*M.T. Lamb, ''The Golden Bible, or, The Book of Mormon: Is It From God?'' (New York: Ward & Drummond, 1887), 304.
*Walter Martin, ''Kingdom of the Cults'' (Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers, 1997),
*Latayne Colvett Scott, ''The Mormon Mirage : a former Mormon tells why she left the church'' (Grand Rapids : Zondervan Pub. House, 1979), 82–84.
*Charles A. Shook, ''Cumorah Revisited...'' (Cincinnati: The Standard Publishing Company, 1910), 382-383.
*James White, ''Letters to a Mormon Elder'' (Southbridge, MA: Crowne, 1990), 139.

==Response==

===Barley===

Barley in the New World was long a source of anti-Mormon amusement, with one author insisting, "barley never grew in the New World before the white man brought it here!" [Scott, 82.]

Unfortunately for Ms. Scott, this is simply false. New World barley has been known since 1983.{{ref|sorensmith}}

{{Joseph Smith BoM against expectations}}

===Linen===
''(i.e. flax)''

:[The Spaniards] encountered and referred to what they considered "linen" or linenlike cloth made from plants other than flax.{{ref|soren1}}

*Bernal Diaz, who served with Cortez in the initial wave of conquest, described native Mexican garments made of "henequen which is like linen." The fiber of the maguey plant, from which henequen was manufactured, closely resembles the flax fiber used to make European linen
*yucca plant fibres makes linen-like cloth
* ixtle (agave) plant fibre makes linen-like cloth
* fig tree bark can be stripped, soaked, and pounded for a cloth with "some of the characteristics of linen."{{ref|soren2}} {{ref|soren3}}

===Neas===
This crop is mentioned but once (See [http://scriptures.lds.org/mosiah/9/9#9 Mosiah 9:9]). We do not know what it applied to, but this does not count ''against'' the Book of Mormon's claims.

===Sheum===
One must credit Joseph Smith with a bullseye on this issue:

:The name rather obviously derives from Akkadian (Babylonian) "she'um," barley (Old Assyrian, wheat), "the most popular ancient Mesopotamian cereal name."{{ref|soren4}}

We do not know to which crop this name was applied, but it is certainly not out of place in an ancient context (See [http://scriptures.lds.org/mosiah/9/9#9 Mosiah 9:9]). Critics must explain how Joseph Smith chose this word, since Akkadian was not translated until 27 years after the publication of the Book of Mormon.{{ref|roper1}}

{{Joseph Smith BoM against expectations}}

===Silk===
''(i.e. mulberry leaves and silkworms)''

The production of Old World "silk" requires both silkworms and the mulberry trees upon whose leaves they feed, which critics have charged is impossible.

However, there are several examples of silk or silk-like fabric in pre-Columbian America:

* wild silkworms do exist, and some commentators insisted that the Amerindians spun and wove it from their coccoons
* hair from rabbit bellies was also spun into a cloth dubbed "silk" by the Spanish conquerors
* floss from the ceiba (silk-cotton) tree was made into a "soft delicate cloth," ''kapok''.
* fibres from the wild pineable were also prized for their ability to be woven into a fine, durable fabric
* cotton cloth in Mexico from A.D. 400 is "even, very fine, and gossamer-thin."{{ref|soren5}}{{ref|soren6}}

===Wine (i.e. grapes)===
:[The Spaniards] spoke of "vineyards," not planted in grapevines but in maguey plants, from which pulque, which they termed "wine," was manufactured. Half a dozen different types of "wine" made from fruits other than grapes were identified by the Spanish explorers...[another researcher also] reports the Opata of northern Mexico used a drink made from native grapes.{{ref|soren7}}

So, there ''were'' grapes locally, as well as several other plant species which produced alcoholic drinks which the Spanish were quite happy to consider 'wine.'

==Conclusion==

None of the Book of Mormon's plant species causes a problem — Spanish conquerors described pre-Columbian products in exactly the terms used by the Book of Mormon. Barley, silkworms, and grapes were known. One of the terms unknown to Joseph's day (the Akkadian ''sheum'') are persuasive evidence for the Book of Mormon's antiquity.

==Endnotes==
# {{note|sorensmith}} John L. Sorenson and Robert F. Smith, "Barley in Ancient America," in ''Reexploring the Book of Mormon'', edited by John W. Welch (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book and FARMS, 1992), 130–2.
# {{note|soren1}} John L. Sorenson, "Plants and Animals," in "Viva Zapato! Hurray for the Shoe!" Review of "Does the Shoe Fit? A Critique of the Limited Tehuantepec Geography," by Deanne G. Matheny, ''Review of Books on the Book of Mormon'' 6:1 (1994): 335-336.[http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=review&id=142 *]
# {{note|soren2}} {{Aas1|start=232}}[http://gospelink.com/library/doc?doc_id=263779 *]
# {{note|soren3}} Sorenson, ''Ensign'' (April 1992): 62.[http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/1992.htm/ensign%20april%201992%20.htm/research%20and%20perspectives%20book%20of%20mormon%20update.htm?fn=document-frame.htm$f=templates$3.0 *]
# {{note|soren4}} Sorenson, "Zaputo," 338; citing Robert F. Smith, "Some 'Neologisms' from the Mormon Canon," Conference on the Language of the Mormons 1973, Brigham Young University Language Research Center, 1973, 66.][http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=review&id=142 *]
# {{note|roper1}} Matt Roper, "Right on Target: Boomerang Hits and the Book of Mormon," FAIR Presentation, 2001. [http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/conf/2001RopM.html *]
#{{note|soren5}} {{Aas1|start=232}}[http://gospelink.com/library/doc?doc_id=263779 *]
# {{note|soren6}} Sorenson, ''Ensign'' (April 1992): 62.
#{{note|soren7}} Sorenson, "Zaputo," 335-336.[http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=review&id=142 *]

==Further reading==

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

===FAIR web site===
*FAIR Topical Guide:
* Matthew Roper, "Right on Target: Boomerang Hits and the Book of Mormon" [http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/conf/2001RopM.html *]

===External links===
*John L. Sorenson, “Silk and Linen in the Book of Mormon - Book of Mormon Update,” ''Ensign'' (Apr. 1992): 62. [http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/1992.htm/ensign%20april%201992%20.htm/research%20and%20perspectives%20book%20of%20mormon%20update.htm?fn=document-frame.htm$f=templates$3.0 *]

