FAIR - User contributions [en]

Question: In the spirit world after this life, will those who lived in President Hinckley's time will be bowed to?

2011-05-17T21:19:21Z

PaulMcNabb: /* {{Response label}} */

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

==Those who lived in President Hinckley's time will be bowed to==

==={{Claim label}}===

Boyd K. Packer and other Church leaders are quoted in a persistent chain email as having said to a group of LDS youth:

:You were in the War in Heaven and one day when you are in the spirit world you will be enthralled with those who you are associated with. You will ask someone in which time period he lived in and you might hear, "I was with Moses when he parted the Red Sea," or "I helped build the pyramids," or "I fought with Captain Moroni." And as you are standing there in amazement, someone will turn to you and ask, "Which prophet time did you live in?" And when you say "Gordon B. Hinckley," a hush will fall over every hall, every corridor in heaven and all in attendance will bow at your presence. You were held back six thousand years because you were the most talented, most obedient, most courageous, and most righteous. Are you still? Remember who you are!

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

This claim is false, and has been repeatedly disavowed by the Church. A letter of 25 February 2008 reads:

:A statement has been circulated that asserts in part that the youth of the Church today “were generals in the war in heaven . . . and [someone will] ask you, ‘Which of the prophet’s time did you live in?’ and when you say ‘Gordon B. Hinckley’ a hush will fall, . . . and all in attendance will bow at your presence.”

: '''This is a false statement. It is not Church doctrine.''' At various times, this statement has been attributed erroneously to President Thomas S. Monson, President Henry B. Eyring, President Boyd K. Packer, and others. None of these Brethren made this statement.

:Stake presidents and bishops should see that it is not used in Church talks, classes, bulletins, or newsletters. Priesthood leaders should correct anyone who attempts to perpetuate its use by any means, in accordance with “Statements Attributed to Church Leaders,” ''Church Handbook of Instructions'', Book 1 (2006), 173. [Emphasis present in original]

: - Office of the First President, Notice, "Subject: False Statement," (25 February 2008). This statement was printed in ''Deseret News'' on [http://www.ldschurchnews.com/articles/51715/First-Presidency-releases-statement.html 8 March 2008].

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

Question: Is there some rule in Mormonism that states that women cannot open Church meetings with prayer?

2010-11-23T19:08:12Z

PaulMcNabb: /* {{Response label}} */

Mormonism and apologetics

2010-11-14T22:29:05Z

PaulMcNabb: /* What is apologetics? */

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

Many people are not familiar with "apologetics," and raise a variety of questions. These include:
*Why are we "apologizing" for our doctrine?
*What is apologetics?
*Why do apologetics?
*Is it appropriate for a Church member to be involved in apologetics?
*Since you can't "prove" religion, is apologetics a waste of time?
*Are there risks in doing apologetics?
*Do LDS apologists tell members how "scientists continue to get it wrong?"
*Are LDS apologists isolated from other members because of differences in their beliefs?
*Does the Church employ or pay LDS apologists?
*Does the Church avoid mentioning the work of LDS apologists in any public forum sponsored by the Church?
*Does the Church avoid endorsing any LDS apologetic scholarship?

==={{Criticism source label English}}===
*{{CriticalWork:Abanes:Becoming Gods|pages=99}}
*{{CriticalWork:Southerton:Losing|pages=Chapter 14}}
*Internet discussion boards

==Answers==
{{Epigraph|You can never argue a person into faith; Christian theology and apologetics exist in order to make sense of the world for the believer, but they do not in themselves create that belief
 Gerald Bray, "Man's Righteousness and God's Salvation," ''Evangel'', the British Evangelical Review 10. 2 (1992): 6.}}
{{parabreak}}
===What is apologetics?===

The word "apologetic" is not commonly used in the LDS community and may be unfamiliar to many people. The word literally means "in defense of the faith." It is not talking about apologizing to anyone or being sorry for something. (From the [http://www.fairlds.org/faq.html FAIR FAQ].) The word comes from the Greek "apologia" and is used four times in the Greek New Testament, including [http://scriptures.lds.org/1_pet/3/15#15 1 Peter 3:15].

===Why do apologetics?=== 

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

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

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

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

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

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

{{SeeAlso|Does the Church discourage reading critical material?}}

===Since you can't "prove" religion, is apologetics a waste of time?===

Dallin H. Oaks spoke to this concern:

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

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

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

Austen Farrar said, of C.S. Lewis:

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

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

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

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

====Over-reacting====

Cautioned Elder Neal A. Maxwell:

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

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

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

C.S. Lewis remarked:

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

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

====Spiritual Neglect====

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

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

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

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

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

===Do LDS apologists tell members how "scientists continue to get it wrong?"===
Critics often portray apologists and mindless automatons who are unable to think rationally in their attempt to "defend the faith" at all costs. It is assumed by secular critics that [[Mormonism and science]] are mutually exclusive. It is not the job of the apologist to discount what science tells us. Many apologists have advanced degrees in many areas of science. These individuals have found that science and belief are compatible rather than being mutually exclusive.

It is true, however, that apologetic arguments may evolve as science provides us with new answers about the world that we live in. Science is continually changing, and we welcome the new knowledge that it brings to us. When new discoveries are made, apologists will attempt to determine this new information fits in with belief. It is possible to be an apologist while still understanding that there are many things that science will continue to teach us.

One should exercise caution, however, before immediately incorporating a new discovery into an apologetic argument. An example of this occurred with forged documents such as the "Salamander Letter" produced by [[Mark Hofmann]]. When these documents were obtained by the church and made publicly available, apologists and critics alike immediately began creating material to explain them. When it was discovered that these documents were forgeries, it became necessary to provide disclaimers on some apologetic material that was written during this period of time. Unfortunately, critics do not issue such disclaimers, and works such as D. Michael Quinn's ''[[Early Mormonism and the Magic World View]]'' and Grant Palmer's ''[[An Insider's View of Mormon Origins]]'', which were heavily influenced by the Hofmann forgeries, continue to be cited as references in modern critical works. In this case, negative apologetics based upon faulty information continues to have ongoing detrimental effects.

===Are LDS apologists isolated from other members because of differences in their beliefs?===
LDS apologists do not exist in some special "caste" that sets them apart from the general "non-apologist" church population. This idea has even been characterized as a difference between "[[Internet Mormons vs. Chapel Mormons]]"{{ref|shades1}}. Many LDS apologists either have been, or currently are, elders quorum presidents, high priest group leaders, bishops, stake presidents, and even general authorities. Being in positions of leadership such as these hardly isolates the apologist from the general Church membership. If anything, this means that the apologist is in an even better position to assist members when they ''do'' seek out answers to difficult questions. The idea that LDS apologists are somehow isolated in their own little self-constructed world of beliefs is an idea that the critics would like to promote, but which is very far from the truth.

===Does the Church employ or pay LDS apologists?===
There are no paid positions in LDS apologetics. Those who wish to achieve a substantial level of income would be well advised to avoid LDS apologetics entirely, as it can consume substantial amounts of a person's "off-time." Most LDS apologists perform volunteer work to defend the faith while holding down their normal "day job."

Some individuals who practice LDS apologetics happen to be employed by institutions sponsored by the Church: The primary institution being Brigham Young University. In this situation, their "day job" involves researching or teaching subjects which may or may not relate to subjects of interest to apologetics...which ought not to surprise anyone at all. Thus, critics attempt to argue that some LDS apologists, particularly BYU professors, are "paid" for their apologetic efforts. Critics congratulate themselves for achieving a firm understanding of the obvious: Individuals who happen to have a "day job" with a Church sponsored institution receive their paycheck from that same institution. Having a "day job" with a Church sponsored institution does not preclude one from practicing apologetics.

===Does the Church avoid mentioning the work of LDS apologists in any public forum sponsored by the Church?===

No. For example, the work of pioneer apologist Hugh Nibley has been repeatedly cited even in general conference.{{ref|nibleygc}}

The Church's official website also links to various apologetic individuals and groups. For example, their section on DNA and the Book of Mormon refers to the ''Journal of Book of Mormon Studies'', the ''FARMS Review'', and work by Dr. Daniel Peterson, Dr. John Butler, and Dr. Jeff Lindsay.{{ref|DNAlinks}} FAIR's response to an anti-Mormon DVD was also given prominent attention at ''lds.org''.{{ref|DVDlinks}}

===Does the Church avoid endorsing any LDS apologetic scholarship?===

The Church and its leaders are rightly cautious about officially endorsing any material that has not been approved by the correlation process of the Church. For most secular undertakings—such as those involving science and history—the Church gives no official endorsement nor takes any official position.

Apologists prefer it this way. For example, FAIR can and does make mistakes. If they are brought to our attention, we strive to correct them. But, the Church cannot be held responsible for any errors that we, as private members, might make. The Church and its leaders focus on preaching the gospel of Christ and administering the saving ordinances. Interested private members may seek to explain and defend their faith with the best tools at their disposal, but the truth of that faith does not depend on the soundness of their arguments.

=={{Endnotes label}}==
#{{note|lewis1}} C. S. Lewis, "Learning in War-Time," in ''The Weight of Glory and Other Addresses'' (New York: Macmillan, 1965), 27-28; cited by James S. Jardine, “Consecration and Learning,” in ''On Becoming a Disciple-Scholar'', edited by Henry B. Eying (Bookcraft, Salt Lake, 1995), 77.
#{{note|maxwell1}} Neal A. Maxwell, "'All Hell Is Moved," in ''1977 Devotional Speeches of the Year'' (Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University Press, 1977), 179.
#{{note|oaks1}} Dallin H. Oaks, ''The Lord’s Way'', (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1991), 92.
#{{note|maxwell2}} Neal A. Maxwell, ''Deposition of a Disciple'' (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1976), 49.
#{{note|farrar1}} Cited by {{BYUS|author=Neal A. Maxwell|article=Discipleship and Scholarship|vol=32|num=3|date=1992|start=5}}{{pdflink|url=http://byustudies.byu.edu/Products/MoreInfoPage/MoreInfo.aspx?Type=7&ProdID=1166}}
#{{note|maxwell3}} Neal A. Maxwell, cited in {{Ensign1|author=Gilbert W. Scharffs|article=Some people say it is best to leave alone materials that claim to 'expose' the Church and its teachings. What counsel has been given on this? How do we respond when a friend comes to us with questions found in such materials?|date=January 1995|start=60 (scroll half-way down)}}{{link|url=http://library.lds.org/library/lpext.dll/ArchMagazines/Ensign/1995.htm/ensign%20january%201995.htm/i%20have%20a%20question.htm?fn=document-frame.htm&f=templates&2.0#LPTOC2}}
#{{note|maxwell4}} Neal A Maxwell, ''A More Excellent Way: Essays on Leadership for Latter-day Saints'' (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1967), 62.
#{{note|lewis2}} C. S. Lewis, "Learning in War-Time," in ''The Weight of Glory and Other Addresses'' (New York: Macmillan, 1965), 27-28; cited by James S. Jardine, “Consecration and Learning,” in ''On Becoming a Disciple-Scholar'', edited by Henry B. Eying (Bookcraft, Salt Lake, 1995), 77.
#{{note|lewis3}} C.S. Lewis, ''God in the Dock: Essays on Theology and Ethics'', edited by Walter Hooper, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1970), 103.
#{{note|shades1}}The terms were originated by Jason Gallentine, who identifies himself as "Dr. Shades" on a critical discussion board.
#{{note|nibleygc}} See, for example: {{Ensign1|author=Gordon B. Hinckley|article=Come and Partake|date=May 1986|start=46}}{{link|url=http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=0c9eef960417b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1}}; {{Ensign|author=D. Todd Christofferson|article=The Redemption of the Dead and the Testimony of Jesus|date=November 2000|start=9|end=11}}{{link|url=http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=e3cea1615ac0c010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1}}; {{Ensign1|author=Boyd K. Packer|article=We Believe All That God Has Revealed|date=May 1974|start=93}}{{link|url=http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=57403219c786b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1}}. Other references to Nibley can be found by [http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=84010fd41d93b010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&hideNav=1&pageNumber=1&maxResults=20&NARROW_BY=&query=%22hugh+nibley%22&bucket=GeneralConference&dateFrom=&dateTo=&AUTHOR_CATEGORY=&AUTHOR_NAME=&FORMAT=&submitSearch=Search&dateFromDisplay=&dateToDisplay=&findByAuthor= searching] the on-line database.
#{{note|DNAlinks}} "DNA and the Book of Mormon," ''lds.org'' (16 February 2006). {{link|url=http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/dna-and-the-book-of-mormon}}.
#{{note|DVDlinks}} "Response to DVD," ''lds.org'' (29 March 2007). {{link|url=http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/response-to-dvd}}. The FAIR response is at the top of the column on the left.

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

===Videos===
{{Video:Ash:Barney:2003:LDS Apologetics 101}}

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

==={{Printed material label}}===
* Many good printed books are available at the [http://www.fair-lds.org/Merchant2/merchant.mvc FAIR Bookstore].
{{Articles Footer 1}} {{Articles Footer 2}} {{Articles Footer 3}} {{Articles Footer 4}} {{Articles Footer 5}} {{Articles Footer 6}} {{Articles Footer 7}} {{Articles Footer 8}} {{Articles Footer 9}} {{Articles Footer 10}}

[[fr:Apologetics]]

Mormonism and apologetics

2010-11-14T22:28:39Z

PaulMcNabb: /* What is apologetics? */

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

Many people are not familiar with "apologetics," and raise a variety of questions. These include:
*Why are we "apologizing" for our doctrine?
*What is apologetics?
*Why do apologetics?
*Is it appropriate for a Church member to be involved in apologetics?
*Since you can't "prove" religion, is apologetics a waste of time?
*Are there risks in doing apologetics?
*Do LDS apologists tell members how "scientists continue to get it wrong?"
*Are LDS apologists isolated from other members because of differences in their beliefs?
*Does the Church employ or pay LDS apologists?
*Does the Church avoid mentioning the work of LDS apologists in any public forum sponsored by the Church?
*Does the Church avoid endorsing any LDS apologetic scholarship?

==={{Criticism source label English}}===
*{{CriticalWork:Abanes:Becoming Gods|pages=99}}
*{{CriticalWork:Southerton:Losing|pages=Chapter 14}}
*Internet discussion boards

==Answers==
{{Epigraph|You can never argue a person into faith; Christian theology and apologetics exist in order to make sense of the world for the believer, but they do not in themselves create that belief
 Gerald Bray, "Man's Righteousness and God's Salvation," ''Evangel'', the British Evangelical Review 10. 2 (1992): 6.}}
{{parabreak}}
===What is apologetics?===

The word "apologetic" is not commonly used in the LDS community and may be unfamiliar to many people. The word literally means "in defense of the faith." It is not talking about apologizing to anyone or being sorry for something. (From the [http://www.fairlds.org/faq.html FAIR FAQ].) The word comes from the Greek "apologia" and is used four times in the Greek New Testament, including 1 Peter 3:15[http://scriptures.lds.org/1_pet/3/15#15 1 Peter 3:15].

===Why do apologetics?=== 

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

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

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

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

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

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

{{SeeAlso|Does the Church discourage reading critical material?}}

===Since you can't "prove" religion, is apologetics a waste of time?===

Dallin H. Oaks spoke to this concern:

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

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

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

Austen Farrar said, of C.S. Lewis:

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

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

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

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

====Over-reacting====

Cautioned Elder Neal A. Maxwell:

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

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

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

C.S. Lewis remarked:

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

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

====Spiritual Neglect====

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

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

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

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

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

===Do LDS apologists tell members how "scientists continue to get it wrong?"===
Critics often portray apologists and mindless automatons who are unable to think rationally in their attempt to "defend the faith" at all costs. It is assumed by secular critics that [[Mormonism and science]] are mutually exclusive. It is not the job of the apologist to discount what science tells us. Many apologists have advanced degrees in many areas of science. These individuals have found that science and belief are compatible rather than being mutually exclusive.

It is true, however, that apologetic arguments may evolve as science provides us with new answers about the world that we live in. Science is continually changing, and we welcome the new knowledge that it brings to us. When new discoveries are made, apologists will attempt to determine this new information fits in with belief. It is possible to be an apologist while still understanding that there are many things that science will continue to teach us.

One should exercise caution, however, before immediately incorporating a new discovery into an apologetic argument. An example of this occurred with forged documents such as the "Salamander Letter" produced by [[Mark Hofmann]]. When these documents were obtained by the church and made publicly available, apologists and critics alike immediately began creating material to explain them. When it was discovered that these documents were forgeries, it became necessary to provide disclaimers on some apologetic material that was written during this period of time. Unfortunately, critics do not issue such disclaimers, and works such as D. Michael Quinn's ''[[Early Mormonism and the Magic World View]]'' and Grant Palmer's ''[[An Insider's View of Mormon Origins]]'', which were heavily influenced by the Hofmann forgeries, continue to be cited as references in modern critical works. In this case, negative apologetics based upon faulty information continues to have ongoing detrimental effects.