===Printed material===
* John L. Sorenson, "Plants and Animals," in "Viva Zapato! Hurray for the Shoe!" Review of "Does the Shoe Fit? A Critique of the Limited Tehuantepec Geography," by Deanne G. Matheny, ''Review of Books on the Book of Mormon'' 6:1 (1994): 342–48.[http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=review&id=142 *],[http://gospelink.com/library/doc?doc_id=288327 ^]
* John L. Sorenson and Robert F. Smith, "Barley in Ancient America," in ''Reexploring the Book of Mormon'', edited by John W. Welch (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book and FARMS, 1992), 130–2.
*John W. Welch, "Barley in Ancient America," in John W. Welch, ''Reexploring the Book of Mormon'' (Salt Lake City, Utah : Deseret Book Co. ; Provo, Utah : Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 1992), 130–132. ISBN 0875796001.[http://gospelink.com/library/doc?doc_id=296829 *]
*John W. Welch, "Possible 'Silk' and 'Linen' in the Book of Mormon," in John W. Welch, ''Reexploring the Book of Mormon'' (Salt Lake City, Utah : Deseret Book Co. ; Provo, Utah : Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 1992), 162–164. ISBN 0875796001.[http://gospelink.com/library/doc?doc_id=296838 *]

User talk:DavidFerguson

2005-11-05T19:53:22Z

DavidFerguson: ignore

==Return to==
The Bible
*all
Authorship Theories
*all
Anachronisms
-adieu, animals, Jerusalem vs. Bethlehem, metals, reformed Egyptian, Shiz article, and Snow

Question: Why don't Mormons use the "Joseph Smith Translation" as its official Bible?

2005-11-04T23:22:58Z

DavidFerguson: spelling

{{question}}

==Question==
"I am wondering why we don't use the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible as 'our' Bible. We use, of course, the Authorized ('King James') Version. We are not bashful about proclaiming Joseph Smith as the translator of the golden plates into The Book of Mormon, but it seems that we are less forward about his translation of the Bible."

==Answer==
The answer to this question is a complex one. There is no ''single'' reason why we don't use the JST as "our" Bible. Here are a few reasons, however:

#The primary reason is that there is no revelation that has directed the Church to replace the KJV with the JST. Such a change would certainly require such a revelation to be submitted at General Conference and sustained by the members of the Church.
#The original manuscripts for the JST were retained by Emma Smith when the Saints went west. She later gave them to her son, Joseph III, and he had the first JST Bible printed under the auspices of the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. At this time there was a great deal of animosity between the LDS and RLDS churches; Brigham Young believed that the RLDS church had tampered with the JST text and that it didn't accurately reflect Joseph Smith's original translation. This mistrust — along with the fact that the LDS Church did not own the copyright to the work — kept the Utah Saints from embracing the JST. It was only through Bruce R. McConkie's interest in and use of the JST, along with Robert Matthews' research on the JST manuscripts in the early 1970s, that these attitudes were reversed.
#From a practical sense, adoption of the JST would be a stumblingblock for converts. Not only are we asking them to accept Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon, etc., but we'd also be requiring them to abandon their traditional Bible. We already do that to some extent — readers of the NIV have to learn to adopt the KJV — but we'd be asking them to go a step further and accept Joseph Smith's translation of the Bible, which no other church uses. In this sense, the KJV serves as a connection between the LDS Church and the remainder of the Christian world.
#Portions of the JST ''have'' been canonized: Our [http://scriptures.lds.org/moses/contents Book of Moses] and [http://scriptures.lds.org/js_m/contents Joseph Smith—Matthew]are excerpts from the JST.

Book of Mormon/Anachronisms/Shiz struggles to breathe

2005-11-04T23:16:12Z

DavidFerguson: put table under conclusion rather than over it

==Criticism==
[[Image:Brain_1.gif|frame|Right|The human brain. The midbrain is located at the level marked 'cerebral peduncle'. From: Henry Gray, ''Anatomy of the Human Body'', 1918, Fig 677. [http://www.bartleby.com/107/illus677.html].]]

In [http://scriptures.lds.org/ether/15/31#31 Ether 15:31], a final showdown occurs between two warriors, Shiz and Coriantumr. Coriantumr "smote off the head of Shiz...[and] after he had smitten off the head...Shiz raised up on his hands and fell; and after that he had struggled for breath, he died."

Critics insist that this would not, or could not, happen.

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

*John R. Farkas and David A. Reed, ''Mormonism: Changes, Contradictions, and Errors'' (Grand Rapids, Mich. : Baker Books, 1995), 152.
*Ed Decker, ''Decker's Complete Handbook on Mormonism'' (Eugene: Harvest House, 1995), 114.
*Latayne Colvett Scott, ''The Mormon Mirage : a former Mormon tells why she left the church'' (Grand Rapids : Zondervan Pub. House, 1979), 90.

[[Image:mesencephalon_1.gif|frame||Closeup of mid- and hind-brain; the mid-brain is the area above the pons. From: Henry Gray, ''Anatomy of the Human Body'', 1918, Fig 681. [http://www.bartleby.com/107/illus681.html].]]

==Response==

Contrary to the critics' assumptions,

:''Shiz's death struggle illustrates the classic reflex posture that occurs in both humans and animals when the upper brain stem (midbrain/mesencephalon) is disconnected from the brain. The extensor muscles of the arms and legs contract, and this reflex action could cause Shiz to raise up on his hands'' [Hadfield, 324].

Cutting the brainstem in this location causes the muscles which ''extend'' (straighten) the arms and legs to contract. This makes the arms and legs rigid, which would raise a corpse up until lack of oxygen and blood loss caused eventual muscle failure.

[[Image:decerbrate_posturing_1.JPG|frame|left|'''Decerebrate posturing''' - Notice how the arms and legs are rigidly extended.''This information was provided by Clinical Tools, Inc., and is copyrighted by Clinical Tools, Inc. Non-commericial use is permitted.'' [[http://images2.clinicaltools.com/images/trauma/posturing.jpg]].]]

People in this "decerebrate" reflex posture can also display "opisthotonos," a position "characterized by rigidity and severe arching of the back, with the head thrown backwards. This is such that if a person were laid on his or her back, only the back of the head and the heels would touch the supporting surface." [http://health.allrefer.com/health/opisthotonos-info.html] If the person—as in Shiz's case—were face down, the body would appear to rise up, with the neck bent backward and the face upraised. This dramatic positioning would make it appear as if the person was 'struggling for breath,' even though such behavior is a mere reflex, and not intentional.

==Conclusion==
With the death scene of Shiz, Joseph Smith provides the reader with a vivid example of a catastrophic injury which is consistent with a weary, sloppy cut made by the exhausted Coriantumr. A seasoned warrior, Moroni likely knew that such behavior would be relatively rare on the battlefield, even if he did not understand the rather precise neuroanatomy needed to cause it.