===Are LDS apologists isolated from other members because of differences in their beliefs?===
LDS apologists do not exist in some special "caste" that sets them apart from the general "non-apologist" church population. This idea has even been characterized as a difference between "[[Internet Mormons vs. Chapel Mormons]]"{{ref|shades1}}. Many LDS apologists either have been, or currently are, elders quorum presidents, high priest group leaders, bishops, stake presidents, and even general authorities. Being in positions of leadership such as these hardly isolates the apologist from the general Church membership. If anything, this means that the apologist is in an even better position to assist members when they ''do'' seek out answers to difficult questions. The idea that LDS apologists are somehow isolated in their own little self-constructed world of beliefs is an idea that the critics would like to promote, but which is very far from the truth.

===Does the Church employ or pay LDS apologists?===
There are no paid positions in LDS apologetics. Those who wish to achieve a substantial level of income would be well advised to avoid LDS apologetics entirely, as it can consume substantial amounts of a person's "off-time." Most LDS apologists perform volunteer work to defend the faith while holding down their normal "day job."

Some individuals who practice LDS apologetics happen to be employed by institutions sponsored by the Church: The primary institution being Brigham Young University. In this situation, their "day job" involves researching or teaching subjects which may or may not relate to subjects of interest to apologetics...which ought not to surprise anyone at all. Thus, critics attempt to argue that some LDS apologists, particularly BYU professors, are "paid" for their apologetic efforts. Critics congratulate themselves for achieving a firm understanding of the obvious: Individuals who happen to have a "day job" with a Church sponsored institution receive their paycheck from that same institution. Having a "day job" with a Church sponsored institution does not preclude one from practicing apologetics.

===Does the Church avoid mentioning the work of LDS apologists in any public forum sponsored by the Church?===

No. For example, the work of pioneer apologist Hugh Nibley has been repeatedly cited even in general conference.{{ref|nibleygc}}

The Church's official website also links to various apologetic individuals and groups. For example, their section on DNA and the Book of Mormon refers to the ''Journal of Book of Mormon Studies'', the ''FARMS Review'', and work by Dr. Daniel Peterson, Dr. John Butler, and Dr. Jeff Lindsay.{{ref|DNAlinks}} FAIR's response to an anti-Mormon DVD was also given prominent attention at ''lds.org''.{{ref|DVDlinks}}

===Does the Church avoid endorsing any LDS apologetic scholarship?===

The Church and its leaders are rightly cautious about officially endorsing any material that has not been approved by the correlation process of the Church. For most secular undertakings—such as those involving science and history—the Church gives no official endorsement nor takes any official position.

Apologists prefer it this way. For example, FAIR can and does make mistakes. If they are brought to our attention, we strive to correct them. But, the Church cannot be held responsible for any errors that we, as private members, might make. The Church and its leaders focus on preaching the gospel of Christ and administering the saving ordinances. Interested private members may seek to explain and defend their faith with the best tools at their disposal, but the truth of that faith does not depend on the soundness of their arguments.

=={{Endnotes label}}==
#{{note|lewis1}} C. S. Lewis, "Learning in War-Time," in ''The Weight of Glory and Other Addresses'' (New York: Macmillan, 1965), 27-28; cited by James S. Jardine, “Consecration and Learning,” in ''On Becoming a Disciple-Scholar'', edited by Henry B. Eying (Bookcraft, Salt Lake, 1995), 77.
#{{note|maxwell1}} Neal A. Maxwell, "'All Hell Is Moved," in ''1977 Devotional Speeches of the Year'' (Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University Press, 1977), 179.
#{{note|oaks1}} Dallin H. Oaks, ''The Lord’s Way'', (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1991), 92.
#{{note|maxwell2}} Neal A. Maxwell, ''Deposition of a Disciple'' (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1976), 49.
#{{note|farrar1}} Cited by {{BYUS|author=Neal A. Maxwell|article=Discipleship and Scholarship|vol=32|num=3|date=1992|start=5}}{{pdflink|url=http://byustudies.byu.edu/Products/MoreInfoPage/MoreInfo.aspx?Type=7&ProdID=1166}}
#{{note|maxwell3}} Neal A. Maxwell, cited in {{Ensign1|author=Gilbert W. Scharffs|article=Some people say it is best to leave alone materials that claim to 'expose' the Church and its teachings. What counsel has been given on this? How do we respond when a friend comes to us with questions found in such materials?|date=January 1995|start=60 (scroll half-way down)}}{{link|url=http://library.lds.org/library/lpext.dll/ArchMagazines/Ensign/1995.htm/ensign%20january%201995.htm/i%20have%20a%20question.htm?fn=document-frame.htm&f=templates&2.0#LPTOC2}}
#{{note|maxwell4}} Neal A Maxwell, ''A More Excellent Way: Essays on Leadership for Latter-day Saints'' (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1967), 62.
#{{note|lewis2}} C. S. Lewis, "Learning in War-Time," in ''The Weight of Glory and Other Addresses'' (New York: Macmillan, 1965), 27-28; cited by James S. Jardine, “Consecration and Learning,” in ''On Becoming a Disciple-Scholar'', edited by Henry B. Eying (Bookcraft, Salt Lake, 1995), 77.
#{{note|lewis3}} C.S. Lewis, ''God in the Dock: Essays on Theology and Ethics'', edited by Walter Hooper, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1970), 103.
#{{note|shades1}}The terms were originated by Jason Gallentine, who identifies himself as "Dr. Shades" on a critical discussion board.
#{{note|nibleygc}} See, for example: {{Ensign1|author=Gordon B. Hinckley|article=Come and Partake|date=May 1986|start=46}}{{link|url=http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=0c9eef960417b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1}}; {{Ensign|author=D. Todd Christofferson|article=The Redemption of the Dead and the Testimony of Jesus|date=November 2000|start=9|end=11}}{{link|url=http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=e3cea1615ac0c010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1}}; {{Ensign1|author=Boyd K. Packer|article=We Believe All That God Has Revealed|date=May 1974|start=93}}{{link|url=http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=57403219c786b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1}}. Other references to Nibley can be found by [http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=84010fd41d93b010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&hideNav=1&pageNumber=1&maxResults=20&NARROW_BY=&query=%22hugh+nibley%22&bucket=GeneralConference&dateFrom=&dateTo=&AUTHOR_CATEGORY=&AUTHOR_NAME=&FORMAT=&submitSearch=Search&dateFromDisplay=&dateToDisplay=&findByAuthor= searching] the on-line database.
#{{note|DNAlinks}} "DNA and the Book of Mormon," ''lds.org'' (16 February 2006). {{link|url=http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/dna-and-the-book-of-mormon}}.
#{{note|DVDlinks}} "Response to DVD," ''lds.org'' (29 March 2007). {{link|url=http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/response-to-dvd}}. The FAIR response is at the top of the column on the left.

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

===Videos===
{{Video:Ash:Barney:2003:LDS Apologetics 101}}

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

==={{Printed material label}}===
* Many good printed books are available at the [http://www.fair-lds.org/Merchant2/merchant.mvc FAIR Bookstore].
{{Articles Footer 1}} {{Articles Footer 2}} {{Articles Footer 3}} {{Articles Footer 4}} {{Articles Footer 5}} {{Articles Footer 6}} {{Articles Footer 7}} {{Articles Footer 8}} {{Articles Footer 9}} {{Articles Footer 10}}

[[fr:Apologetics]]

Mormonism and apologetics

2010-11-14T22:25:54Z

PaulMcNabb: /* What is apologetics? */

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

Many people are not familiar with "apologetics," and raise a variety of questions. These include:
*Why are we "apologizing" for our doctrine?
*What is apologetics?
*Why do apologetics?
*Is it appropriate for a Church member to be involved in apologetics?
*Since you can't "prove" religion, is apologetics a waste of time?
*Are there risks in doing apologetics?
*Do LDS apologists tell members how "scientists continue to get it wrong?"
*Are LDS apologists isolated from other members because of differences in their beliefs?
*Does the Church employ or pay LDS apologists?
*Does the Church avoid mentioning the work of LDS apologists in any public forum sponsored by the Church?
*Does the Church avoid endorsing any LDS apologetic scholarship?

==={{Criticism source label English}}===
*{{CriticalWork:Abanes:Becoming Gods|pages=99}}
*{{CriticalWork:Southerton:Losing|pages=Chapter 14}}
*Internet discussion boards

==Answers==
{{Epigraph|You can never argue a person into faith; Christian theology and apologetics exist in order to make sense of the world for the believer, but they do not in themselves create that belief
 Gerald Bray, "Man's Righteousness and God's Salvation," ''Evangel'', the British Evangelical Review 10. 2 (1992): 6.}}
{{parabreak}}
===What is apologetics?===

The word "apologetic" is not commonly used in the LDS community and may be unfamiliar to many people. The word literally means "in defense of the faith." It is not talking about apologizing to anyone or being sorry for something. (From the [http://www.fairlds.org/faq.html FAIR FAQ].) The word comes from the Greek "apologia" and is used four times in the Greek New Testament, including 1 Peter 3:15.

===Why do apologetics?=== 

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

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

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

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

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

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

{{SeeAlso|Does the Church discourage reading critical material?}}

===Since you can't "prove" religion, is apologetics a waste of time?===

Dallin H. Oaks spoke to this concern:

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

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

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

Austen Farrar said, of C.S. Lewis:

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

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

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

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

====Over-reacting====

Cautioned Elder Neal A. Maxwell:

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

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

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

C.S. Lewis remarked:

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

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

====Spiritual Neglect====

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

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

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

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

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

===Do LDS apologists tell members how "scientists continue to get it wrong?"===
Critics often portray apologists and mindless automatons who are unable to think rationally in their attempt to "defend the faith" at all costs. It is assumed by secular critics that [[Mormonism and science]] are mutually exclusive. It is not the job of the apologist to discount what science tells us. Many apologists have advanced degrees in many areas of science. These individuals have found that science and belief are compatible rather than being mutually exclusive.

It is true, however, that apologetic arguments may evolve as science provides us with new answers about the world that we live in. Science is continually changing, and we welcome the new knowledge that it brings to us. When new discoveries are made, apologists will attempt to determine this new information fits in with belief. It is possible to be an apologist while still understanding that there are many things that science will continue to teach us.

One should exercise caution, however, before immediately incorporating a new discovery into an apologetic argument. An example of this occurred with forged documents such as the "Salamander Letter" produced by [[Mark Hofmann]]. When these documents were obtained by the church and made publicly available, apologists and critics alike immediately began creating material to explain them. When it was discovered that these documents were forgeries, it became necessary to provide disclaimers on some apologetic material that was written during this period of time. Unfortunately, critics do not issue such disclaimers, and works such as D. Michael Quinn's ''[[Early Mormonism and the Magic World View]]'' and Grant Palmer's ''[[An Insider's View of Mormon Origins]]'', which were heavily influenced by the Hofmann forgeries, continue to be cited as references in modern critical works. In this case, negative apologetics based upon faulty information continues to have ongoing detrimental effects.

===Are LDS apologists isolated from other members because of differences in their beliefs?===
LDS apologists do not exist in some special "caste" that sets them apart from the general "non-apologist" church population. This idea has even been characterized as a difference between "[[Internet Mormons vs. Chapel Mormons]]"{{ref|shades1}}. Many LDS apologists either have been, or currently are, elders quorum presidents, high priest group leaders, bishops, stake presidents, and even general authorities. Being in positions of leadership such as these hardly isolates the apologist from the general Church membership. If anything, this means that the apologist is in an even better position to assist members when they ''do'' seek out answers to difficult questions. The idea that LDS apologists are somehow isolated in their own little self-constructed world of beliefs is an idea that the critics would like to promote, but which is very far from the truth.

===Does the Church employ or pay LDS apologists?===
There are no paid positions in LDS apologetics. Those who wish to achieve a substantial level of income would be well advised to avoid LDS apologetics entirely, as it can consume substantial amounts of a person's "off-time." Most LDS apologists perform volunteer work to defend the faith while holding down their normal "day job."

Some individuals who practice LDS apologetics happen to be employed by institutions sponsored by the Church: The primary institution being Brigham Young University. In this situation, their "day job" involves researching or teaching subjects which may or may not relate to subjects of interest to apologetics...which ought not to surprise anyone at all. Thus, critics attempt to argue that some LDS apologists, particularly BYU professors, are "paid" for their apologetic efforts. Critics congratulate themselves for achieving a firm understanding of the obvious: Individuals who happen to have a "day job" with a Church sponsored institution receive their paycheck from that same institution. Having a "day job" with a Church sponsored institution does not preclude one from practicing apologetics.

===Does the Church avoid mentioning the work of LDS apologists in any public forum sponsored by the Church?===

No. For example, the work of pioneer apologist Hugh Nibley has been repeatedly cited even in general conference.{{ref|nibleygc}}

The Church's official website also links to various apologetic individuals and groups. For example, their section on DNA and the Book of Mormon refers to the ''Journal of Book of Mormon Studies'', the ''FARMS Review'', and work by Dr. Daniel Peterson, Dr. John Butler, and Dr. Jeff Lindsay.{{ref|DNAlinks}} FAIR's response to an anti-Mormon DVD was also given prominent attention at ''lds.org''.{{ref|DVDlinks}}

===Does the Church avoid endorsing any LDS apologetic scholarship?===

The Church and its leaders are rightly cautious about officially endorsing any material that has not been approved by the correlation process of the Church. For most secular undertakings—such as those involving science and history—the Church gives no official endorsement nor takes any official position.

Apologists prefer it this way. For example, FAIR can and does make mistakes. If they are brought to our attention, we strive to correct them. But, the Church cannot be held responsible for any errors that we, as private members, might make. The Church and its leaders focus on preaching the gospel of Christ and administering the saving ordinances. Interested private members may seek to explain and defend their faith with the best tools at their disposal, but the truth of that faith does not depend on the soundness of their arguments.

=={{Endnotes label}}==
#{{note|lewis1}} C. S. Lewis, "Learning in War-Time," in ''The Weight of Glory and Other Addresses'' (New York: Macmillan, 1965), 27-28; cited by James S. Jardine, “Consecration and Learning,” in ''On Becoming a Disciple-Scholar'', edited by Henry B. Eying (Bookcraft, Salt Lake, 1995), 77.
#{{note|maxwell1}} Neal A. Maxwell, "'All Hell Is Moved," in ''1977 Devotional Speeches of the Year'' (Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University Press, 1977), 179.
#{{note|oaks1}} Dallin H. Oaks, ''The Lord’s Way'', (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1991), 92.
#{{note|maxwell2}} Neal A. Maxwell, ''Deposition of a Disciple'' (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1976), 49.
#{{note|farrar1}} Cited by {{BYUS|author=Neal A. Maxwell|article=Discipleship and Scholarship|vol=32|num=3|date=1992|start=5}}{{pdflink|url=http://byustudies.byu.edu/Products/MoreInfoPage/MoreInfo.aspx?Type=7&ProdID=1166}}
#{{note|maxwell3}} Neal A. Maxwell, cited in {{Ensign1|author=Gilbert W. Scharffs|article=Some people say it is best to leave alone materials that claim to 'expose' the Church and its teachings. What counsel has been given on this? How do we respond when a friend comes to us with questions found in such materials?|date=January 1995|start=60 (scroll half-way down)}}{{link|url=http://library.lds.org/library/lpext.dll/ArchMagazines/Ensign/1995.htm/ensign%20january%201995.htm/i%20have%20a%20question.htm?fn=document-frame.htm&f=templates&2.0#LPTOC2}}
#{{note|maxwell4}} Neal A Maxwell, ''A More Excellent Way: Essays on Leadership for Latter-day Saints'' (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1967), 62.
#{{note|lewis2}} C. S. Lewis, "Learning in War-Time," in ''The Weight of Glory and Other Addresses'' (New York: Macmillan, 1965), 27-28; cited by James S. Jardine, “Consecration and Learning,” in ''On Becoming a Disciple-Scholar'', edited by Henry B. Eying (Bookcraft, Salt Lake, 1995), 77.
#{{note|lewis3}} C.S. Lewis, ''God in the Dock: Essays on Theology and Ethics'', edited by Walter Hooper, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1970), 103.
#{{note|shades1}}The terms were originated by Jason Gallentine, who identifies himself as "Dr. Shades" on a critical discussion board.
#{{note|nibleygc}} See, for example: {{Ensign1|author=Gordon B. Hinckley|article=Come and Partake|date=May 1986|start=46}}{{link|url=http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=0c9eef960417b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1}}; {{Ensign|author=D. Todd Christofferson|article=The Redemption of the Dead and the Testimony of Jesus|date=November 2000|start=9|end=11}}{{link|url=http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=e3cea1615ac0c010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1}}; {{Ensign1|author=Boyd K. Packer|article=We Believe All That God Has Revealed|date=May 1974|start=93}}{{link|url=http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=57403219c786b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1}}. Other references to Nibley can be found by [http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=84010fd41d93b010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&hideNav=1&pageNumber=1&maxResults=20&NARROW_BY=&query=%22hugh+nibley%22&bucket=GeneralConference&dateFrom=&dateTo=&AUTHOR_CATEGORY=&AUTHOR_NAME=&FORMAT=&submitSearch=Search&dateFromDisplay=&dateToDisplay=&findByAuthor= searching] the on-line database.
#{{note|DNAlinks}} "DNA and the Book of Mormon," ''lds.org'' (16 February 2006). {{link|url=http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/dna-and-the-book-of-mormon}}.
#{{note|DVDlinks}} "Response to DVD," ''lds.org'' (29 March 2007). {{link|url=http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/response-to-dvd}}. The FAIR response is at the top of the column on the left.