Shiz's death throes are a realistic touch, and a phenomenon that went unrecognized in the medical literature of the modern era until 1898. It is one more mark of the Book of Mormon's status as genuine history.

{{Joseph Smith BoM against expectations}}

==Further reading==

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

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

===External links===
*John W. Welch, in "The 'Decapitation' of Shiz," ''Insights'' (November 1994): 2. [http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=insights&id=33]

===Printed material===
*M. Gary Hadfield, "Neuropathology and the Scriptures," ''BYU Studies'' 33:2 (1993): 313-28. [http://gospelink.com/library/doc?doc_id=283097]

User talk:DavidFerguson

2005-11-04T20:20:21Z

DavidFerguson: ignore

==Return to==
The Bible
*all
Authorship Theories
*all
Anachronisms
-adieu, animals, Jerusalem vs. Bethlehem, metals

Talk:Book of Mormon/Metals

2005-11-04T20:12:24Z

DavidFerguson: important question

There is one sentence which has a dual meaning in the section of Metallurgy:

Since Mesoamerica was known to trade with areas with metal, and because metal artifacts dating prior to A.D. 900 have been found in the area, it seems reasonable to assume that at least some Mesoamericans knew something about metallurgy.

Did Mesoamerica trade with areas that used metals, or did they use metal to trade with other areas?

User talk:DavidFerguson

2005-11-04T19:57:20Z

DavidFerguson: please still ignore

==Return to==
The Bible
*all
Authorship Theories
*all
Anachronisms
-adieu, animals, Jerusalem vs. Bethlehem

User talk:DavidFerguson

2005-11-01T19:51:02Z

DavidFerguson: These are personal reminders and goal, just ignore

==Return to==
The Bible
*all
Authorship Theories
*all
Anachronisms
-adieu

Talk:Book of Mormon/Animals

2005-11-01T19:50:07Z

DavidFerguson:

Never mind. I should have looked a bit farther in the article before posting.

Talk:Book of Mormon/Animals

2005-11-01T19:48:04Z

DavidFerguson:

Should we put links to Book of Mormon verses that show where the animals are mentioned? I'll "find" the verses, I just want to know if others think it is a good idea.

Book of Mormon/Language/"Adieu"

2005-10-22T18:56:09Z

DavidFerguson: spelling

{{draft}}
==Criticism==
[http://scriptures.lds.org/jacob/7/27#27 Jacob 7:27] ends with the phrase, "Brethren, adieu." Critics claim that because ''adieu'' is French, it shows that Joseph Smith composed the Book of Mormon, and not an ancient author.

===Source(s) of the Criticism===
*John Ankerberg and John Weldon, ''Everything You Ever Wanted to Know about Mormonism'' (Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 1992), 322.
*Ed Decker, ''Decker's Complete Handbook on Mormonism'' (Eugene: Harvest House, 1995), 113.
*James White, ''Letters to a Mormon Elder'' (Southbridge, MA: Crowne, 1990), 145.

==Response==

The Book of Mormon is a ''translation.'' This means that it is no more likely that the word ''adieu'' appeared on the plates than the words ''yea'', ''beginning'', or ''sword''.

''Adieu'' is Joseph's translation of a concept expressed by Jacob. The word is French, and implies "farewell until we meet with God." This is a fitting finale to Jacob's testimony and writing.

Joseph Smith was likely unaware that ''adieu'' was a French word. Like many words that were originally French, ''adieu'' was adopted into English, and was in use by at least 1874.

Noah [http://65.66.134.201/cgi-bin/webster/webster.exe?search_for_texts_web1828=adieu Webster's] 1828 American dictionary demonstrates that it was perfectly good English:
<blockquote>
ADIEU', Adu'.
:Farewell; an expression of kind wishes at the parting of friends.
ADIEU', n. A farewell, or commendation to the care of God; as an everlasting adieu.
</blockquote>

==Conclusion==
"Adieu" is simply one English word among many in the Book of Mormon translation. Critics try to confuse this issue simply because its French origins are more apparent to the general reader. All its presence indicates is that the concept which Jacob intended to communicate was "farewell forever, or until we meet God."

==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===
{{Book_of_Mormon_Anachronisms}}
===FAIR web site===
*FAIR Topical Guide:

===External links===
*Links to external web pages

===Printed material===
*Daniel C. Peterson, “Is the Book of Mormon True? Notes on the Debate,” in ''Book of Mormon Authorship Revisited: The Evidence for Ancient Origins'', edited by Noel B. Reynolds, (Provo, Utah : Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 1997), [http://gospelink.com/library/doc?doc%5fid=264962 Chapter 6].

Talk:View of the Hebrews theory of Book of Mormon authorship

2005-10-22T18:37:12Z

DavidFerguson:

There are a couple of errors in the quote, one was "bherings Strait" rather than "Bering Strait". Are these in the original, or are they mistakes made by whoever inserted the quote?

View of the Hebrews theory of Book of Mormon authorship

2005-10-22T18:35:25Z

DavidFerguson: syntax error corrected

{{draft}}
==Criticism==
Critics claim that a 19th cenutry work by Ethan Smith, ''View of the Hebrews'', provided source material for Joseph Smith's construction of the Book of Mormon.