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

===Videos===
{{Video:Ash:Barney:2003:LDS Apologetics 101}}

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

==={{Printed material label}}===
* Many good printed books are available at the [http://www.fair-lds.org/Merchant2/merchant.mvc FAIR Bookstore].
{{Articles Footer 1}} {{Articles Footer 2}} {{Articles Footer 3}} {{Articles Footer 4}} {{Articles Footer 5}} {{Articles Footer 6}} {{Articles Footer 7}} {{Articles Footer 8}} {{Articles Footer 9}} {{Articles Footer 10}}

[[fr:Apologetics]]

Fallibility of prophets

2010-05-03T01:44:09Z

PaulMcNabb: /* Biblical comparison */

==Criticism==
Critics are fond of imposing their absolutist assumptions on the Church. Many critics hold inerrantist beliefs about scriptures or prophets, and assume that the LDS have similar views.

Critics therefore insist—without reason—that any statement by any LDS Church leader represents LDS doctrine and is thus something that is secretly believed, or that should be believed, by Latter-day Saints.

{{CriticalSources}}

==Response==

===Prophets in the LDS tradition are not "infallible"===
:''Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.''
:—The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, [http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/approaching-mormon-doctrine Approaching Mormon Doctrine] (May 4, 2007)
{{parabreak}}
The LDS do not believe that prophets and apostles are incapable of error, despite being called of God and receiving revelation. Joseph Smith himself taught that ‘a prophet was a prophet only when he was acting as such’.{{ref|js1}} The Church has always taught that its leaders are human and subject to failings as are all mortals. Only Jesus was perfect, as explained in this statement from the First Presidency:

:The position is not assumed that the men of the New Dispensation —its prophets, apostles, presidencies, and other leaders—are without faults or infallible, rather they are treated as men of like passions with their fellow men."{{ref|clark1}}

Lu Dalton, writing in the Church's periodical for women, explained:

:We consider God, and him alone, infallible; therefore his revealed word to us cannot be doubted, though we may be in doubt some times about the knowledge which we obtain from human sources, and occasionally be obliged to admit that something which we had considered to be a fact, was really only a theory.{{ref|dalton1}}

===Standard of doctrine in the Church===
President George Q. Cannon (counselor in the First Presidency) explained that the scriptures are the only source of official doctrine, coupled with later revelation to the prophets that has been presented to the Church and sustained:

:I hold in my hand the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, and also the book, The Pearl of Great Price, which books contain revelations of God. In Kirtland, the Doctrine and Covenants in its original form, as first printed, was submitted to the officers of the Church and the members of the Church to vote upon. As there have been additions made to it by the publishing of revelations which were not contained in the original edition, it has been deemed wise to submit these books with their contents to the conference, to see whether the conference will vote to accept the books and their contents as from God, and binding upon us as a people and as a Church.{{ref|cannon1}}

B.H. Roberts further explained that only those things within the Standard Works and those presented for a sustaining vote by the First Presidency and Council of the Twelve Apostles is binding upon the Church and its members:

:The Church has confined the sources of doctrine by which it is willing to be bound before the world to the things that God has revealed, and which the Church has officially accepted, and those alone. These would include the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, the Pearl of Great Price; these have been repeatedly accepted and endorsed by the Church in general conference assembled, and are the only sources of absolute appeal for our doctrine.{{ref|roberts1}}

Anything else is valuable and may be of use for explanation, exhortation, and instruction, but does not bear the weight of ‘scripture’ in the LDS canon. Harold B. Lee was equally explicit:

:If anyone, regardless of his position in the Church, were to advance a doctrine that is not substantiated by the standard Church works, meaning the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price, you may know that his statement is merely his private opinion. The only one authorized to bring forth any new doctrine is the President of the Church, who, when he does, will declare it as revelation from God, and it will be so accepted by the Council of the Twelve and sustained by the body of the Church. And if any man speak a doctrine which contradicts what is in the standard Church works, you may know by that same token that it is false and you are not bound to accept it as truth.{{ref|lee1}}

Elsewhere, President Lee taught the same principle:

:It is not to be thought that every word spoken by the General Authorities is inspired, or that they are moved upon by the Holy Ghost in everything they speak and write. Now you keep that in mind. I don't care what his position is, if he writes something or speaks something that goes beyond anything that you can find in the standard works, unless that one be the prophet, seer, and revelator—please note that one exception—you may immediately say, "Well, that is his own idea!" And if he says something that contradicts what is found in the standard works (I think that is why we call them "standard"—it is the standard measure of all that men teach), you may know by that same token that it is false; regardless of the position of the man who says it.{{ref|lee2}}

In ''Mormon Doctrine'', Elder Bruce R. McConkie was equally clear:

:The books, writings, explanations, expositions, views, and theories of even the wisest and greatest men, either in or out of the Church, do not rank with the standard works. Even the writings, teachings, and opinions of the prophets of God are acceptable only to the extent they are in harmony with what God has revealed and what is recorded in the standard works.{{ref|mcconkie3}}

===Prophets and new scripture===

Brigham Young made another statement which critics abuse:

:"Well, brethren and sisters, try and be Saints. I will try; I have tried many years to live according to the law which the Lord reveals unto me. I know just as well what to teach this people and just what to say to them and what to do in order to bring them into the celestial kingdom, as I know the road to my office. It is just as plain and easy. The Lord is in our midst. He teaches the people continually. I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call Scripture. Let me have the privilege of correcting a sermon, and it is as good Scripture as they deserve. The people have the oracles of God continually. In the days of Joseph, revelation was given and written, and the people were driven from city to city and place to place, until we were led into these mountains. Let this [discourse] go to the people with "Thus saith the Lord," and if they do not obey it, you will see the chastening hand of the Lord upon them. But if they are plead with, and led along like children, we may come to understand the will of the Lord and he may preserve us as we desire.{{ref|by1}}

Brigham here says that his remarks are "scripture." However, the critics rarely provide Brigham's ''own explanation'' of this comment:

:Brother Orson Hyde referred to a few who complained about not getting revelations. I will make a statement here that has been brought against me as a crime, perhaps, or as a fault in my life. Not here, I do not allude to anything of the kind in this place, but in the councils of the nations—that Brigham Young has said "when he sends forth his discourses to the world they may call them Scripture." I say now, when they are copied and approved by me they are as good Scripture as is couched in this Bible, and if you want to read revelation read the sayings of him who knows the mind of God, without any special command to one man to go here, and to another to go yonder, or to do this or that, or to go and settle here or there.{{ref|by2}}

Brigham Young made it clear that his previous statement should not mean that anything he said was scripture, but only that which he had the opportunity to correct and send to the Saints ''as'' scripture. This provides a good example of why this rule exists at all: what a prophet may intend to convey may not be what his listeners hear, or what scribes recorded. Thus, teachings must be approved by the author ''and'' submitted as binding scripture in order for them to be considered such.

===Establishing new doctrine===

Taught Brigham Young:

:In trying all matters of doctrine, to make a decision valid, it is necessary to obtain a unanimous voice, faith and decision. In the capacity of a Quorum, the three First Presidents must be one in their voice; the Twelve Apostles must be unanimous in their voice, to obtain a righteous decision upon any matter that may come before them, as you may read in the Doctrine and Covenants. Whenever you see these Quorums unanimous in their declaration, you may set it down as true. Let the Elders get together, being faithful and true; and when they agree upon any point, you may know that it is true.{{ref|by.9.91}}

Later, B.H. Roberts wrote:

:It is not sufficient to quote sayings purported to come from Joseph Smith or Brigham Young upon matters of doctrine. Our own people also need instruction and correction in respect of this. It is common to hear some of our older brethren say, ‘But I heard Brother Joseph myself say so,’ or ‘Brother Brigham preached it; I heard him.’ But that is not the question. The question is has God said it? Was the prophet speaking officially? . . . As to the printed discourses of even leading brethren, the same principle holds. They do not constitute the court of ultimate appeal on doctrine. They may be very useful in the way of elucidation and are very generally good and sound in doctrine, but they are not the ultimate sources of the doctrines of the Church, and are not binding upon the Church. The rule in that respect is—What God has spoken, and what has been accepted by the Church as the word of God, by that, and that only, are we bound in doctrine.{{ref|roberts2}}

Leaders of the Church even spoke out against those who might try to think that some other standard applied for ‘official’ Church doctrine:

:[The Seer, a magazine published by a Church leader] contain[s] doctrines which we cannot sanction, and which we have felt impressed to disown, so that the Saints who now live, and who may live hereafter, may not be misled by our silence, or be left to misinterpret it…It ought to have been known, years ago, by every person in the Church—for ample teachings have been given on the point—that no member of the Church has the right to publish any doctrines, as the doctrines of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, without first submitting them for examination and approval to the First Presidency and the Twelve. There is but one man upon the earth, at one time, who holds the keys to receive commandments and revelations for the Church, and who has the authority to write doctrines by way of commandment unto the Church. And any man who so far forgets the order instituted by the Lord as to write and publish what may be termed new doctrines, without consulting with the First Presidency of the Church respecting them, places himself in a false position, and exposes himself to the power of darkness by violating his Priesthood. While upon this subject, we wish to warn all the Elders of the Church, and to have it clearly understood by the members, that, in the future, whoever publishes any new doctrines without first taking this course, will be liable to lose his Priesthood.{{ref|seer1}}

Later leaders of the Church have continued to teach this principle. Joseph Fielding Smith wrote:

:It makes no difference what is written or what anyone has said, if what has been said is in conflict with what the Lord has revealed, we can set it aside. My words, and the teachings of any other member of the Church, high or low, if they do not square with the revelations, we need not accept them. Let us have this matter clear. We have accepted the four standard works as the measuring yardsticks, or balances, by which we measure every man¹s doctrine. You cannot accept the books written by the authorities of the Church as standards of doctrine, only in so far as they accord with the revealed word in the standard works. Every man who writes is responsible, not the Church, for what he writes. If Joseph Fielding Smith writes something which is out of harmony with the revelations, then every member of the Church is duty bound to reject it. If he writes that which is in perfect harmony with the revealed word of the Lord, then it should be accepted.{{ref|jfs1}}

Harold B. Lee was emphatic that only one person can speak for the Church:

:All over the Church you're being asked this: "What does the Church think about this or that?" Have you ever heard anybody ask that question? "What does the Church think about the civil rights legislation?" "What do they think about the war?" "What do they think about drinking Coca-Cola or Sanka coffee?" Did you ever hear that? "What do they think about the Democratic Party or ticket or the Republican ticket?" Did you ever hear that? "How should we vote in this forthcoming election?" Now, with most all of those questions, if you answer them, you're going to be in trouble. Most all of them. Now, it's the smart man that will say, "There's only one man in this church that speaks for the Church, and I'm not that one man."

:I think nothing could get you into deep waterquicker than to answer people on these things, when they say, "What does the Church think?" and you want to be smart, so you try to answer what the Church's policy is. Well, you're not the one to make the policies for the Church. You just remember what the Apostle Paul wrote to the Corinthians. He said, "For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified" (1 Corinthians 2:2). Well now, as teachers of our youth, you're not supposed to know anything except Jesus Christ and Him crucified. On that subject you're expected to be an expert. You're expected to know your subject. You're expected to have a testimony. And in that you'll have great strength. If the President of the Church has not declared the position of the Church, then you shouldn't go shopping for the answer.{{ref|lee.445}}

Elder Bruce R. McConkie, whose writings some critics attempt to elevate to "official status," despite the fact that he explicitly states that he writes only on his own behalf,{{ref|mcconkie1}} said:

:With all their inspiration and greatness, prophets are yet mortal men with imperfections common to mankind in general. They have their opinions and prejudices and are left to work out their own problems without inspiration in many instances. Joseph Smith recorded that he "visited with a brother and sister from Michigan, who thought that 'a prophet is always a prophet'; but I told them that a prophet was a prophet only when he was acting as such." (Teachings, p. 278.) Thus the opinions and views even of prophets may contain error unless those opinions and views are inspired by the Spirit. Inspired statements are scripture and should be accepted as such. (D. & C. 68:4.).

:Since "the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets" (1 Cor. 14:32), whatever is announced by the presiding brethren as counsel for the Church will be the voice of inspiration. But the truth or error of any uninspired utterance of an individual will have to be judged by the standard works and the spirit of discernment and inspiration that is in those who actually enjoy the gift of the Holy Ghost.{{ref|mcconkie2}}

This was recently reiterated by the First Presidency (who now approves all statements published on the Church's official website):

:''Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency...and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles...counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.''
:—LDS Newsroom, "Approaching Mormon Doctrine," ''lds.org'' (4 May 2007) {{link|url=http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/approaching-mormon-doctrine}}]

===Biblical standard?===

Some critics will protest that this standard is not applied to Biblical prophets, but this comes from a superficial analysis of the Biblical record. One Bible commentator noted that the Biblical authors were not perfect, and that they made errors of expression even in the Biblical record:

:Though purified and ennobled by the influence of His Holy Spirit; men each with his own peculiarities of manner and disposition—each with his own education or want of education—each with his own way of looking at things—each influenced differently from another by the different experiences and disciplines of his life. Their inspiration did not involve a suspension of their natural faculties; it did not even make them free from earthly passion; it did not make them into machines—it left them men. Therefore we find their knowledge sometimes no higher than that of their contemporaries.{{ref|dummelow1}}

Paul’s accounts even contain a contradictory account of his vision (Compare [http://scriptures.lds.org/acts/9/7#7 Acts 9:7] & [http://scriptures.lds.org/acts/22/9#9 Acts 22:9]). Paul and Barnabas disagreed severely enough for it to disrupt their missions [http://scriptures.lds.org/acts/15/36#39 Acts 15:36–39]. Peter and Paul also criticized the other’s writing [http://scriptures.lds.org/2_pet/3/16#16 2 Peter 3:16] and behavior regarding the Church [http://scriptures.lds.org/gal/2/11#16 Galatians 2:11–16].

===Protection against error===

The Church's system of councils provides protection against the fallibility of a single man or leader. President Smith explained:

:An individual may fall by the wayside, or have views, or give counsel which falls short of what the Lord intends. But the voice of the First Presidency and the united voice of those others who hold with them the keys of the kingdom shall always guide the Saints and the world in those paths where the Lord wants them to be.{{ref|jfs2}}

Dallin H. Oaks explained how the Lord allows all His children to grow through struggling with problems:

:Revelations from God . . . are not constant. We believe in continuing revelation, not continuous revelation. We are often left to work out problems without the dictation or specific direction of the Spirit. That is part of the experience we must have in mortality. Fortunately, we are never out of our Savior's sight, and if our judgment leads us to actions beyond the limits of what is permissible and if we are listening, . . . the Lord will restrain us by the promptings of his Spirit.{{ref|oaks1}}

The Lord will not help his children avoid all stumbling and error; He will protect them from permanent harm to His work, as Boyd K. Packer taught:

:Even with the best of intentions, [Church government] does not always work the way it should. Human nature may express itself on occasion, but ''not to the permanent injury of the work''.{{ref|packer1}}

Does this mean that members must simply have "blind trust" in their leaders? Hardly, says President Lorenzo Snow:

:There may be some things that the First Presidency do; that the Apostles do, that cannot for the moment be explained; yet the spirit, the motives that inspire the action can be understood, because each member of the Church has a right to have that measure of the Spirit of God that they can judge as to those who are acting in their interests or otherwise.{{ref|snow1}}

===Biblical comparison===

To get a better idea of how prophets are limited yet still divinely called, it can be helpful to look at some examples of Bible prophets and compare them with modern prophets.

{| border="0" cellpadding="10" style=background:#eeeeee
|- style="align:center; background:#dddddd; text-align:center"
| '''Bible prophets'''
| '''Modern prophets'''
|- valign="top"
| '''Moses''' disobeyed God's instruction to speak to the rock and instead hit it. He then attributed the miracle to himself and Aaron, saying, "Must ''we'' fetch you water out of this rock?" He was chastized by the Lord afterward. ({{b||Numbers|20||}})
|
|- valign="top"
| '''Joshua''' was deceived by the inhabitants of Gibeon when they claimed to come from a far country so they could get a peace accord with Joshua. Then the Israelites found that instead of living a long distant away, that people from Gibeon lived among them. ({{b||Joshua|9||}})
| '''Gordon B. Hinckley''' was temporarily deceived by [[Mark Hofmann]], who had done so in order to obtain money. Hofmann was even responsible for the death of some people. After some investigation, he was discovered and sentenced.
|- valign="top"
| '''Gideon''' repeatedly asked the Lord for signs even though the Lord has said, "An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign." ({{b||Judges|7|}}; {{b||Matthew|12|39}})
|
|- valign="top"
| '''Nathan''' told David that the Lord approved of his desire to build a temple, and that he should commence the project. The Lord later told Nathan that such was ''not'' His desire, and that he was to tell David that the temple would be built by another. ({{b|2|Samuel|7||}})
|
|- valign="top"
| '''Jonah''' felt some personal prejudices against Assyrians, to the point of expecting the Lord to give them fewer blessings than to Jews. ({{b||Jonah|4|1}})
| '''Brigham Young''' felt some personal prejudices against [[Racist_statements_by_Church_leaders|blacks]], to the point of expecting the Lord to give them fewer blessings than caucasians.
|- valign="top"
| '''Jesus' apostles''' may not always have been perfectly humble or modest. They once disputed over which of them would be the greatest in heaven. ({{b||Mark|9|34}})
| '''Joseph Smith''' may not always have been perfectly humble or modest. He once said he had "more to boast of than ever any man had."{{ref|js2}} ''See [[Did_Joseph_Smith_'boast'_of_keeping_the_Church_intact|here]]'', though, to learn how critics misinterpret this event.''
|}
A person could spend all day looking for examples of the Lord's chosen servants making mistakes, but such an activity does nothing to edify or strengthen people. In all of these situations, a prophet's weakness or mistakes do not make him any less a prophet, called of God to do His work.

==Conclusion==
The prophets are not perfect, but they are called of God. They may speak as men, but may speak scripture as well. Every person may know for themselves whether they speak the truth through the same power that their revelation is given: the power of the Holy Ghost.

{{SeeAlso|Blood_of_the_Prophets:_Brigham_Young_and_the_Massacre_at_Mountain_Meadows/Omissions/Total_submission_to_Brigham_Young#Brigham's statements|l1=Brigham Young on the vital need to know for ourselves}}

==Endnotes==
#{{note|js1}} {{HoC1|vol=5|start=265}}; See also {{TPJS1|start=278}}
#{{note|clark1}} James R. Clark, quoting B. H. Roberts, ''Messages of the First Presidency,'' edited by James R. Clark, Vol. 4, (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1970), p. xiv–xv.
#{{note|dalton1}} Lu Dalton, ''Woman's Exponent'' (Salt Lake City: 15 July 1882), p. 31.
#{{note|cannon1}} {{MS1|author=George Q. Cannon|article=Comments|vol=42|num=46|date=15 November 1880|start=724}} (10 October 1880, General Conference)
#{{note|roberts1}} Brigham H. Roberts, sermon of 10 July 1921, delivered in Salt Lake Tabernacle, printed in ''Deseret News'' (23 July 1921) sec. 4:7.
#{{note|lee1}}Harold B. Lee, ''The First Area General Conference for Germany, Austria, Holland, Italy, Switzerland, France, Belgium, and Spain of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, held in Munich Germany, August 24–26, 1973, with Reports and Discourses'', 69.
#{{note|lee2}} Harold B. Lee, "The Place of the Living Prophet, Seer, and Revelator," Address to Seminary and Institute of Religion Faculty, BYU, 8 July 1964.
#{{note|mcconkie3}} {{MD1|start=111}}
#{{note|by1}} {{JDfairwiki|author=Brigham Young|title=Latter-Day Saint Families, etc.|date=2 January 1870|vol=13|disc=13|start=95|end=95}}
#{{note|by2}} {{JDfairwiki|author=Brigham Young|title=Texts for Preaching Upon at Conference—Revelations, etc.|date=6 October 1870|vol=13|disc=30|start=264|end=264}}
#{{note|by.9.91}} {{JDfairwiki|author=Brigham Young|vol=9|start=91|end=92|disc=17}}
#{{note|roberts2}} B.H. Roberts, ''Deseret News'' (23 July 1921) sec. 4:7.
#{{note|seer1}} Proclamation of the First Presidency and Twelve, dated 21 October 1865, re: ''The Seer''. Printed in ''Messages of the First Presidency,'' edited by James R. Clark, Vol. 2, (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1965), 238–39.
#{{note|jfs1}} {{DoS|vol=3|start=203|end=204}}
#{{note|lee.445}} {{THBL1|start=445}}
#{{note|mcconkie1}} See, for example, Elder McConkie's "Preface" from the first edition of ''Mormon Doctrine'', where he writes "For the work itself, I assume sole and full responsibility." This comment is reprinted in the second edition.{{GL1|url=http://gospelink.com/library/doc?doc_id=208552}}
#{{note|mcconkie2}}{{MD1|start=608}}{{GL1|url=http://gospelink.com/library/doc?doc_id=210019}}
#{{note|dummelow1}} James R. Dummelow, ''A Commentary on the Holy Bible: Complete in one volume, with general articles'' (New York : Macmillan, 1984 [1904]), p. cxxxv.
#{{note|jfs2}} {{Ensign1|author=Joseph Fielding Smith|article=Eternal Keys and the Right to Preside|date=July 1972|start=88}}{{link|url=http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/1972.htm/ensign%20july%201972%20.htm/eternal%20keys%20and%20the%20right%20to%20preside.htm}}
#{{note|oaks1}} {{Ensign1|author=Dallin H. Oaks|article=Teaching and Learning by the Spirit|date=March 1997|start=14}}{{link|url=http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/1997.htm/ensign%20march%201997.htm/teaching%20and%20learning%20by%20the%20spirit.htm}}
#{{note|packer1}} Boyd K. Packer, "I Say unto You, Be One," in ''BYU Devotional and Fireside Speeches, 1990–1991'' (Provo, Utah: University Publications, 1991), 84.
#{{note|snow1}} {{CR1|author=Lorenzo Snow|article=A Serious ordeal, etc.|date=October 1898|start=54}}
#{{note|js2}} {{HoC | vol=6|start=408|end=409 }} This statement, when understood in its [[Did_Joseph_Smith_%27boast%27_of_keeping_the_Church_intact|proper context]], doesn't appear to be a statement of personal pride at all. Joseph Smith read to the congregation [http://scriptures.lds.org/en/2_cor/11 2 Corinthians 11] and then mimicked Paul in his "boasting." In its proper context, Joseph Smith was not acting in a proud manner at all but was using the rhetoric of Paul to defend his own authority as a prophet against those who were then proclaiming him a "fallen prophet." This statement, however, is used often in anti-Mormon literature as a criticism of the prophet and is used here only to show that even if he were in fact proud, it doesn't damage his authority as a prophet/apostles any more than it damaged Jesus' apostles' authority.

==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===
{{AdamWiki}}
{{BlacksPriesthoodWiki}}
{{ProphecyWiki}}
===FAIR web site===
{{AdamFAIR}}
{{ProphecyFAIR}}

===External links===
{{ProphecyLinks}}

===Printed material===
{{ProphecyPrint}}

[[fr:Church doctrine/Statements by Church leaders]]

Fallibility of prophets

2010-05-03T01:40:57Z

PaulMcNabb: /* Criticism */

==Criticism==
Critics are fond of imposing their absolutist assumptions on the Church. Many critics hold inerrantist beliefs about scriptures or prophets, and assume that the LDS have similar views.

Critics therefore insist—without reason—that any statement by any LDS Church leader represents LDS doctrine and is thus something that is secretly believed, or that should be believed, by Latter-day Saints.

{{CriticalSources}}

==Response==

===Prophets in the LDS tradition are not "infallible"===
:''Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.''
:—The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, [http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/approaching-mormon-doctrine Approaching Mormon Doctrine] (May 4, 2007)
{{parabreak}}
The LDS do not believe that prophets and apostles are incapable of error, despite being called of God and receiving revelation. Joseph Smith himself taught that ‘a prophet was a prophet only when he was acting as such’.{{ref|js1}} The Church has always taught that its leaders are human and subject to failings as are all mortals. Only Jesus was perfect, as explained in this statement from the First Presidency:

:The position is not assumed that the men of the New Dispensation —its prophets, apostles, presidencies, and other leaders—are without faults or infallible, rather they are treated as men of like passions with their fellow men."{{ref|clark1}}

Lu Dalton, writing in the Church's periodical for women, explained:

:We consider God, and him alone, infallible; therefore his revealed word to us cannot be doubted, though we may be in doubt some times about the knowledge which we obtain from human sources, and occasionally be obliged to admit that something which we had considered to be a fact, was really only a theory.{{ref|dalton1}}

===Standard of doctrine in the Church===
President George Q. Cannon (counselor in the First Presidency) explained that the scriptures are the only source of official doctrine, coupled with later revelation to the prophets that has been presented to the Church and sustained:

:I hold in my hand the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, and also the book, The Pearl of Great Price, which books contain revelations of God. In Kirtland, the Doctrine and Covenants in its original form, as first printed, was submitted to the officers of the Church and the members of the Church to vote upon. As there have been additions made to it by the publishing of revelations which were not contained in the original edition, it has been deemed wise to submit these books with their contents to the conference, to see whether the conference will vote to accept the books and their contents as from God, and binding upon us as a people and as a Church.{{ref|cannon1}}

B.H. Roberts further explained that only those things within the Standard Works and those presented for a sustaining vote by the First Presidency and Council of the Twelve Apostles is binding upon the Church and its members:

:The Church has confined the sources of doctrine by which it is willing to be bound before the world to the things that God has revealed, and which the Church has officially accepted, and those alone. These would include the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, the Pearl of Great Price; these have been repeatedly accepted and endorsed by the Church in general conference assembled, and are the only sources of absolute appeal for our doctrine.{{ref|roberts1}}

Anything else is valuable and may be of use for explanation, exhortation, and instruction, but does not bear the weight of ‘scripture’ in the LDS canon. Harold B. Lee was equally explicit:

:If anyone, regardless of his position in the Church, were to advance a doctrine that is not substantiated by the standard Church works, meaning the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price, you may know that his statement is merely his private opinion. The only one authorized to bring forth any new doctrine is the President of the Church, who, when he does, will declare it as revelation from God, and it will be so accepted by the Council of the Twelve and sustained by the body of the Church. And if any man speak a doctrine which contradicts what is in the standard Church works, you may know by that same token that it is false and you are not bound to accept it as truth.{{ref|lee1}}

Elsewhere, President Lee taught the same principle:

:It is not to be thought that every word spoken by the General Authorities is inspired, or that they are moved upon by the Holy Ghost in everything they speak and write. Now you keep that in mind. I don't care what his position is, if he writes something or speaks something that goes beyond anything that you can find in the standard works, unless that one be the prophet, seer, and revelator—please note that one exception—you may immediately say, "Well, that is his own idea!" And if he says something that contradicts what is found in the standard works (I think that is why we call them "standard"—it is the standard measure of all that men teach), you may know by that same token that it is false; regardless of the position of the man who says it.{{ref|lee2}}

In ''Mormon Doctrine'', Elder Bruce R. McConkie was equally clear:

:The books, writings, explanations, expositions, views, and theories of even the wisest and greatest men, either in or out of the Church, do not rank with the standard works. Even the writings, teachings, and opinions of the prophets of God are acceptable only to the extent they are in harmony with what God has revealed and what is recorded in the standard works.{{ref|mcconkie3}}

===Prophets and new scripture===

Brigham Young made another statement which critics abuse:

:"Well, brethren and sisters, try and be Saints. I will try; I have tried many years to live according to the law which the Lord reveals unto me. I know just as well what to teach this people and just what to say to them and what to do in order to bring them into the celestial kingdom, as I know the road to my office. It is just as plain and easy. The Lord is in our midst. He teaches the people continually. I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call Scripture. Let me have the privilege of correcting a sermon, and it is as good Scripture as they deserve. The people have the oracles of God continually. In the days of Joseph, revelation was given and written, and the people were driven from city to city and place to place, until we were led into these mountains. Let this [discourse] go to the people with "Thus saith the Lord," and if they do not obey it, you will see the chastening hand of the Lord upon them. But if they are plead with, and led along like children, we may come to understand the will of the Lord and he may preserve us as we desire.{{ref|by1}}

Brigham here says that his remarks are "scripture." However, the critics rarely provide Brigham's ''own explanation'' of this comment:

:Brother Orson Hyde referred to a few who complained about not getting revelations. I will make a statement here that has been brought against me as a crime, perhaps, or as a fault in my life. Not here, I do not allude to anything of the kind in this place, but in the councils of the nations—that Brigham Young has said "when he sends forth his discourses to the world they may call them Scripture." I say now, when they are copied and approved by me they are as good Scripture as is couched in this Bible, and if you want to read revelation read the sayings of him who knows the mind of God, without any special command to one man to go here, and to another to go yonder, or to do this or that, or to go and settle here or there.{{ref|by2}}

Brigham Young made it clear that his previous statement should not mean that anything he said was scripture, but only that which he had the opportunity to correct and send to the Saints ''as'' scripture. This provides a good example of why this rule exists at all: what a prophet may intend to convey may not be what his listeners hear, or what scribes recorded. Thus, teachings must be approved by the author ''and'' submitted as binding scripture in order for them to be considered such.

===Establishing new doctrine===

Taught Brigham Young:

:In trying all matters of doctrine, to make a decision valid, it is necessary to obtain a unanimous voice, faith and decision. In the capacity of a Quorum, the three First Presidents must be one in their voice; the Twelve Apostles must be unanimous in their voice, to obtain a righteous decision upon any matter that may come before them, as you may read in the Doctrine and Covenants. Whenever you see these Quorums unanimous in their declaration, you may set it down as true. Let the Elders get together, being faithful and true; and when they agree upon any point, you may know that it is true.{{ref|by.9.91}}

Later, B.H. Roberts wrote:

:It is not sufficient to quote sayings purported to come from Joseph Smith or Brigham Young upon matters of doctrine. Our own people also need instruction and correction in respect of this. It is common to hear some of our older brethren say, ‘But I heard Brother Joseph myself say so,’ or ‘Brother Brigham preached it; I heard him.’ But that is not the question. The question is has God said it? Was the prophet speaking officially? . . . As to the printed discourses of even leading brethren, the same principle holds. They do not constitute the court of ultimate appeal on doctrine. They may be very useful in the way of elucidation and are very generally good and sound in doctrine, but they are not the ultimate sources of the doctrines of the Church, and are not binding upon the Church. The rule in that respect is—What God has spoken, and what has been accepted by the Church as the word of God, by that, and that only, are we bound in doctrine.{{ref|roberts2}}

Leaders of the Church even spoke out against those who might try to think that some other standard applied for ‘official’ Church doctrine:

:[The Seer, a magazine published by a Church leader] contain[s] doctrines which we cannot sanction, and which we have felt impressed to disown, so that the Saints who now live, and who may live hereafter, may not be misled by our silence, or be left to misinterpret it…It ought to have been known, years ago, by every person in the Church—for ample teachings have been given on the point—that no member of the Church has the right to publish any doctrines, as the doctrines of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, without first submitting them for examination and approval to the First Presidency and the Twelve. There is but one man upon the earth, at one time, who holds the keys to receive commandments and revelations for the Church, and who has the authority to write doctrines by way of commandment unto the Church. And any man who so far forgets the order instituted by the Lord as to write and publish what may be termed new doctrines, without consulting with the First Presidency of the Church respecting them, places himself in a false position, and exposes himself to the power of darkness by violating his Priesthood. While upon this subject, we wish to warn all the Elders of the Church, and to have it clearly understood by the members, that, in the future, whoever publishes any new doctrines without first taking this course, will be liable to lose his Priesthood.{{ref|seer1}}

Later leaders of the Church have continued to teach this principle. Joseph Fielding Smith wrote:

:It makes no difference what is written or what anyone has said, if what has been said is in conflict with what the Lord has revealed, we can set it aside. My words, and the teachings of any other member of the Church, high or low, if they do not square with the revelations, we need not accept them. Let us have this matter clear. We have accepted the four standard works as the measuring yardsticks, or balances, by which we measure every man¹s doctrine. You cannot accept the books written by the authorities of the Church as standards of doctrine, only in so far as they accord with the revealed word in the standard works. Every man who writes is responsible, not the Church, for what he writes. If Joseph Fielding Smith writes something which is out of harmony with the revelations, then every member of the Church is duty bound to reject it. If he writes that which is in perfect harmony with the revealed word of the Lord, then it should be accepted.{{ref|jfs1}}

Harold B. Lee was emphatic that only one person can speak for the Church:

:All over the Church you're being asked this: "What does the Church think about this or that?" Have you ever heard anybody ask that question? "What does the Church think about the civil rights legislation?" "What do they think about the war?" "What do they think about drinking Coca-Cola or Sanka coffee?" Did you ever hear that? "What do they think about the Democratic Party or ticket or the Republican ticket?" Did you ever hear that? "How should we vote in this forthcoming election?" Now, with most all of those questions, if you answer them, you're going to be in trouble. Most all of them. Now, it's the smart man that will say, "There's only one man in this church that speaks for the Church, and I'm not that one man."