===Source(s) of the Criticism===
*John Ankerberg and John Weldon, ''Everything You Ever Wanted to Know about Mormonism'' (Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 1992), 279–80, 301–2.
*Peter Bartley, ''Mormonism: The Prophet, the Book, and the Cult'' (Dublin: Veritas, 1989), 28–9.
*Marvin C. Cowan, ''Mormon Claims Answered'' (Salt Lake City: By the Author, 1975).
*Charles A. Crane & Steven A. Crane, ''Ashamed of Joseph : Mormon Foundations Crumble'' (Joplin, Mo. : College Press Pub. Co., 1993), 123–5.
*Fawn Brodie, ''No Man Knows My History,'' (New York, A. A. Knopf, 1945), 47–.
*Maurice C. Burrell, ''Wide of the Truth: A Critical Assessment of the History, Doctrines and Practices of the Mormon Religion'' (London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1972).
*Ed Decker and Dave Hunt, ''The Godmakers'' (Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 1984).
*Ronald Enroth, ''A Guide to Cults and New Religions'' (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity , 1983).
*Gordon H. Fraser, ''Is Mormonism Christian?'' (Chicago: Moody Press, 1957).
*Ralph L. Foster, ''The Book of Mormon on Trial'' (Salt Lake City: n.p., 1963).
*G. T. Harrison, ''Mormons Are Peculiar People'' (New York: Vantage, 1954).
*Harold H. Hougey, ''"A Parallel"?The Basis of the Book of Mormon'' (Concord, CA: Pacific, 1963).
*Robert N. Hullinger, "The Lost Tribes of Israel and the Book of Mormon," ''Lutheran Quarterly'' 22:3 (August 1970): 319–29.
*Larry Jonas, ''Mormon Claims Examined'' (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 1961).
*Wesley M. Jones, ''A Critical Study of Book of Mormon Sources'' (Detroit: Harlo Press, 1964).
*Thomas O'Dea, ''The Mormons'' (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1957).
*David Persuitte, ''Joseph Smith and the Origins of the Book of Mormon'' (Jefferson, NC: McFarland, 1985).
*John A. Price, "The Book of Mormon vs. Anthropological Prehistory," ''The Indian Historian'' 7:3 (Summer 1974): 35–40.
*James M. Sire, ''Scripture Twisting: 20 Ways the Cults Misread the Bible'' (Downers Grove: Intervarsity, 1980).
*George D. Smith, "Defending the Keystone: Book of Mormon Difficulties," ''Sunstone'' 6:3 (May–June 1981): 45–50.
*George D. Smith, "Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon," ''Free Inquiry'' 4:1 (Winter 1983): 21–31.
*Jerald and Sandra Tanner, ''Mormonism—Shadow or Reality'' (Salt Lake City: Modern Microfilm, 1987[1964]).
*Jerald and Sandra Tanner, ''The Changing World of Mormonism'' (Chicago: Moody Press, 1980), 126–8.
*Dan Vogel, ''Indian Origins and the Book of Mormon'' (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1986).
*I. Wiley Woodbridge, ''The Founder of Mormonism'' (New York, 1902), 124–126.

==Response==
The first known reference to ''View of the Hebrews;'' or ''The Tribes of Israel in America'' with regards to the Book of Mormon actually comes from Joseph Smith himself:

:If such may have been the fact, that a part of the Ten Tribes came over to America, in the way we have supposed, leaving the cold regions of Assareth behind them in quest of a milder climate, it would be natural to look for tokens of the presence of Jews of some sort, along countries adjacent to the Atlantic. In order to this, we shall here make an extract from an able work: written exclusively on the subject of the Ten Tribes having come from Asia by the way of Bherings Strait, by the Rev. Ethan Smith, Pultney, Vt., who relates as follows: "Joseph Merrick, Esq., a highly respectable character in the church at Pittsfield, gave the following account: That in 1815, he was leveling some ground under and near an old wood shed, standing on a place of his, situated on (Indian Hill)... [Joseph then discusses the supposed phylacteries found among Amerindians, citing ''View of the Hebrews'' p. 220, 223.] — Joseph Smith, ''Times and Seasons,'' 3:15 (1 June 1842): 813–815. 

Thus, advocates of the Ethan Smith theory must also explain why Joseph, the ostensible forger, had the chutzpah to point out the source of his forgery. And, they must explain why, if Joseph found this evidence so compelling, he did not exploit it for use in the Book of Mormon text itself, since the Book of Mormon contains no explicit quotation from Deuteronomy or mention of phylacteries.

''Need more....''

==Conclusion==
A summary of the argument against the criticism.

==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===
{{BofM authorship theories}}
*[[B.H. Roberts' testimony of the Book of Mormon]]

===FAIR web site===
*FAIR Topical Guide: [http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai277.html View of the Hebrews]

===External links===
*John W. Welch, [http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/1986.htm/ensign%20march%201986%20.htm/b.%20h.%20roberts%20seeker%20after%20truth.htm "B. H. Roberts: Seeker After Truth"] ''Ensign'' 16 (Mar. 1986):56–62.

===Printed material===
*Ariel Crowley, ''About the Book of Mormon'' (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1961).
*Francis Kirkham, ''A New Witness for Christ in America: The Book of Mormon'', 2 vols. (Salt Lake City: Utah Printing, 1959), 2:391–400.
*Hugh Nibley, "The Comparative Method," in ''The Prophetic Book of Mormon'', edited by John W. Welch, (Salt Lake City, Utah : Deseret Book Company ; Provo, Utah : Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 1989), 193–206.
*Spencer J. Palmer and William L. Knecht, "View of the Hebrews: Substitute for Inspiration?" ''BYU Studies'' 5 (1964): 105–13.
*William L. Riley, "A Comparison of Passages from Isaiah and Other Old Testament Prophets of Ethan Smith's View of the Hebrews and the Book of Mormon," master's thesis, Brigham Young University, 1971.
*Sidney B. Sperry, ''Problems of the Book of Mormon'' (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1964), 176–79.
*''View of the Hebrews: 1825 2nd Edition Complete Text by Ethan Smith'', edited by Charles D. Tate Jr. (Provo: BYU Religious Studies Center, 1996).
*John W. Welch, "An Unparallel: Ethan Smith and the Book of Mormon," (Provo, Utah: FARMS, 1985).

Specific works/Christopher Marc Nemelka

2005-10-18T02:25:48Z

DavidFerguson: minor spelling error on "translate"

{{question}}
==Question==
Mr. Nemelka claims to have been commanded to translate the sealed portion of the Book of Mormon, as well as the lost 116 pages. What can you tell me about this?

==Answer==

===History of Nemelka===

====Biographical dates of interest for Christopher Nemelka====
* 1980 - Nemelka graduates from high school
* Summer 1984 - Nemelka claims that as an employee of LDS Church security, he was in the Salt Lake Temple. He reports there being called as a prophet.
* 1986 - Nemelka divorces from first wife, Paula Blades. They have two children.
* June 1991 - Ex-wife's family gets Nemelka's two children placed under care of Montana's Division of Family services; Nemelka takes one child unlawfully, and is charged with kidnapping. He eventually returns the child, who returns to his mother's custody, and charges are dropped.
* 1993 - Nemelka divorces from second wife, Jackie Stoll. He eventually finishes "the sealed portion," and markets it to some LDS fundamentalist groups. This leads to marriage with two plural wives, who also eventually leave him.
* 1996 - Vicky Prunty, one of the plural wives, cuts ties from from Nemelka.
* Fall 2000 - Nemelka tells LDS member Christine Marie that he is an atheist; they later begin dating, and Nemelka announces that this was only a test. He tells Marie that he is a prophet, called to translate the sealed portion of the Book of Mormon. She eventually gives him at least $5000.
* March 2001 - After visting the home of an ex-wife, Nemelka sentenced to one year in the Salt Lake County jail for violating a restraining order.
* 20 April 2001 - Nemelka reports receiving a revelation in jail instructing him to take a plural wife
* 21 December 2001 - Interview with ''Salt Lake City Weekly'' published, in which he admits to forging the Sealed Portion, lying, and exploiting the religious hopes of others (see quotes below).
* March 2002 - scheduled release from prison for violation of restraining order.
* Mr. Nemelka was also excommunicated on an unspecified date for writing a paper about LDS temple ceremonies.