:I think nothing could get you into deep waterquicker than to answer people on these things, when they say, "What does the Church think?" and you want to be smart, so you try to answer what the Church's policy is. Well, you're not the one to make the policies for the Church. You just remember what the Apostle Paul wrote to the Corinthians. He said, "For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified" (1 Corinthians 2:2). Well now, as teachers of our youth, you're not supposed to know anything except Jesus Christ and Him crucified. On that subject you're expected to be an expert. You're expected to know your subject. You're expected to have a testimony. And in that you'll have great strength. If the President of the Church has not declared the position of the Church, then you shouldn't go shopping for the answer.{{ref|lee.445}}

Elder Bruce R. McConkie, whose writings some critics attempt to elevate to "official status," despite the fact that he explicitly states that he writes only on his own behalf,{{ref|mcconkie1}} said:

:With all their inspiration and greatness, prophets are yet mortal men with imperfections common to mankind in general. They have their opinions and prejudices and are left to work out their own problems without inspiration in many instances. Joseph Smith recorded that he "visited with a brother and sister from Michigan, who thought that 'a prophet is always a prophet'; but I told them that a prophet was a prophet only when he was acting as such." (Teachings, p. 278.) Thus the opinions and views even of prophets may contain error unless those opinions and views are inspired by the Spirit. Inspired statements are scripture and should be accepted as such. (D. & C. 68:4.).

:Since "the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets" (1 Cor. 14:32), whatever is announced by the presiding brethren as counsel for the Church will be the voice of inspiration. But the truth or error of any uninspired utterance of an individual will have to be judged by the standard works and the spirit of discernment and inspiration that is in those who actually enjoy the gift of the Holy Ghost.{{ref|mcconkie2}}

This was recently reiterated by the First Presidency (who now approves all statements published on the Church's official website):

:''Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency...and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles...counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.''
:—LDS Newsroom, "Approaching Mormon Doctrine," ''lds.org'' (4 May 2007) {{link|url=http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/approaching-mormon-doctrine}}]

===Biblical standard?===

Some critics will protest that this standard is not applied to Biblical prophets, but this comes from a superficial analysis of the Biblical record. One Bible commentator noted that the Biblical authors were not perfect, and that they made errors of expression even in the Biblical record:

:Though purified and ennobled by the influence of His Holy Spirit; men each with his own peculiarities of manner and disposition—each with his own education or want of education—each with his own way of looking at things—each influenced differently from another by the different experiences and disciplines of his life. Their inspiration did not involve a suspension of their natural faculties; it did not even make them free from earthly passion; it did not make them into machines—it left them men. Therefore we find their knowledge sometimes no higher than that of their contemporaries.{{ref|dummelow1}}

Paul’s accounts even contain a contradictory account of his vision (Compare [http://scriptures.lds.org/acts/9/7#7 Acts 9:7] & [http://scriptures.lds.org/acts/22/9#9 Acts 22:9]). Paul and Barnabas disagreed severely enough for it to disrupt their missions [http://scriptures.lds.org/acts/15/36#39 Acts 15:36–39]. Peter and Paul also criticized the other’s writing [http://scriptures.lds.org/2_pet/3/16#16 2 Peter 3:16] and behavior regarding the Church [http://scriptures.lds.org/gal/2/11#16 Galatians 2:11–16].

===Protection against error===

The Church's system of councils provides protection against the fallibility of a single man or leader. President Smith explained:

:An individual may fall by the wayside, or have views, or give counsel which falls short of what the Lord intends. But the voice of the First Presidency and the united voice of those others who hold with them the keys of the kingdom shall always guide the Saints and the world in those paths where the Lord wants them to be.{{ref|jfs2}}

Dallin H. Oaks explained how the Lord allows all His children to grow through struggling with problems:

:Revelations from God . . . are not constant. We believe in continuing revelation, not continuous revelation. We are often left to work out problems without the dictation or specific direction of the Spirit. That is part of the experience we must have in mortality. Fortunately, we are never out of our Savior's sight, and if our judgment leads us to actions beyond the limits of what is permissible and if we are listening, . . . the Lord will restrain us by the promptings of his Spirit.{{ref|oaks1}}

The Lord will not help his children avoid all stumbling and error; He will protect them from permanent harm to His work, as Boyd K. Packer taught:

:Even with the best of intentions, [Church government] does not always work the way it should. Human nature may express itself on occasion, but ''not to the permanent injury of the work''.{{ref|packer1}}

Does this mean that members must simply have "blind trust" in their leaders? Hardly, says President Lorenzo Snow:

:There may be some things that the First Presidency do; that the Apostles do, that cannot for the moment be explained; yet the spirit, the motives that inspire the action can be understood, because each member of the Church has a right to have that measure of the Spirit of God that they can judge as to those who are acting in their interests or otherwise.{{ref|snow1}}

===Biblical comparison===

To get a better idea of how prophets are limited yet still divinely called, it can be helpful to look at some examples of Bible prophets and compare them with modern prophets.

{| border="0" cellpadding="10" style=background:#eeeeee
|- style="align:center; background:#dddddd; text-align:center"
| '''Bible prophets'''
| '''Modern prophets'''
|- valign="top"
| '''Moses''' disobeyed God's instruction to speak to the rock and instead hit it. He then attributed the miracle to himself and Aaron, saying, "Must ''we'' fetch you water out of this rock?" He was chastized by the Lord afterward. ({{b||Numbers|20||}})
|
|- valign="top"
| '''Joshua''' was deceived by the inhabitants of Gibeon when they claimed to come from a far country so they could get a peace accord with Joshua. Then the Israelites found that instead of living a long distant away, that people from Gibeon lived among them. ({{b||Joshua|9||}})
| '''Gordon B. Hinckley''' was temporarily deceived by [[Mark Hofmann]], who had done so in order to obtain money. Hofmann was even responsible for the death of some people. After some investigation, he was discovered and sentenced.
|- valign="top"
| '''Gideon''' repeatedly asked the Lord for signs even though the Lord has said, "An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign." ({{b||Judges|7|}}; {{b||Matthew|12|39}})
|
|- valign="top"
| '''Nathan''' told David that the Lord approved of his desire to build a temple, and that he should commence the project. The Lord later told Nathan that such was ''not'' His desire, and that he was to tell David that the temple would be built by another. ({{b|2|Samuel|7||}})
|
|- valign="top"
| '''Jonah''' felt some personal prejudices against Assyrians, to the point of expecting the Lord to give them fewer blessings than to Jews. ({{b||Jonah|4|1}})
| '''Brigham Young''' felt some personal prejudices against [[Racist_statements_by_Church_leaders|blacks]], to the point of expecting the Lord to give them fewer blessings than caucasians.
|- valign="top"
| '''Jesus' apostles''' may not always have been perfectly humble or modest. They once disputed over which of them would be the greatest in heaven. ({{b||Mark|9|34}})
| '''Joseph Smith''' may not always have been perfectly humble or modest. He once said he had "more to boast of than ever any man had."{{ref|js2}} ''See [[Did_Joseph_Smith_'boast'_of_keeping_the_Church_intact|here]], though, to learn how critics misinterpret this event.''
|}
A person could spend all day looking for examples of the Lord's chosen servants making mistakes, but such an activity does nothing to edify or strengthen people. In all of these situations, a prophet's weakness or mistakes do not make him any less a prophet, called of God to do His work.

==Conclusion==
The prophets are not perfect, but they are called of God. They may speak as men, but may speak scripture as well. Every person may know for themselves whether they speak the truth through the same power that their revelation is given: the power of the Holy Ghost.

{{SeeAlso|Blood_of_the_Prophets:_Brigham_Young_and_the_Massacre_at_Mountain_Meadows/Omissions/Total_submission_to_Brigham_Young#Brigham's statements|l1=Brigham Young on the vital need to know for ourselves}}

==Endnotes==
#{{note|js1}} {{HoC1|vol=5|start=265}}; See also {{TPJS1|start=278}}
#{{note|clark1}} James R. Clark, quoting B. H. Roberts, ''Messages of the First Presidency,'' edited by James R. Clark, Vol. 4, (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1970), p. xiv–xv.
#{{note|dalton1}} Lu Dalton, ''Woman's Exponent'' (Salt Lake City: 15 July 1882), p. 31.
#{{note|cannon1}} {{MS1|author=George Q. Cannon|article=Comments|vol=42|num=46|date=15 November 1880|start=724}} (10 October 1880, General Conference)
#{{note|roberts1}} Brigham H. Roberts, sermon of 10 July 1921, delivered in Salt Lake Tabernacle, printed in ''Deseret News'' (23 July 1921) sec. 4:7.
#{{note|lee1}}Harold B. Lee, ''The First Area General Conference for Germany, Austria, Holland, Italy, Switzerland, France, Belgium, and Spain of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, held in Munich Germany, August 24–26, 1973, with Reports and Discourses'', 69.
#{{note|lee2}} Harold B. Lee, "The Place of the Living Prophet, Seer, and Revelator," Address to Seminary and Institute of Religion Faculty, BYU, 8 July 1964.
#{{note|mcconkie3}} {{MD1|start=111}}
#{{note|by1}} {{JDfairwiki|author=Brigham Young|title=Latter-Day Saint Families, etc.|date=2 January 1870|vol=13|disc=13|start=95|end=95}}
#{{note|by2}} {{JDfairwiki|author=Brigham Young|title=Texts for Preaching Upon at Conference—Revelations, etc.|date=6 October 1870|vol=13|disc=30|start=264|end=264}}
#{{note|by.9.91}} {{JDfairwiki|author=Brigham Young|vol=9|start=91|end=92|disc=17}}
#{{note|roberts2}} B.H. Roberts, ''Deseret News'' (23 July 1921) sec. 4:7.
#{{note|seer1}} Proclamation of the First Presidency and Twelve, dated 21 October 1865, re: ''The Seer''. Printed in ''Messages of the First Presidency,'' edited by James R. Clark, Vol. 2, (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1965), 238–39.
#{{note|jfs1}} {{DoS|vol=3|start=203|end=204}}
#{{note|lee.445}} {{THBL1|start=445}}
#{{note|mcconkie1}} See, for example, Elder McConkie's "Preface" from the first edition of ''Mormon Doctrine'', where he writes "For the work itself, I assume sole and full responsibility." This comment is reprinted in the second edition.{{GL1|url=http://gospelink.com/library/doc?doc_id=208552}}
#{{note|mcconkie2}}{{MD1|start=608}}{{GL1|url=http://gospelink.com/library/doc?doc_id=210019}}
#{{note|dummelow1}} James R. Dummelow, ''A Commentary on the Holy Bible: Complete in one volume, with general articles'' (New York : Macmillan, 1984 [1904]), p. cxxxv.
#{{note|jfs2}} {{Ensign1|author=Joseph Fielding Smith|article=Eternal Keys and the Right to Preside|date=July 1972|start=88}}{{link|url=http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/1972.htm/ensign%20july%201972%20.htm/eternal%20keys%20and%20the%20right%20to%20preside.htm}}
#{{note|oaks1}} {{Ensign1|author=Dallin H. Oaks|article=Teaching and Learning by the Spirit|date=March 1997|start=14}}{{link|url=http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/1997.htm/ensign%20march%201997.htm/teaching%20and%20learning%20by%20the%20spirit.htm}}
#{{note|packer1}} Boyd K. Packer, "I Say unto You, Be One," in ''BYU Devotional and Fireside Speeches, 1990–1991'' (Provo, Utah: University Publications, 1991), 84.
#{{note|snow1}} {{CR1|author=Lorenzo Snow|article=A Serious ordeal, etc.|date=October 1898|start=54}}
#{{note|js2}} {{HoC | vol=6|start=408|end=409 }} This statement, when understood in its [[Did_Joseph_Smith_%27boast%27_of_keeping_the_Church_intact|proper context]], doesn't appear to be a statement of personal pride at all. Joseph Smith read to the congregation [http://scriptures.lds.org/en/2_cor/11 2 Corinthians 11] and then mimicked Paul in his "boasting." In its proper context, Joseph Smith was not acting in a proud manner at all but was using the rhetoric of Paul to defend his own authority as a prophet against those who were then proclaiming him a "fallen prophet." This statement, however, is used often in anti-Mormon literature as a criticism of the prophet and is used here only to show that even if he were in fact proud, it doesn't damage his authority as a prophet/apostles any more than it damaged Jesus' apostles' authority.

==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===
{{AdamWiki}}
{{BlacksPriesthoodWiki}}
{{ProphecyWiki}}
===FAIR web site===
{{AdamFAIR}}
{{ProphecyFAIR}}

===External links===
{{ProphecyLinks}}

===Printed material===
{{ProphecyPrint}}

[[fr:Church doctrine/Statements by Church leaders]]

Fallibility of prophets

2010-05-03T01:40:14Z

PaulMcNabb: /* Criticism */

==Criticism==
Critics are fond of imposing their absolutist assumptions on the Church. Many critics hold inerrantist beliefs about scriptures or prophets, and assume that the LDS have similar views.

Critics therefore insist—without reason—that any statement by any LDS Church leader represents LDS doctrine, and is thus something that is secretly believed, or that should be believed, by Latter-day Saints.

{{CriticalSources}}

==Response==

===Prophets in the LDS tradition are not "infallible"===
:''Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.''
:—The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, [http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/approaching-mormon-doctrine Approaching Mormon Doctrine] (May 4, 2007)
{{parabreak}}
The LDS do not believe that prophets and apostles are incapable of error, despite being called of God and receiving revelation. Joseph Smith himself taught that ‘a prophet was a prophet only when he was acting as such’.{{ref|js1}} The Church has always taught that its leaders are human and subject to failings as are all mortals. Only Jesus was perfect, as explained in this statement from the First Presidency:

:The position is not assumed that the men of the New Dispensation —its prophets, apostles, presidencies, and other leaders—are without faults or infallible, rather they are treated as men of like passions with their fellow men."{{ref|clark1}}

Lu Dalton, writing in the Church's periodical for women, explained:

:We consider God, and him alone, infallible; therefore his revealed word to us cannot be doubted, though we may be in doubt some times about the knowledge which we obtain from human sources, and occasionally be obliged to admit that something which we had considered to be a fact, was really only a theory.{{ref|dalton1}}

===Standard of doctrine in the Church===
President George Q. Cannon (counselor in the First Presidency) explained that the scriptures are the only source of official doctrine, coupled with later revelation to the prophets that has been presented to the Church and sustained:

:I hold in my hand the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, and also the book, The Pearl of Great Price, which books contain revelations of God. In Kirtland, the Doctrine and Covenants in its original form, as first printed, was submitted to the officers of the Church and the members of the Church to vote upon. As there have been additions made to it by the publishing of revelations which were not contained in the original edition, it has been deemed wise to submit these books with their contents to the conference, to see whether the conference will vote to accept the books and their contents as from God, and binding upon us as a people and as a Church.{{ref|cannon1}}

B.H. Roberts further explained that only those things within the Standard Works and those presented for a sustaining vote by the First Presidency and Council of the Twelve Apostles is binding upon the Church and its members:

:The Church has confined the sources of doctrine by which it is willing to be bound before the world to the things that God has revealed, and which the Church has officially accepted, and those alone. These would include the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, the Pearl of Great Price; these have been repeatedly accepted and endorsed by the Church in general conference assembled, and are the only sources of absolute appeal for our doctrine.{{ref|roberts1}}

Anything else is valuable and may be of use for explanation, exhortation, and instruction, but does not bear the weight of ‘scripture’ in the LDS canon. Harold B. Lee was equally explicit:

:If anyone, regardless of his position in the Church, were to advance a doctrine that is not substantiated by the standard Church works, meaning the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price, you may know that his statement is merely his private opinion. The only one authorized to bring forth any new doctrine is the President of the Church, who, when he does, will declare it as revelation from God, and it will be so accepted by the Council of the Twelve and sustained by the body of the Church. And if any man speak a doctrine which contradicts what is in the standard Church works, you may know by that same token that it is false and you are not bound to accept it as truth.{{ref|lee1}}

Elsewhere, President Lee taught the same principle:

:It is not to be thought that every word spoken by the General Authorities is inspired, or that they are moved upon by the Holy Ghost in everything they speak and write. Now you keep that in mind. I don't care what his position is, if he writes something or speaks something that goes beyond anything that you can find in the standard works, unless that one be the prophet, seer, and revelator—please note that one exception—you may immediately say, "Well, that is his own idea!" And if he says something that contradicts what is found in the standard works (I think that is why we call them "standard"—it is the standard measure of all that men teach), you may know by that same token that it is false; regardless of the position of the man who says it.{{ref|lee2}}

In ''Mormon Doctrine'', Elder Bruce R. McConkie was equally clear:

:The books, writings, explanations, expositions, views, and theories of even the wisest and greatest men, either in or out of the Church, do not rank with the standard works. Even the writings, teachings, and opinions of the prophets of God are acceptable only to the extent they are in harmony with what God has revealed and what is recorded in the standard works.{{ref|mcconkie3}}

===Prophets and new scripture===

Brigham Young made another statement which critics abuse:

:"Well, brethren and sisters, try and be Saints. I will try; I have tried many years to live according to the law which the Lord reveals unto me. I know just as well what to teach this people and just what to say to them and what to do in order to bring them into the celestial kingdom, as I know the road to my office. It is just as plain and easy. The Lord is in our midst. He teaches the people continually. I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call Scripture. Let me have the privilege of correcting a sermon, and it is as good Scripture as they deserve. The people have the oracles of God continually. In the days of Joseph, revelation was given and written, and the people were driven from city to city and place to place, until we were led into these mountains. Let this [discourse] go to the people with "Thus saith the Lord," and if they do not obey it, you will see the chastening hand of the Lord upon them. But if they are plead with, and led along like children, we may come to understand the will of the Lord and he may preserve us as we desire.{{ref|by1}}

Brigham here says that his remarks are "scripture." However, the critics rarely provide Brigham's ''own explanation'' of this comment:

:Brother Orson Hyde referred to a few who complained about not getting revelations. I will make a statement here that has been brought against me as a crime, perhaps, or as a fault in my life. Not here, I do not allude to anything of the kind in this place, but in the councils of the nations—that Brigham Young has said "when he sends forth his discourses to the world they may call them Scripture." I say now, when they are copied and approved by me they are as good Scripture as is couched in this Bible, and if you want to read revelation read the sayings of him who knows the mind of God, without any special command to one man to go here, and to another to go yonder, or to do this or that, or to go and settle here or there.{{ref|by2}}

Brigham Young made it clear that his previous statement should not mean that anything he said was scripture, but only that which he had the opportunity to correct and send to the Saints ''as'' scripture. This provides a good example of why this rule exists at all: what a prophet may intend to convey may not be what his listeners hear, or what scribes recorded. Thus, teachings must be approved by the author ''and'' submitted as binding scripture in order for them to be considered such.

===Establishing new doctrine===

Taught Brigham Young:

:In trying all matters of doctrine, to make a decision valid, it is necessary to obtain a unanimous voice, faith and decision. In the capacity of a Quorum, the three First Presidents must be one in their voice; the Twelve Apostles must be unanimous in their voice, to obtain a righteous decision upon any matter that may come before them, as you may read in the Doctrine and Covenants. Whenever you see these Quorums unanimous in their declaration, you may set it down as true. Let the Elders get together, being faithful and true; and when they agree upon any point, you may know that it is true.{{ref|by.9.91}}

Later, B.H. Roberts wrote:

:It is not sufficient to quote sayings purported to come from Joseph Smith or Brigham Young upon matters of doctrine. Our own people also need instruction and correction in respect of this. It is common to hear some of our older brethren say, ‘But I heard Brother Joseph myself say so,’ or ‘Brother Brigham preached it; I heard him.’ But that is not the question. The question is has God said it? Was the prophet speaking officially? . . . As to the printed discourses of even leading brethren, the same principle holds. They do not constitute the court of ultimate appeal on doctrine. They may be very useful in the way of elucidation and are very generally good and sound in doctrine, but they are not the ultimate sources of the doctrines of the Church, and are not binding upon the Church. The rule in that respect is—What God has spoken, and what has been accepted by the Church as the word of God, by that, and that only, are we bound in doctrine.{{ref|roberts2}}

Leaders of the Church even spoke out against those who might try to think that some other standard applied for ‘official’ Church doctrine:

:[The Seer, a magazine published by a Church leader] contain[s] doctrines which we cannot sanction, and which we have felt impressed to disown, so that the Saints who now live, and who may live hereafter, may not be misled by our silence, or be left to misinterpret it…It ought to have been known, years ago, by every person in the Church—for ample teachings have been given on the point—that no member of the Church has the right to publish any doctrines, as the doctrines of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, without first submitting them for examination and approval to the First Presidency and the Twelve. There is but one man upon the earth, at one time, who holds the keys to receive commandments and revelations for the Church, and who has the authority to write doctrines by way of commandment unto the Church. And any man who so far forgets the order instituted by the Lord as to write and publish what may be termed new doctrines, without consulting with the First Presidency of the Church respecting them, places himself in a false position, and exposes himself to the power of darkness by violating his Priesthood. While upon this subject, we wish to warn all the Elders of the Church, and to have it clearly understood by the members, that, in the future, whoever publishes any new doctrines without first taking this course, will be liable to lose his Priesthood.{{ref|seer1}}

Later leaders of the Church have continued to teach this principle. Joseph Fielding Smith wrote:

:It makes no difference what is written or what anyone has said, if what has been said is in conflict with what the Lord has revealed, we can set it aside. My words, and the teachings of any other member of the Church, high or low, if they do not square with the revelations, we need not accept them. Let us have this matter clear. We have accepted the four standard works as the measuring yardsticks, or balances, by which we measure every man¹s doctrine. You cannot accept the books written by the authorities of the Church as standards of doctrine, only in so far as they accord with the revealed word in the standard works. Every man who writes is responsible, not the Church, for what he writes. If Joseph Fielding Smith writes something which is out of harmony with the revelations, then every member of the Church is duty bound to reject it. If he writes that which is in perfect harmony with the revealed word of the Lord, then it should be accepted.{{ref|jfs1}}

Harold B. Lee was emphatic that only one person can speak for the Church:

:All over the Church you're being asked this: "What does the Church think about this or that?" Have you ever heard anybody ask that question? "What does the Church think about the civil rights legislation?" "What do they think about the war?" "What do they think about drinking Coca-Cola or Sanka coffee?" Did you ever hear that? "What do they think about the Democratic Party or ticket or the Republican ticket?" Did you ever hear that? "How should we vote in this forthcoming election?" Now, with most all of those questions, if you answer them, you're going to be in trouble. Most all of them. Now, it's the smart man that will say, "There's only one man in this church that speaks for the Church, and I'm not that one man."

:I think nothing could get you into deep waterquicker than to answer people on these things, when they say, "What does the Church think?" and you want to be smart, so you try to answer what the Church's policy is. Well, you're not the one to make the policies for the Church. You just remember what the Apostle Paul wrote to the Corinthians. He said, "For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified" (1 Corinthians 2:2). Well now, as teachers of our youth, you're not supposed to know anything except Jesus Christ and Him crucified. On that subject you're expected to be an expert. You're expected to know your subject. You're expected to have a testimony. And in that you'll have great strength. If the President of the Church has not declared the position of the Church, then you shouldn't go shopping for the answer.{{ref|lee.445}}

Elder Bruce R. McConkie, whose writings some critics attempt to elevate to "official status," despite the fact that he explicitly states that he writes only on his own behalf,{{ref|mcconkie1}} said:

:With all their inspiration and greatness, prophets are yet mortal men with imperfections common to mankind in general. They have their opinions and prejudices and are left to work out their own problems without inspiration in many instances. Joseph Smith recorded that he "visited with a brother and sister from Michigan, who thought that 'a prophet is always a prophet'; but I told them that a prophet was a prophet only when he was acting as such." (Teachings, p. 278.) Thus the opinions and views even of prophets may contain error unless those opinions and views are inspired by the Spirit. Inspired statements are scripture and should be accepted as such. (D. & C. 68:4.).

:Since "the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets" (1 Cor. 14:32), whatever is announced by the presiding brethren as counsel for the Church will be the voice of inspiration. But the truth or error of any uninspired utterance of an individual will have to be judged by the standard works and the spirit of discernment and inspiration that is in those who actually enjoy the gift of the Holy Ghost.{{ref|mcconkie2}}

This was recently reiterated by the First Presidency (who now approves all statements published on the Church's official website):

:''Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency...and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles...counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.''
:—LDS Newsroom, "Approaching Mormon Doctrine," ''lds.org'' (4 May 2007) {{link|url=http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/approaching-mormon-doctrine}}]

===Biblical standard?===

Some critics will protest that this standard is not applied to Biblical prophets, but this comes from a superficial analysis of the Biblical record. One Bible commentator noted that the Biblical authors were not perfect, and that they made errors of expression even in the Biblical record:

:Though purified and ennobled by the influence of His Holy Spirit; men each with his own peculiarities of manner and disposition—each with his own education or want of education—each with his own way of looking at things—each influenced differently from another by the different experiences and disciplines of his life. Their inspiration did not involve a suspension of their natural faculties; it did not even make them free from earthly passion; it did not make them into machines—it left them men. Therefore we find their knowledge sometimes no higher than that of their contemporaries.{{ref|dummelow1}}

Paul’s accounts even contain a contradictory account of his vision (Compare [http://scriptures.lds.org/acts/9/7#7 Acts 9:7] & [http://scriptures.lds.org/acts/22/9#9 Acts 22:9]). Paul and Barnabas disagreed severely enough for it to disrupt their missions [http://scriptures.lds.org/acts/15/36#39 Acts 15:36–39]. Peter and Paul also criticized the other’s writing [http://scriptures.lds.org/2_pet/3/16#16 2 Peter 3:16] and behavior regarding the Church [http://scriptures.lds.org/gal/2/11#16 Galatians 2:11–16].

===Protection against error===

The Church's system of councils provides protection against the fallibility of a single man or leader. President Smith explained:

:An individual may fall by the wayside, or have views, or give counsel which falls short of what the Lord intends. But the voice of the First Presidency and the united voice of those others who hold with them the keys of the kingdom shall always guide the Saints and the world in those paths where the Lord wants them to be.{{ref|jfs2}}

Dallin H. Oaks explained how the Lord allows all His children to grow through struggling with problems:

:Revelations from God . . . are not constant. We believe in continuing revelation, not continuous revelation. We are often left to work out problems without the dictation or specific direction of the Spirit. That is part of the experience we must have in mortality. Fortunately, we are never out of our Savior's sight, and if our judgment leads us to actions beyond the limits of what is permissible and if we are listening, . . . the Lord will restrain us by the promptings of his Spirit.{{ref|oaks1}}

The Lord will not help his children avoid all stumbling and error; He will protect them from permanent harm to His work, as Boyd K. Packer taught:

:Even with the best of intentions, [Church government] does not always work the way it should. Human nature may express itself on occasion, but ''not to the permanent injury of the work''.{{ref|packer1}}

Does this mean that members must simply have "blind trust" in their leaders? Hardly, says President Lorenzo Snow:

:There may be some things that the First Presidency do; that the Apostles do, that cannot for the moment be explained; yet the spirit, the motives that inspire the action can be understood, because each member of the Church has a right to have that measure of the Spirit of God that they can judge as to those who are acting in their interests or otherwise.{{ref|snow1}}

===Biblical comparison===

To get a better idea of how prophets are limited yet still divinely called, it can be helpful to look at some examples of Bible prophets and compare them with modern prophets.

{| border="0" cellpadding="10" style=background:#eeeeee
|- style="align:center; background:#dddddd; text-align:center"
| '''Bible prophets'''
| '''Modern prophets'''
|- valign="top"
| '''Moses''' disobeyed God's instruction to speak to the rock and instead hit it. He then attributed the miracle to himself and Aaron, saying, "Must ''we'' fetch you water out of this rock?" He was chastized by the Lord afterward. ({{b||Numbers|20||}})
|
|- valign="top"
| '''Joshua''' was deceived by the inhabitants of Gibeon when they claimed to come from a far country so they could get a peace accord with Joshua. Then the Israelites found that instead of living a long distant away, that people from Gibeon lived among them. ({{b||Joshua|9||}})
| '''Gordon B. Hinckley''' was temporarily deceived by [[Mark Hofmann]], who had done so in order to obtain money. Hofmann was even responsible for the death of some people. After some investigation, he was discovered and sentenced.
|- valign="top"
| '''Gideon''' repeatedly asked the Lord for signs even though the Lord has said, "An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign." ({{b||Judges|7|}}; {{b||Matthew|12|39}})
|
|- valign="top"
| '''Nathan''' told David that the Lord approved of his desire to build a temple, and that he should commence the project. The Lord later told Nathan that such was ''not'' His desire, and that he was to tell David that the temple would be built by another. ({{b|2|Samuel|7||}})
|
|- valign="top"
| '''Jonah''' felt some personal prejudices against Assyrians, to the point of expecting the Lord to give them fewer blessings than to Jews. ({{b||Jonah|4|1}})
| '''Brigham Young''' felt some personal prejudices against [[Racist_statements_by_Church_leaders|blacks]], to the point of expecting the Lord to give them fewer blessings than caucasians.
|- valign="top"
| '''Jesus' apostles''' may not always have been perfectly humble or modest. They once disputed over which of them would be the greatest in heaven. ({{b||Mark|9|34}})
| '''Joseph Smith''' may not always have been perfectly humble or modest. He once said he had "more to boast of than ever any man had."{{ref|js2}} ''See [[Did_Joseph_Smith_'boast'_of_keeping_the_Church_intact|here]], though, to learn how critics misinterpret this event.''
|}
A person could spend all day looking for examples of the Lord's chosen servants making mistakes, but such an activity does nothing to edify or strengthen people. In all of these situations, a prophet's weakness or mistakes do not make him any less a prophet, called of God to do His work.

==Conclusion==
The prophets are not perfect, but they are called of God. They may speak as men, but may speak scripture as well. Every person may know for themselves whether they speak the truth through the same power that their revelation is given: the power of the Holy Ghost.