====Quotes from Nemelka====
* "What I did do was I deceived her [Christine Marie] religiously. I played with her religious beliefs and mind, which I do not think a person should do..." [Salt Lake City weekly, 27 Dec 2001]
* "My whole purpose, though, was to write the sealed portion. Get the sealed portion done. Sell it to the church. My whole idea was to sell it to the LDS church. I was going to sell it to them, because all the Mormons are looking for the sealed portion to come back. I thought I had a good talent for writing. I was going to write it up and sell it to them. They could do with it what they wanted. They probably would have kept it off the market." [''Salt Lake City Weekly'', 27 Dec 2001]
* "I set about in my own mischievous and arrogant way, of which I’m not proud of now, to prove that a person could actually write scripture and present it to people who were looking for certain scripture...I was playing on the belief that LDS people have that one day the gold plates would be returned and the sealed portion would be translated. Basically, I set about to write a fictitious version of the sealed portion as I thought Joseph Smith would have written it had he continued to perpetuate his translation of the gold plates. Much to the chagrin of the LDS church and others, what I wrote was indeed well versed and quite appropriate for the scripture I was trying to portray. Anybody who reads it would just be totally amazed." [''Salt Lake City Weekly'', 27 Dec 2001]
* “My true intent was to somehow perpetuate a religion that would be based on true Christian principals of Christ-like love...Where I made my greatest mistake, for which I’m now extremely sorry for, is that I used deception to perpetuate what I proposed as the truth, assuming at the time that Joseph Smith had done the same thing.” [''Salt Lake City Weekly'', 27 Dec 2001]
* “See, when I did that thing with the fundamentalist group, there were people who wanted to kill me. They were so mad. When I came out and told these other polygamists, fundamentalist guys, that I had really written the sealed portion, that I had done it just to show people that it could be done—they were very upset.” [''Salt Lake City Weekly'', 27 Dec 2001]
* “When I deal with people, I am amazed at the ignorance and stupidity of most. People are so easily manipulated and deceived. Knowing this has made me a near master of manipulation. I try only to use this art, however, to help people. Sometimes the things I do seem terrible at the time, but usually the manipulation works to accomplish that which I intended.” [Letter to wife, dated 2 April 1993, cited in ''Salt Lake City Weekly'', 27 Dec 2001]
* “Yeah that’s, that’s all bull****,” Nemelka said from jail. “All the revelations are bull****, of course. I made ‘em up.” [''Salt Lake City Weekly'', 27 Dec 2001, obcenities present in the original]
* “I’m even glad you’re doing the article, in a way...I am, so that the sealed portion will never go anywhere. There’s a lot to it, a lot more than what you’ve got. In the wrong hands it could really wreak havoc on a Mormon church, which I don’t want to do.” [''Salt Lake City Weekly'', 27 Dec 2001]

====Later Developments====
Since his release from prison, Mr. Nemelka has resumed his prophetic claims and is again insisting that the "sealed portion" is a true prophetic translation. He insists that his confession for the newspaper interview was all a lie to deceive the judge in charge of his case:

:I knew I had to portray something to [Judge] Lindberg that would appease her personal opinion that I thought I was "above her law", and more especially, above the laws of the powerful LDS Church to which she belonged. With her legal power, she could have easily had me confined to a mental institution, if she actual thought I was serious about my calling as the revelator of the sealed portion of the plates of Mormon. I was in her grasp and I wanted out.
:The conclusion I came up with was simple: Lie to Ben Fulton and get him to write something that would impress Lindberg into thinking that I was done with The Sealed Portion and would have nothing further to do with it in the future...Everything I said to [reporter] Ben Fulton of The City Weekly was an attempted manipulation to attempt to ease the mind of Judge Denise Lindberg...>
:— The Sealed Portion Website, Questions, last accessed 5 July 2005. 
It would seem that Nemelka has a habit of changing his story repeatedly, lying for his own benefit, and attempting to deceive others.

The remainder of the article demonstrates that his 'translation' work shows the same tendencies.

===The "Book of Lehi"===
As part of his 'prophetic call,' Nemelka produced what he claims is a translation of the lost 116 pages, or "Book of Lehi." This portion of Mormon's abridgement (from Lehi to King Benjamin, roughly) was lost by Martin Harris after the manuscript was loaned to him by Joseph Smith (See [http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/3/1#1 D&C 3], [http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/128/10#10 D&C 10]).

Nemelka's decision to produce the "Book of Lehi" was unwise, since his claims about it can be easily checked against what is known about Joseph Smith's translation of the same material.

====Problems with Length====
There are two extant Book of Mormon manuscripts. The original, dictated by Joseph Smith to his scribes, was probably about 480 pages long; we have fragments from 236 of these pages. A copy was made of the original manuscript—the so-called "printer's manuscript"—and is completely extant save three lines on the first page. This version occupied 464 manuscript pages. Thus, the two manuscript lengths agree within 3-4%.

A computerized count of the original 1830 publication of the Book of Mormon yields 270,745 words. Thus, each original manuscript page would have held about 564 words; the printer's manuscript about 583.

Nemelka's "Book of Lehi" contains 26,709 words when the italicized chapter summaries are excluded. Dividing by 116 pages, we get 230 words per page. The "Book of Lehi" seems, therefore, to contain only about 41% (at best) of the material which one would expect.

Mr. Nemelka includes an introduction to his "translation" of the "Book of Lehi", in which he indicates that

:It depended on the particular writing style of each individual scribe, but generally, there were about 225 words per page that were translated by the prophet and written down by his scribe…
:— The Sealed Portion Website, "Lost 116 Pages," last accessed 5 July 2005.

Unfortunately for his plan to produce the 116 pages, Nemelka has his details wrong. The paper was folded either lengthwise or widthwise before being written on. Both methods were used during the Book of Mormon translation, though widthwise was more common.

:'''Count of lengthwise pages''': Page seven of the manuscript (corresponding to 1 Nephi 4:20-37) contains over 580 words by my count, which matches the estimate of 583 words per page nicely.

:'''Count of widthwise pages''': Alma 45:17-46:6, Helaman 1:5-17, and Alma 42:29-43:10 are all extant widthwise pages from the original manuscript. Word counts in the 1830 edition give values of 523, 526, and 511 respectively, again much closer to the estimate of 583 from the actual Book of Mormon text than Nemelka's claimed 225.