{{SeeAlso|Blood_of_the_Prophets:_Brigham_Young_and_the_Massacre_at_Mountain_Meadows/Omissions/Total_submission_to_Brigham_Young#Brigham's statements|l1=Brigham Young on the vital need to know for ourselves}}

==Endnotes==
#{{note|js1}} {{HoC1|vol=5|start=265}}; See also {{TPJS1|start=278}}
#{{note|clark1}} James R. Clark, quoting B. H. Roberts, ''Messages of the First Presidency,'' edited by James R. Clark, Vol. 4, (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1970), p. xiv–xv.
#{{note|dalton1}} Lu Dalton, ''Woman's Exponent'' (Salt Lake City: 15 July 1882), p. 31.
#{{note|cannon1}} {{MS1|author=George Q. Cannon|article=Comments|vol=42|num=46|date=15 November 1880|start=724}} (10 October 1880, General Conference)
#{{note|roberts1}} Brigham H. Roberts, sermon of 10 July 1921, delivered in Salt Lake Tabernacle, printed in ''Deseret News'' (23 July 1921) sec. 4:7.
#{{note|lee1}}Harold B. Lee, ''The First Area General Conference for Germany, Austria, Holland, Italy, Switzerland, France, Belgium, and Spain of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, held in Munich Germany, August 24–26, 1973, with Reports and Discourses'', 69.
#{{note|lee2}} Harold B. Lee, "The Place of the Living Prophet, Seer, and Revelator," Address to Seminary and Institute of Religion Faculty, BYU, 8 July 1964.
#{{note|mcconkie3}} {{MD1|start=111}}
#{{note|by1}} {{JDfairwiki|author=Brigham Young|title=Latter-Day Saint Families, etc.|date=2 January 1870|vol=13|disc=13|start=95|end=95}}
#{{note|by2}} {{JDfairwiki|author=Brigham Young|title=Texts for Preaching Upon at Conference—Revelations, etc.|date=6 October 1870|vol=13|disc=30|start=264|end=264}}
#{{note|by.9.91}} {{JDfairwiki|author=Brigham Young|vol=9|start=91|end=92|disc=17}}
#{{note|roberts2}} B.H. Roberts, ''Deseret News'' (23 July 1921) sec. 4:7.
#{{note|seer1}} Proclamation of the First Presidency and Twelve, dated 21 October 1865, re: ''The Seer''. Printed in ''Messages of the First Presidency,'' edited by James R. Clark, Vol. 2, (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1965), 238–39.
#{{note|jfs1}} {{DoS|vol=3|start=203|end=204}}
#{{note|lee.445}} {{THBL1|start=445}}
#{{note|mcconkie1}} See, for example, Elder McConkie's "Preface" from the first edition of ''Mormon Doctrine'', where he writes "For the work itself, I assume sole and full responsibility." This comment is reprinted in the second edition.{{GL1|url=http://gospelink.com/library/doc?doc_id=208552}}
#{{note|mcconkie2}}{{MD1|start=608}}{{GL1|url=http://gospelink.com/library/doc?doc_id=210019}}
#{{note|dummelow1}} James R. Dummelow, ''A Commentary on the Holy Bible: Complete in one volume, with general articles'' (New York : Macmillan, 1984 [1904]), p. cxxxv.
#{{note|jfs2}} {{Ensign1|author=Joseph Fielding Smith|article=Eternal Keys and the Right to Preside|date=July 1972|start=88}}{{link|url=http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/1972.htm/ensign%20july%201972%20.htm/eternal%20keys%20and%20the%20right%20to%20preside.htm}}
#{{note|oaks1}} {{Ensign1|author=Dallin H. Oaks|article=Teaching and Learning by the Spirit|date=March 1997|start=14}}{{link|url=http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/1997.htm/ensign%20march%201997.htm/teaching%20and%20learning%20by%20the%20spirit.htm}}
#{{note|packer1}} Boyd K. Packer, "I Say unto You, Be One," in ''BYU Devotional and Fireside Speeches, 1990–1991'' (Provo, Utah: University Publications, 1991), 84.
#{{note|snow1}} {{CR1|author=Lorenzo Snow|article=A Serious ordeal, etc.|date=October 1898|start=54}}
#{{note|js2}} {{HoC | vol=6|start=408|end=409 }} This statement, when understood in its [[Did_Joseph_Smith_%27boast%27_of_keeping_the_Church_intact|proper context]], doesn't appear to be a statement of personal pride at all. Joseph Smith read to the congregation [http://scriptures.lds.org/en/2_cor/11 2 Corinthians 11] and then mimicked Paul in his "boasting." In its proper context, Joseph Smith was not acting in a proud manner at all but was using the rhetoric of Paul to defend his own authority as a prophet against those who were then proclaiming him a "fallen prophet." This statement, however, is used often in anti-Mormon literature as a criticism of the prophet and is used here only to show that even if he were in fact proud, it doesn't damage his authority as a prophet/apostles any more than it damaged Jesus' apostles' authority.

==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===
{{AdamWiki}}
{{BlacksPriesthoodWiki}}
{{ProphecyWiki}}
===FAIR web site===
{{AdamFAIR}}
{{ProphecyFAIR}}

===External links===
{{ProphecyLinks}}

===Printed material===
{{ProphecyPrint}}

[[fr:Church doctrine/Statements by Church leaders]]

Book of Mormon/Lamanites/Referenced in the Doctrine and Covenants

2009-11-28T06:42:02Z

PaulMcNabb: /* The native Americans in the region where Joseph lived were Lamanites */

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

==Question==
Since in the Doctrine and Covenants the Lord refers to American Indians in North America as "Lamanites" (e.g., {{s||DC|28|8-9,14}}, {{s||DC|30|6}}, {{s||DC|32|2}}, {{s||DC|54|8}}), does this cause problems for the Limited Geography Theory ([[Book_of_Mormon_geography:New_World:LGT|LGT]]) or issues of Amerindian genetic data?

==Response==
{{Epigraph|Yea, and this was their faith—that my gospel, which I gave unto them that they might preach in their days, might come unto their brethren the Lamanites, and also all that had become Lamanites because of their dissensions. ({{s||DC|10|48}})}}

{{Epigraph|And thus you shall take your journey into the regions westward, unto the land of Missouri, unto the borders of the Lamanites. ({{s||DC|54|8}})}}
{{parabreak}}

===Joseph Smith was inspired by the Lord to use the term "Lamanite"===
Joseph's use of the term "Lamanite" to describe all native American inhabitants, including those in Missouri, was inspired by the Lord. Joseph, and many Latter-day prophets since, have described the native inhabitants of the North and South American continents as Lamanites. So, how do these statements made by living prophets align with the possibility that the Book of Mormon occurred within a limited geographical region? We examine this in the following sections.

===Limited Geography Theory (LGT) theory and the D&C===
====The Book of Mormon defines "Lamanites" as those that were ''not'' Nephites====
The LGT is not a doctrine of the Church and there is no necessity to accept it as the only interpretation of the Book of Mormon text. Those who accept the LGT view it as the only theory that is consistent with the geographic descriptions and distances found in the Book of Mormon. The truth of the Book of Mormon does not depend, however, on proving or supporting the LGT.

The LGT assumes that a small number of Lehites were introduced into a larger "sea" of native peoples, most of whom were of presumably of Asiatic origin. Critics mistake the use of the term "Lamanite" as requiring descent from Lehi through his son, Laman. But, from very early in the Book of Mormon record, it is clear that the term "Lamanite" does not refer to descent, but to political and religious affiliation:

:...I shall call them Lamanites that seek to destroy the people of Nephi, and those who are friendly to Nephi I shall call Nephites, or the people of Nephi, according to the reigns of the kings. ({{s||Jacob|1|14}})

So, any person who wasn't a Nephite was, by exclusion, a Lamanite. Lamanites were ''not'' confined in any geographic sense at all.

====The Lamanites occupied a region far greater than the limited geography described in the Book of Mormon====
The LGT holds that the story of the Book of Mormon and the peoples with which it is concerned were confined to a narrow region, since this is all the area with which the authors of the Book of Mormon were directly concerned. Yet the Book of Mormon has several references that suggest a knowledge of and interaction with a much greater geographical area. The story of Hagoth ({{s||Alma|63|4-9}}) speaks not only of the shipbuilder and his movements northward (out of the general area referred to in the Book of Mormon) but also others that migrated to the north. In Helaman 3 we find other references to people migrating to the north:

:And it came to pass in the forty and sixth [year], yea, there was much contention and many dissensions; in the which there were an exceedingly great many who departed out of the land of Zarahemla, and went forth unto the land northward to inherit the land. And they did travel to an exceedingly great distance, insomuch that they came to large bodies of water and many rivers. Yea, and even they did spread forth into all parts of the land, into whatever parts it had not been rendered desolate and without timber, because of the many inhabitants who had before inherited the land. ({{s||Helaman|3|3-5}})

The migration was out of the general area of the Book of Mormon story and is referred to as "an exceedingly great distance." This gives opportunity for Lamanites and Nephites to be found in ''all parts'' of the western hemisphere. There is no reason not to believe that similar migrations could have occurred to the south. Migrations to both the north and to the south were possibly more common than is recorded in the text.

====The native Americans in the region where Joseph lived ''were'' Lamanites====

{{Main|Amerindians_as_Lamanites#All_From_Lehi|l1=Amerindians as Lamanites: All from Lehi}}

Some people who first hear about the LGT wonder if this theory means that most modern native Americans are not actually descended from Laman. But the LGT does not imply this at all. Even under the LGT it is likely that ''every single native American in the hemisphere'' was a descendant of Laman by Joseph Smith's day. This would have been true even if Laman's direct descendants inhabited only a small area somewhere in the Americas in A.D. 400.

This doesn't mean that modern native Americans get the majority of their DNA from Laman or even that some genetic marker from Laman could be detected anywhere in the Americas. The LGT predicts that essentially every native American would be a literal descendant of Laman to some degree and yet all native Americans would have predominantly Asian DNA markers.

===The nature of quotations found in the Doctrine & Covenants===

Many readers assume that revelations in the Doctrine and Covenants in which Joseph Smith speaks in God's voice to be direct word-for-word quotations from God. The recently published second volume of the ''Joseph Smith Papers'' REVELATION BOOK 1 (April 1829-B [D&C 8]), released by the Church's official Church History Press, provides greater insight into the process by which the revelations in the D&C arrived in their present form. The Church notes revisions in the revelations from their earliest form. A good example of this is the revelation concerning Oliver Cowdery's "gift"—this revelation was edited by Oliver Cowdery, William W. Phelps, Sidney Rigdon, Joseph Smith, John Whitmer, and one other unidentified editor. The Church has identified which specific edits each of these individuals made to the original revelation which eventually became D&C Section 8. (For more detail on this particular section, see [[Doctrine and Covenants/Oliver Cowdery and the "rod of nature"|Oliver Cowdery and the "rod of nature"]]).

Joseph didn't claim to be hearing a voice or that he was simply taking dictation. Rather, impressions would come to him, which he would put into words. Joseph clearly did not consider them word-for-word quotations from God, since he, and others, felt comfortable revising them prior to publication.

The use of the term "Lamanites" to describe the American Indians was Joseph's word choice based upon inspiration. The few personal statements he made on Book of Mormon geography indicate that he believed it took place on a hemispheric scale, so it would follow that he believed that all Native Americans were pure descendants of Laman, and hence were literal "Lamanites." Even so, as noted in the preceding section, all of the inhabitants of the North and South American continents are considered to be Lamanites, and can likely count Lehi among their ancestry.

{{Detail|Doctrine and Covenants/Direct quotation from God|Doctrine and Covenants/Textual changes|l1=Doctrine and Covenants—Direct quotation from God|l2=Doctrine and Covenants—Textual changes prior to publication}}

==Conclusion==

By the time the Doctrine and Covenants was written, Lehi's descendants had ample time to migrate and intermarry with the large number of "natives" postulated by the LGT. Such descendants are "Lamanites" in at least three senses:
# all shared descent from Lehi, to some degree.
# none embraced Nephite kingship or their doctrine of Christ, making them "Lamanites" politically.
# all were eligible for the covenant blessings promised to Lehi's descendants, if they would repent.

==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===
{{BoMGeographyWiki}}
{{DNAWiki}}
{{DCWiki}}
===FAIR web site===
{{DNAFAIR}}
{{DCFAIR}}

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

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

Book of Mormon/Lamanites/Referenced in the Doctrine and Covenants

2009-11-28T05:09:05Z

PaulMcNabb: /* The native Americans in the region where Joseph lived were Lamanites */

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

==Question==
Since in the Doctrine and Covenants the Lord refers to American Indians in North America as "Lamanites" (e.g., {{s||DC|28|8-9,14}}, {{s||DC|30|6}}, {{s||DC|32|2}}, {{s||DC|54|8}}), does this cause problems for the Limited Geography Theory ([[Book_of_Mormon_geography:New_World:LGT|LGT]]) or issues of Amerindian genetic data?

==Response==
{{Epigraph|Yea, and this was their faith—that my gospel, which I gave unto them that they might preach in their days, might come unto their brethren the Lamanites, and also all that had become Lamanites because of their dissensions. ({{s||DC|10|48}})}}

{{Epigraph|And thus you shall take your journey into the regions westward, unto the land of Missouri, unto the borders of the Lamanites. ({{s||DC|54|8}})}}
{{parabreak}}

===Joseph Smith was inspired by the Lord to use the term "Lamanite"===
Joseph's use of the term "Lamanite" to describe all native American inhabitants, including those in Missouri, was inspired by the Lord. Joseph, and many Latter-day prophets since, have described the native inhabitants of the North and South American continents as Lamanites. So, how do these statements made by living prophets align with the possibility that the Book of Mormon occurred within a limited geographical region? We examine this in the following sections.

===Limited Geography Theory (LGT) theory and the D&C===
====The Book of Mormon defines "Lamanites" as those that were ''not'' Nephites====
The LGT is not a doctrine of the Church and there is no necessity to accept it as the only interpretation of the Book of Mormon text. Those who accept the LGT view it as the only theory that is consistent with the geographic descriptions and distances found in the Book of Mormon. The truth of the Book of Mormon does not depend, however, on proving or supporting the LGT.

The LGT assumes that a small number of Lehites were introduced into a larger "sea" of native peoples, most of whom were of presumably of Asiatic origin. Critics mistake the use of the term "Lamanite" as requiring descent from Lehi through his son, Laman. But, from very early in the Book of Mormon record, it is clear that the term "Lamanite" does not refer to descent, but to political and religious affiliation:

:...I shall call them Lamanites that seek to destroy the people of Nephi, and those who are friendly to Nephi I shall call Nephites, or the people of Nephi, according to the reigns of the kings. ({{s||Jacob|1|14}})

So, any person who wasn't a Nephite was, by exclusion, a Lamanite. Lamanites were ''not'' confined in any geographic sense at all.

====The Lamanites occupied a region far greater than the limited geography described in the Book of Mormon====
The LGT holds that the story of the Book of Mormon and the peoples with which it is concerned were confined to a narrow region, since this is all the area with which the authors of the Book of Mormon were directly concerned. Yet the Book of Mormon has several references that suggest a knowledge of and interaction with a much greater geographical area. The story of Hagoth ({{s||Alma|63|4-9}}) speaks not only of the shipbuilder and his movements northward (out of the general area referred to in the Book of Mormon) but also others that migrated to the north. In Helaman 3 we find other references to people migrating to the north:

:And it came to pass in the forty and sixth [year], yea, there was much contention and many dissensions; in the which there were an exceedingly great many who departed out of the land of Zarahemla, and went forth unto the land northward to inherit the land. And they did travel to an exceedingly great distance, insomuch that they came to large bodies of water and many rivers. Yea, and even they did spread forth into all parts of the land, into whatever parts it had not been rendered desolate and without timber, because of the many inhabitants who had before inherited the land. ({{s||Helaman|3|3-5}})

The migration was out of the general area of the Book of Mormon story and is referred to as "an exceedingly great distance." This gives opportunity for Lamanites and Nephites to be found in ''all parts'' of the western hemisphere. There is no reason not to believe that similar migrations could have occurred to the south. Migrations to both the north and to the south were possibly more common than is recorded in the text.

====The native Americans in the region where Joseph lived ''were'' Lamanites====

{{Main|Amerindians_as_Lamanites#All_From_Lehi|l1=Amerindians as Lamanites: All from Lehi}}

Some people who first hear about the LGT wonder if this theory means that most modern native Americans are not actually descended from Laman. But the LGT does not imply this at all. In fact, because of the way genealogical descent works, even if Laman's direct descendants only lived in a small area somewhere in the Americas in A.D. 400, if Laman had ''any'' living descendant at all in 1830 then it is likely that ''every single native American in the hemisphere'' was a descendant of Laman by Joseph Smith's day.

This doesn't mean that modern native Americans get the majority of their DNA from Laman or that some native American would be so spectacularly lucky as to find a genetic marker from him, but every native American would be a literal descendant to some degree and yet would almost certainly have predominantly Asian DNA markers.

===The nature of quotations found in the Doctrine & Covenants===

Many readers assume that revelations in the Doctrine and Covenants in which Joseph Smith speaks in God's voice to be direct word-for-word quotations from God. The recently published second volume of the ''Joseph Smith Papers'' REVELATION BOOK 1 (April 1829-B [D&C 8]), released by the Church's official Church History Press, provides greater insight into the process by which the revelations in the D&C arrived in their present form. The Church notes revisions in the revelations from their earliest form. A good example of this is the revelation concerning Oliver Cowdery's "gift"—this revelation was edited by Oliver Cowdery, William W. Phelps, Sidney Rigdon, Joseph Smith, John Whitmer, and one other unidentified editor. The Church has identified which specific edits each of these individuals made to the original revelation which eventually became D&C Section 8. (For more detail on this particular section, see [[Doctrine and Covenants/Oliver Cowdery and the "rod of nature"|Oliver Cowdery and the "rod of nature"]]).

Joseph didn't claim to be hearing a voice or that he was simply taking dictation. Rather, impressions would come to him, which he would put into words. Joseph clearly did not consider them word-for-word quotations from God, since he, and others, felt comfortable revising them prior to publication.

The use of the term "Lamanites" to describe the American Indians was Joseph's word choice based upon inspiration. The few personal statements he made on Book of Mormon geography indicate that he believed it took place on a hemispheric scale, so it would follow that he believed that all Native Americans were pure descendants of Laman, and hence were literal "Lamanites." Even so, as noted in the preceding section, all of the inhabitants of the North and South American continents are considered to be Lamanites, and can likely count Lehi among their ancestry.