This discrepancy demonstrates that Nemelka is missing at least half of the material that should be present. One might not expect his translation to match Joseph Smith's word-for-word, but the Book of Mormon text produced by Joseph is not so wordy that one could simply eliminate over half of it and retain the same meaning. Mr. Nemelka has underestimated how much material he needed to produce, and so his work is revealed for what it is—an amateurish forgery.

====Problems with Missing Material====
Hugh Nibley was the first to note that the Book of Mormon contains "colophons." As one review explained:

:A colophon--Greek for "summit, top, finishing"--is a title or header, before or after a text, that may identify an author (such as by name, parentage, origin, education, etc.), the title of text, book, or section…
:— Thomas W. Mackay, "Mormon as Editor: A Study in Colophons, Headers, and Source Indicators," ''Journal of Book of Mormon Studies'' 2:2 (1993): 90-109.

Such colophons can be seen throughout the Book of Mormon—in the English scriptures, they are the italicized portions which precede the chapter heading at the beginning of [http://scriptures.lds.org/1_ne/1 1 Nephi], [http://scriptures.lds.org/2_ne/1 2 Nephi], [http://scriptures.lds.org/jacob/1 Jacob], [http://scriptures.lds.org/alma/1 Alma], [http://scriptures.lds.org/hel/1 Helaman], [http://scriptures.lds.org/3_ne/1 3 Nephi], [http://scriptures.lds.org/4_ne/1 4 Nephi], and [http://scriptures.lds.org/ether/1 Ether]. [http://scriptures.lds.org/mosiah/1 Mosiah] is the only large book without such an introduction. The books of Mormon and Moroni have no colophons, but they are the editors and authors throughout the abridgement, and so have already "given" their colophons initially, as well as identified themselves throughout the text. It's another subtle but authentic touch that no one of Joseph Smith's day knew anything about, or remarked upon until our century.

The lack of a colophon for Mosiah is not surprising, since the first two 'chapters' of Mosiah were part of the lost 116 pages.

Mr. Nemelka betrays himself here by being almost "too clever." He properly includes a colophon at the beginning of his Book of Lehi (imitating, perhaps, 1 Nephi's beginning). But, by the time he has reached the end of his "translation," he has forgotten (if he ever knew) that he needed a Book of Mosiah division with its own colophon.

====Contradictions with the Book of Mormon text====
Mr. Nemelka's offering has thus already been exposed as a forgery, and we haven't even looked at the text itself. He has tripped himself up on merely technical matters—things which are not present betray him. This illustrates the challenge of creating a lengthy, believable forgery.

The Book of Lehi was Mormon's abridged account of the material contained on the small plates, i.e. 1 Nephi - Omni. Therefore, the information in the Book of Lehi should agree with what is on the small plates.

=====Lineage Problems=====
Nemelka makes two fatal errors in genealogy (one within the first chapter), in family lines of unquestioned importance for the Nephite record keepers:

{| border="1" cellpadding="2"
|'''Nemelka – "Book of Lehi" Claim'''||'''Book of Mormon'''
|-
|1. Lehi is descended from Ephraim, son of Joseph (1:11-12)||Lehi is a descendant of Manasseh (Alma 10:3).
|-
|2. "And Mosiah was a direct descendent of Zoram, the servant of Laban who delivered the brass plates unto Nephi and his brethren." (8:25).||Mosiah is a Nephi descendant, and only Nephi descendants are eligible for the kingship. (Mosiah 25:13-14)
|}

Is the reader to believe that the Israelite Nephites, who put so much stock in genealogy and descent, really don't know the difference between two tribes of Israel? Would they really insist one needed to be a descendant of Nephi to rule, when Mosiah—from whom all subsequent kings and rulers derived their legitimacy, including the judges established by his grandson—wasn't even descended from Lehi, much less Nephi?

=====How was the ship built?=====
{| border="1" cellpadding="2"
|'''Nemelka – "Book of Lehi" Claim'''||'''Book of Mormon'''
|-
|1. Nephi built the ship "according to the promptings of the spirit." (6:11)||Lord ''shows'' Nephi in revelation at the mountain how to build the ship. (1 Nephi 18:1-3)
|-
|2. Laman and Lemuel abandon plans to thwart Nephi's shipbuilding because they're so impressed by the ship's "curious" form. (6:12)||Laman and Lemuel won't even help begin the ship's construction, and consider Nephi foolish. (1 Nephi 17:17-18) This prevents the work from progressing at all, and they then taunt Nephi for being unable to do what he proposed. (17:19) They only start helping when they are shocked by the power of the Lord (17:54-55, 18:1)

There is no impressive ship to motivate them until after they begin helping.
|-
|}

Many other examples of Nemelka's errors can be downloaded in PDF form [here].

===Conclusion===
The "Book of Lehi" is a clumsy forgery that fails even a cursory analysis. The author is a self-confessed liar and con man, who also practiced unauthorized plural marriage. Readers should be cautious in trusting such a source.

==Further reading==
===FAIR wiki articles===
* [[Forgerers]]

===FAIR web site===
* FAIR Topical Guide:
===External links===
* Ben Fulton, "True Believer," ''Salt Lake City Weekly'' (27 December 2001) ([http://www.slweekly.com/editorial/2001/feat_011227.cfm on-line] copy in author's possession).

===Printed material===

Journal of Discourses/As doctrine and one of the "standard works" of the Church

2005-10-18T02:15:02Z

DavidFerguson: added internal link

{{draft}}

==Criticism==
Critics often use the Journal of Discourses to show both nonmembers and LDS what The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints supposedly "really believes" to be official doctrine on subjects that have been considered to be either controversial or touchy by members of the Church. A popular example often used in the anti-Mormon community is the [[Adam-God]] theory.

==Response==
Critics, however, will often do very little to explain or support the validity, reliability, or the history of the quotes they use from the Journal of Discourses.

==History of the Journal of Discourses==
The Journal of Discourses is a twenty six volume set of sermons given by the early members of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. It was published in England between the years 1853 and 1886. Its purpose was not unlike the modern Ensign magazine in that it made much of the council of the brethren readily available to the Church in England.

It also served the purpose of creating an income for George D. Watt who served as an official transcriber of the public sermons of the First Presidency and the Twelve, and publisher of the Journal of Discourses. A letter from the First Presidency was included in the first volume recommending that the Saints support Watt by purchasing a copy.
Watt was later replaced as the publisher by David W. Evans, who was followed by George W. Gibbs—secretary to the First Presidency.

==Reliability of the Journal of Discourses==

One might assume, based on how critics quote the Journal of Discourses, that it is something to be shunned, and generally ignored. It does in fact have some errors in it. However many of these errors can be attributed to the fact that the discourses given by the brethren were not always reviewed by them for errors (many gave their sermons impromptu, especially Brigham Young). This of course makes it much more difficult to determine the intent of the speaker. Such things as puns, sarcasms, and emphasis on different parts of a sentence (which can often change the meaning of a sentence) are very difficult to detect when reading sermons that would not have taken into account an audience who would never hear the discourses. In many instances, the General Authorities would give into speculation in their talks. An example of very obvious speculation is provided in a quote by Orson Pratt:

:I do not know what the Lord will hereafter do with this people; I have not myself a sufficiency of the spirit of prophecy to understand all the events of the future; and I doubt very much, whether there is an individual in this Church that does know; but we do know as far as the things of the future are revealed; and we may know many things by dreams and visions, but when it comes to principles, and to what the Lord will do with this people, I doubt very much whether there is an individual in the world, that knows the changes and variety of scenes through which this people will be called to pass. (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 3, p. 16)

:But if the Saints act wisely they may set an example before them that will do them good, and if there is any good or righteousness in them, an upright, holy example will bring it out. All this will take place, and there are many here that will live to see those things, and I rejoice that there is but a comparatively little time for those things to be accomplished. (ibid, Vol. 3, p. 18)

If the first half of the quote was cut off, the passage would have a very different tone. Orson Pratt would appear to have an authoritative tone which could leave the reader rather perplexed. However, as we know, no one knows when the Second Coming will occur, and with this knowledge, it is clear to see that Orson Pratt is speculating.
But at times, early General Authorities would speculate about more weighty matters, and would reach into the foggy realm of unsure doctrines, just as most Latter-day Saints do from time to time when contemplating the Church’s principles.
While the General Authorities in our day are much more careful not to share their personal beliefs in public discourses, the General Authorities in the early time period were less careful. After all, practically everyone was a member of the Church in Salt Lake City and surrounding areas at that time period. They would not need excuse themselves when speculating as Orson Pratt was careful to do in the quote above. This makes it more difficult to detect when the Brethren were not speaking about the true and established principles of the Church, and were speculating instead. And in these instances, the reader who has a sound knowledge of the Church’s doctrines and a sure testimony will have no difficulty in dismissing these quotes as speculation.
However, some of the writings of the Journal of Discourses are more disturbing, and are not excusable as private interpretation. One of the more common is Brigham Young’s [[Blood atonement]]. Quotes such as these often become disturbing because the reader does not understand the time period, or has not read the surrounding passage to get a grasp on context.

==Examples of anti-Mormon quote mining in the Journal of Discourses==

==Conclusion==

A summary of the argument against the criticism.

==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===
*[[Online_textual_sources_and_materials#Periodicals |Journal of Discourses on-line and other texts]]
*[[Quote mining, selective quotation, and distortion]]

===FAIR web site===
*[http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai161.html Journal of Discourses]

===External links===
*Links to external web pages

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

Journal of Discourses/As doctrine and one of the "standard works" of the Church

2005-10-18T02:12:43Z

DavidFerguson: fixed Blood Atonement link

{{draft}}

==Criticism==
Critics often use the Journal of Discourses to show both nonmembers and LDS what The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints supposedly "really believes" to be official doctrine on subjects that have been considered to be either controversial or touchy by members of the Church. A popular example often used in the anti-Mormon community is the [[Adam-God]] theory.

==Response==
Critics, however, will often do very little to explain or support the validity, reliability, or the history of the quotes they use from the Journal of Discourses.

==History of the Journal of Discourses==
The Journal of Discourses is a twenty six volume set of sermons given by the early members of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. It was published in England between the years 1853 and 1886. Its purpose was not unlike the modern Ensign magazine in that it made much of the council of the brethren readily available to the Church in England.

It also served the purpose of creating an income for George D. Watt who served as an official transcriber of the public sermons of the First Presidency and the Twelve, and publisher of the Journal of Discourses. A letter from the First Presidency was included in the first volume recommending that the Saints support Watt by purchasing a copy.
Watt was later replaced as the publisher by David W. Evans, who was followed by George W. Gibbs—secretary to the First Presidency.

==Reliability of the Journal of Discourses==

One might assume, based on how critics quote the Journal of Discourses, that it is something to be shunned, and generally ignored. It does in fact have some errors in it. However many of these errors can be attributed to the fact that the discourses given by the brethren were not always reviewed by them for errors (many gave their sermons impromptu, especially Brigham Young). This of course makes it much more difficult to determine the intent of the speaker. Such things as puns, sarcasms, and emphasis on different parts of a sentence (which can often change the meaning of a sentence) are very difficult to detect when reading sermons that would not have taken into account an audience who would never hear the discourses. In many instances, the General Authorities would give into speculation in their talks. An example of very obvious speculation is provided in a quote by Orson Pratt:

:I do not know what the Lord will hereafter do with this people; I have not myself a sufficiency of the spirit of prophecy to understand all the events of the future; and I doubt very much, whether there is an individual in this Church that does know; but we do know as far as the things of the future are revealed; and we may know many things by dreams and visions, but when it comes to principles, and to what the Lord will do with this people, I doubt very much whether there is an individual in the world, that knows the changes and variety of scenes through which this people will be called to pass. (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 3, p. 16)

:But if the Saints act wisely they may set an example before them that will do them good, and if there is any good or righteousness in them, an upright, holy example will bring it out. All this will take place, and there are many here that will live to see those things, and I rejoice that there is but a comparatively little time for those things to be accomplished. (ibid, Vol. 3, p. 18)

If the first half of the quote was cut off, the passage would have a very different tone. Orson Pratt would appear to have an authoritative tone which could leave the reader rather perplexed. However, as we know, no one knows when the Second Coming will occur, and with this knowledge, it is clear to see that Orson Pratt is speculating.
But at times, early General Authorities would speculate about more weighty matters, and would reach into the foggy realm of unsure doctrines, just as most Latter-day Saints do from time to time when contemplating the Church’s principles.
While the General Authorities in our day are much more careful not to share their personal beliefs in public discourses, the General Authorities in the early time period were less careful. After all, practically everyone was a member of the Church in Salt Lake City and surrounding areas at that time period. They would not need excuse themselves when speculating as Orson Pratt was careful to do in the quote above. This makes it more difficult to detect when the Brethren were not speaking about the true and established principles of the Church, and were speculating instead. And in these instances, the reader who has a sound knowledge of the Church’s doctrines and a sure testimony will have no difficulty in dismissing these quotes as speculation.
However, some of the writings of the Journal of Discourses are more disturbing, and are not excusable as private interpretation. One of the more common is Brigham Young’s [[Blood atonement]]. Quotes such as these often become disturbing because the reader does not understand the time period, or has not read the surrounding passage to get a grasp on context.

==Examples of anti-Mormon quote mining in the Journal of Discourses==

==Conclusion==

A summary of the argument against the criticism.

==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===
*[[Online_textual_sources_and_materials#Periodicals |Journal of Discourses on-line and other texts]]

===FAIR web site===
*[http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai161.html Journal of Discourses]

===External links===
*Links to external web pages

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

Journal of Discourses/As doctrine and one of the "standard works" of the Church

2005-10-18T02:10:39Z

DavidFerguson: created response section

{{draft}}

==Criticism==
Critics often use the Journal of Discourses to show both nonmembers and LDS what The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints supposedly "really believes" to be official doctrine on subjects that have been considered to be either controversial or touchy by members of the Church. A popular example often used in the anti-Mormon community is the [[Adam-God]] theory.

==Response==
Critics, however, will often do very little to explain or support the validity, reliability, or the history of the quotes they use from the Journal of Discourses.

==History of the Journal of Discourses==
The Journal of Discourses is a twenty six volume set of sermons given by the early members of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. It was published in England between the years 1853 and 1886. Its purpose was not unlike the modern Ensign magazine in that it made much of the council of the brethren readily available to the Church in England.

It also served the purpose of creating an income for George D. Watt who served as an official transcriber of the public sermons of the First Presidency and the Twelve, and publisher of the Journal of Discourses. A letter from the First Presidency was included in the first volume recommending that the Saints support Watt by purchasing a copy.
Watt was later replaced as the publisher by David W. Evans, who was followed by George W. Gibbs—secretary to the First Presidency.

==Reliability of the Journal of Discourses==

One might assume, based on how critics quote the Journal of Discourses, that it is something to be shunned, and generally ignored. It does in fact have some errors in it. However many of these errors can be attributed to the fact that the discourses given by the brethren were not always reviewed by them for errors (many gave their sermons impromptu, especially Brigham Young). This of course makes it much more difficult to determine the intent of the speaker. Such things as puns, sarcasms, and emphasis on different parts of a sentence (which can often change the meaning of a sentence) are very difficult to detect when reading sermons that would not have taken into account an audience who would never hear the discourses. In many instances, the General Authorities would give into speculation in their talks. An example of very obvious speculation is provided in a quote by Orson Pratt:

:I do not know what the Lord will hereafter do with this people; I have not myself a sufficiency of the spirit of prophecy to understand all the events of the future; and I doubt very much, whether there is an individual in this Church that does know; but we do know as far as the things of the future are revealed; and we may know many things by dreams and visions, but when it comes to principles, and to what the Lord will do with this people, I doubt very much whether there is an individual in the world, that knows the changes and variety of scenes through which this people will be called to pass. (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 3, p. 16)

:But if the Saints act wisely they may set an example before them that will do them good, and if there is any good or righteousness in them, an upright, holy example will bring it out. All this will take place, and there are many here that will live to see those things, and I rejoice that there is but a comparatively little time for those things to be accomplished. (ibid, Vol. 3, p. 18)

If the first half of the quote was cut off, the passage would have a very different tone. Orson Pratt would appear to have an authoritative tone which could leave the reader rather perplexed. However, as we know, no one knows when the Second Coming will occur, and with this knowledge, it is clear to see that Orson Pratt is speculating.
But at times, early General Authorities would speculate about more weighty matters, and would reach into the foggy realm of unsure doctrines, just as most Latter-day Saints do from time to time when contemplating the Church’s principles.
While the General Authorities in our day are much more careful not to share their personal beliefs in public discourses, the General Authorities in the early time period were less careful. After all, practically everyone was a member of the Church in Salt Lake City and surrounding areas at that time period. They would not need excuse themselves when speculating as Orson Pratt was careful to do in the quote above. This makes it more difficult to detect when the Brethren were not speaking about the true and established principles of the Church, and were speculating instead. And in these instances, the reader who has a sound knowledge of the Church’s doctrines and a sure testimony will have no difficulty in dismissing these quotes as speculation.
However, some of the writings of the Journal of Discourses are more disturbing, and are not excusable as private interpretation. One of the more common is Brigham Young’s [[Blood Atonement]]. Quotes such as these often become disturbing because the reader does not understand the time period, or has not read the surrounding passage to get a grasp on context.

==Examples of anti-Mormon quote mining in the Journal of Discourses==

==Conclusion==

A summary of the argument against the criticism.

==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===
*[[Online_textual_sources_and_materials#Periodicals |Journal of Discourses on-line and other texts]]

===FAIR web site===
*[http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai161.html Journal of Discourses]

===External links===
*Links to external web pages

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

Journal of Discourses/As doctrine and one of the "standard works" of the Church

2005-10-12T23:29:34Z

DavidFerguson: Criticism section updated

{{draft}}

==Criticism==
Critics often use the Journal of Discourses to show both nonmembers and LDS what The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints supposedly believes to be official doctrine on subjects that have been considered to be either controversial or touchy by members of the Church. A popular example used often in the anti-Mormon community is the [[Adam-God]] theory.

==Response==
The response should be brief and summary in nature.

==Conclusion==

A summary of the argument against the criticism.

==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===
*[[Online_textual_sources_and_materials#Periodicals |JoD on-line and other texts]]

===FAIR web site===
*[http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai161.html Journal of Discourses]

===External links===
*Links to external web pages

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

Paid clergy

2005-10-08T22:51:36Z

DavidFerguson: This is the fixed page from "payed" clergy where I misspelled "paid" - df

==Criticism==

Critics claim that Mormonism prides itself in having no paid clergy. They then show that General Authorities do infact receive a stipend while serving the Church in an attempt to show the hypocrisy of the Church.

===Source of the criticism===

==Response==

==Conclusion==

==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===

===FAIR web site===

===External links===

===Printed material===

Talk:Plural marriage in the Book of Mormon

2005-10-08T19:45:52Z

DavidFerguson:

I'll finish editing this soon, I have to go right now. - David Ferguson

Plural marriage in the Book of Mormon

2005-10-08T19:45:15Z

DavidFerguson:

==Criticism==
Critics use Jacob 2:24 to show that the Book of Mormon itself condemns the practice of polygamy, which Joseph Smith later ignored.

Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.

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

==Response==

==Conclusion==

==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===

===FAIR web site===

===External links===

===Printed material===