{{Detail|Doctrine and Covenants/Direct quotation from God|Doctrine and Covenants/Textual changes|l1=Doctrine and Covenants—Direct quotation from God|l2=Doctrine and Covenants—Textual changes prior to publication}}

==Conclusion==

By the time the Doctrine and Covenants was written, Lehi's descendants had ample time to migrate and intermarry with the large number of "natives" postulated by the LGT. Such descendants are "Lamanites" in at least three senses:
# all shared descent from Lehi, to some degree.
# none embraced Nephite kingship or their doctrine of Christ, making them "Lamanites" politically.
# all were eligible for the covenant blessings promised to Lehi's descendants, if they would repent.

==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===
{{BoMGeographyWiki}}
{{DNAWiki}}
{{DCWiki}}
===FAIR web site===
{{DNAFAIR}}
{{DCFAIR}}

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

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

Book of Mormon/Lamanites/Referenced in the Doctrine and Covenants

2009-11-28T05:06:10Z

PaulMcNabb: /* The native Americans in the region where Joseph lived were Lamanites */

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

==Question==
Since in the Doctrine and Covenants the Lord refers to American Indians in North America as "Lamanites" (e.g., {{s||DC|28|8-9,14}}, {{s||DC|30|6}}, {{s||DC|32|2}}, {{s||DC|54|8}}), does this cause problems for the Limited Geography Theory ([[Book_of_Mormon_geography:New_World:LGT|LGT]]) or issues of Amerindian genetic data?

==Response==
{{Epigraph|Yea, and this was their faith—that my gospel, which I gave unto them that they might preach in their days, might come unto their brethren the Lamanites, and also all that had become Lamanites because of their dissensions. ({{s||DC|10|48}})}}

{{Epigraph|And thus you shall take your journey into the regions westward, unto the land of Missouri, unto the borders of the Lamanites. ({{s||DC|54|8}})}}
{{parabreak}}

===Joseph Smith was inspired by the Lord to use the term "Lamanite"===
Joseph's use of the term "Lamanite" to describe all native American inhabitants, including those in Missouri, was inspired by the Lord. Joseph, and many Latter-day prophets since, have described the native inhabitants of the North and South American continents as Lamanites. So, how do these statements made by living prophets align with the possibility that the Book of Mormon occurred within a limited geographical region? We examine this in the following sections.

===Limited Geography Theory (LGT) theory and the D&C===
====The Book of Mormon defines "Lamanites" as those that were ''not'' Nephites====
The LGT is not a doctrine of the Church and there is no necessity to accept it as the only interpretation of the Book of Mormon text. Those who accept the LGT view it as the only theory that is consistent with the geographic descriptions and distances found in the Book of Mormon. The truth of the Book of Mormon does not depend, however, on proving or supporting the LGT.

The LGT assumes that a small number of Lehites were introduced into a larger "sea" of native peoples, most of whom were of presumably of Asiatic origin. Critics mistake the use of the term "Lamanite" as requiring descent from Lehi through his son, Laman. But, from very early in the Book of Mormon record, it is clear that the term "Lamanite" does not refer to descent, but to political and religious affiliation:

:...I shall call them Lamanites that seek to destroy the people of Nephi, and those who are friendly to Nephi I shall call Nephites, or the people of Nephi, according to the reigns of the kings. ({{s||Jacob|1|14}})

So, any person who wasn't a Nephite was, by exclusion, a Lamanite. Lamanites were ''not'' confined in any geographic sense at all.

====The Lamanites occupied a region far greater than the limited geography described in the Book of Mormon====
The LGT holds that the story of the Book of Mormon and the peoples with which it is concerned were confined to a narrow region, since this is all the area with which the authors of the Book of Mormon were directly concerned. Yet the Book of Mormon has several references that suggest a knowledge of and interaction with a much greater geographical area. The story of Hagoth ({{s||Alma|63|4-9}}) speaks not only of the shipbuilder and his movements northward (out of the general area referred to in the Book of Mormon) but also others that migrated to the north. In Helaman 3 we find other references to people migrating to the north:

:And it came to pass in the forty and sixth [year], yea, there was much contention and many dissensions; in the which there were an exceedingly great many who departed out of the land of Zarahemla, and went forth unto the land northward to inherit the land. And they did travel to an exceedingly great distance, insomuch that they came to large bodies of water and many rivers. Yea, and even they did spread forth into all parts of the land, into whatever parts it had not been rendered desolate and without timber, because of the many inhabitants who had before inherited the land. ({{s||Helaman|3|3-5}})

The migration was out of the general area of the Book of Mormon story and is referred to as "an exceedingly great distance." This gives opportunity for Lamanites and Nephites to be found in ''all parts'' of the western hemisphere. There is no reason not to believe that similar migrations could have occurred to the south. Migrations to both the north and to the south were possibly more common than is recorded in the text.

====The native Americans in the region where Joseph lived ''were'' Lamanites====

{{Main|Amerindians_as_Lamanites#All_From_Lehi|l1=Amerindians as Lamanites: All from Laman}}

Some people who first hear about the LGT wonder if this theory means that most modern native Americans are not actually descended from Laman. But the LGT does not imply this at all. In fact, because of the way genealogical descent works, even if Laman's direct descendants only lived in a small area somewhere in the Americas in A.D. 400, if Laman had ''any'' living descendant at all in 1830 then it is likely that ''every single native American in the hemisphere'' was a descendant of Laman by Joseph Smith's day.

This doesn't mean that modern native Americans get the majority of their DNA from Laman or that some native American would be so spectacularly lucky as to find a genetic marker from him, but every native American would be a literal descendant to some degree and yet would almost certainly have predominantly Asian DNA markers.

===The nature of quotations found in the Doctrine & Covenants===

Many readers assume that revelations in the Doctrine and Covenants in which Joseph Smith speaks in God's voice to be direct word-for-word quotations from God. The recently published second volume of the ''Joseph Smith Papers'' REVELATION BOOK 1 (April 1829-B [D&C 8]), released by the Church's official Church History Press, provides greater insight into the process by which the revelations in the D&C arrived in their present form. The Church notes revisions in the revelations from their earliest form. A good example of this is the revelation concerning Oliver Cowdery's "gift"—this revelation was edited by Oliver Cowdery, William W. Phelps, Sidney Rigdon, Joseph Smith, John Whitmer, and one other unidentified editor. The Church has identified which specific edits each of these individuals made to the original revelation which eventually became D&C Section 8. (For more detail on this particular section, see [[Doctrine and Covenants/Oliver Cowdery and the "rod of nature"|Oliver Cowdery and the "rod of nature"]]).

Joseph didn't claim to be hearing a voice or that he was simply taking dictation. Rather, impressions would come to him, which he would put into words. Joseph clearly did not consider them word-for-word quotations from God, since he, and others, felt comfortable revising them prior to publication.

The use of the term "Lamanites" to describe the American Indians was Joseph's word choice based upon inspiration. The few personal statements he made on Book of Mormon geography indicate that he believed it took place on a hemispheric scale, so it would follow that he believed that all Native Americans were pure descendants of Laman, and hence were literal "Lamanites." Even so, as noted in the preceding section, all of the inhabitants of the North and South American continents are considered to be Lamanites, and can likely count Lehi among their ancestry.

{{Detail|Doctrine and Covenants/Direct quotation from God|Doctrine and Covenants/Textual changes|l1=Doctrine and Covenants—Direct quotation from God|l2=Doctrine and Covenants—Textual changes prior to publication}}

==Conclusion==

By the time the Doctrine and Covenants was written, Lehi's descendants had ample time to migrate and intermarry with the large number of "natives" postulated by the LGT. Such descendants are "Lamanites" in at least three senses:
# all shared descent from Lehi, to some degree.
# none embraced Nephite kingship or their doctrine of Christ, making them "Lamanites" politically.
# all were eligible for the covenant blessings promised to Lehi's descendants, if they would repent.

==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===
{{BoMGeographyWiki}}
{{DNAWiki}}
{{DCWiki}}
===FAIR web site===
{{DNAFAIR}}
{{DCFAIR}}

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

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

Book of Mormon/Lamanites/Referenced in the Doctrine and Covenants

2009-11-28T04:59:40Z

PaulMcNabb: /* The native Americans in the region where Joseph lived were Lamanites */

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

==Question==
Since in the Doctrine and Covenants the Lord refers to American Indians in North America as "Lamanites" (e.g., {{s||DC|28|8-9,14}}, {{s||DC|30|6}}, {{s||DC|32|2}}, {{s||DC|54|8}}), does this cause problems for the Limited Geography Theory ([[Book_of_Mormon_geography:New_World:LGT|LGT]]) or issues of Amerindian genetic data?

==Response==
{{Epigraph|Yea, and this was their faith—that my gospel, which I gave unto them that they might preach in their days, might come unto their brethren the Lamanites, and also all that had become Lamanites because of their dissensions. ({{s||DC|10|48}})}}

{{Epigraph|And thus you shall take your journey into the regions westward, unto the land of Missouri, unto the borders of the Lamanites. ({{s||DC|54|8}})}}
{{parabreak}}

===Joseph Smith was inspired by the Lord to use the term "Lamanite"===
Joseph's use of the term "Lamanite" to describe all native American inhabitants, including those in Missouri, was inspired by the Lord. Joseph, and many Latter-day prophets since, have described the native inhabitants of the North and South American continents as Lamanites. So, how do these statements made by living prophets align with the possibility that the Book of Mormon occurred within a limited geographical region? We examine this in the following sections.

===Limited Geography Theory (LGT) theory and the D&C===
====The Book of Mormon defines "Lamanites" as those that were ''not'' Nephites====
The LGT is not a doctrine of the Church and there is no necessity to accept it as the only interpretation of the Book of Mormon text. Those who accept the LGT view it as the only theory that is consistent with the geographic descriptions and distances found in the Book of Mormon. The truth of the Book of Mormon does not depend, however, on proving or supporting the LGT.

The LGT assumes that a small number of Lehites were introduced into a larger "sea" of native peoples, most of whom were of presumably of Asiatic origin. Critics mistake the use of the term "Lamanite" as requiring descent from Lehi through his son, Laman. But, from very early in the Book of Mormon record, it is clear that the term "Lamanite" does not refer to descent, but to political and religious affiliation:

:...I shall call them Lamanites that seek to destroy the people of Nephi, and those who are friendly to Nephi I shall call Nephites, or the people of Nephi, according to the reigns of the kings. ({{s||Jacob|1|14}})

So, any person who wasn't a Nephite was, by exclusion, a Lamanite. Lamanites were ''not'' confined in any geographic sense at all.

====The Lamanites occupied a region far greater than the limited geography described in the Book of Mormon====
The LGT holds that the story of the Book of Mormon and the peoples with which it is concerned were confined to a narrow region, since this is all the area with which the authors of the Book of Mormon were directly concerned. Yet the Book of Mormon has several references that suggest a knowledge of and interaction with a much greater geographical area. The story of Hagoth ({{s||Alma|63|4-9}}) speaks not only of the shipbuilder and his movements northward (out of the general area referred to in the Book of Mormon) but also others that migrated to the north. In Helaman 3 we find other references to people migrating to the north:

:And it came to pass in the forty and sixth [year], yea, there was much contention and many dissensions; in the which there were an exceedingly great many who departed out of the land of Zarahemla, and went forth unto the land northward to inherit the land. And they did travel to an exceedingly great distance, insomuch that they came to large bodies of water and many rivers. Yea, and even they did spread forth into all parts of the land, into whatever parts it had not been rendered desolate and without timber, because of the many inhabitants who had before inherited the land. ({{s||Helaman|3|3-5}})

The migration was out of the general area of the Book of Mormon story and is referred to as "an exceedingly great distance." This gives opportunity for Lamanites and Nephites to be found in ''all parts'' of the western hemisphere. There is no reason not to believe that similar migrations could have occurred to the south. Migrations to both the north and to the south were possibly more common than is recorded in the text.

====The native Americans in the region where Joseph lived ''were'' Lamanites====

{{Main|Amerindians_as_Lamanites#All_From_Lehi|l1=Amerindians as Lamanites: All from Lehi}}

Some people who first hear about the LGT wonder if this theory means that most modern native Americans are not actually descended from Laman. But the LGT does not imply this at all. In fact, because of the way genealogical descent works, if Lehi had ''any'' living descendant at all in 1830 then it is likely that ''every single person in the hemisphere'' was a descendant of Lehi by Joseph Smith's day.

This doesn't mean that modern native Americans get the majority of their DNA from Lehi or that some native American would be so spectacularly lucky as to find a genetic marker from him, but every native American would be a literal descendant to some degree and yet would almost certainly have predominantly Asian DNA markers.

===The nature of quotations found in the Doctrine & Covenants===

Many readers assume that revelations in the Doctrine and Covenants in which Joseph Smith speaks in God's voice to be direct word-for-word quotations from God. The recently published second volume of the ''Joseph Smith Papers'' REVELATION BOOK 1 (April 1829-B [D&C 8]), released by the Church's official Church History Press, provides greater insight into the process by which the revelations in the D&C arrived in their present form. The Church notes revisions in the revelations from their earliest form. A good example of this is the revelation concerning Oliver Cowdery's "gift"—this revelation was edited by Oliver Cowdery, William W. Phelps, Sidney Rigdon, Joseph Smith, John Whitmer, and one other unidentified editor. The Church has identified which specific edits each of these individuals made to the original revelation which eventually became D&C Section 8. (For more detail on this particular section, see [[Doctrine and Covenants/Oliver Cowdery and the "rod of nature"|Oliver Cowdery and the "rod of nature"]]).

Joseph didn't claim to be hearing a voice or that he was simply taking dictation. Rather, impressions would come to him, which he would put into words. Joseph clearly did not consider them word-for-word quotations from God, since he, and others, felt comfortable revising them prior to publication.

The use of the term "Lamanites" to describe the American Indians was Joseph's word choice based upon inspiration. The few personal statements he made on Book of Mormon geography indicate that he believed it took place on a hemispheric scale, so it would follow that he believed that all Native Americans were pure descendants of Laman, and hence were literal "Lamanites." Even so, as noted in the preceding section, all of the inhabitants of the North and South American continents are considered to be Lamanites, and can likely count Lehi among their ancestry.

{{Detail|Doctrine and Covenants/Direct quotation from God|Doctrine and Covenants/Textual changes|l1=Doctrine and Covenants—Direct quotation from God|l2=Doctrine and Covenants—Textual changes prior to publication}}

==Conclusion==

By the time the Doctrine and Covenants was written, Lehi's descendants had ample time to migrate and intermarry with the large number of "natives" postulated by the LGT. Such descendants are "Lamanites" in at least three senses:
# all shared descent from Lehi, to some degree.
# none embraced Nephite kingship or their doctrine of Christ, making them "Lamanites" politically.
# all were eligible for the covenant blessings promised to Lehi's descendants, if they would repent.

==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===
{{BoMGeographyWiki}}
{{DNAWiki}}
{{DCWiki}}
===FAIR web site===
{{DNAFAIR}}
{{DCFAIR}}

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

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

Criticism of Mormonism/Books/An Insider's View of Mormon Origins

2009-10-02T02:13:27Z

PaulMcNabb: /* Overview */

__NOTOC__
{{FAIRAnalysisHeader
|title=''An Insider's View of Mormon Origins''
|author=Grant Palmer
|noauthor=
|section=
|previous=
|next=
|notes={{AuthorsDisclaimer}}
}}

=Quick navigation=
*[[/Index|Index of claims]]—[[/Use of sources|Use of sources]]

=About this work=

{{Epigraph|Lest there be any question, let me say that my intent is to increase faith, not to diminish it. — Grant Palmer, ''An Insider's View of Mormon Origins'', p. ix.}}

{{Epigraph|Palmer's readers may well wonder what kind of faith he is trying to increase, for nothing in the book generates confidence in Joseph Smith or modern scripture. — {{FR-16-1-13}}}}

==Overview==
''An Insider's View of Mormon Origins'' was developed during a period of time that its author, Grant Palmer, worked as a teacher in the Church Educational System (CES), and it was not published until after Palmer's retirement from Church employment. He wrote the anti-Mormon work in private and did not disclose his lack of belief publicly until his CES pension was secure. He then published ''An Insider's View of Mormon Origins'' with Signature Books.{{ref|midgley1}}

The book attempts to explain many otherwise clearly described events of the restoration by reinterpreting them as spiritual rather than physical events. The author was originally inspired by [[Mark Hofmann|Mark Hofmann]]'s [[Mark Hofmann/Church reaction to forgeries|Salamander Letter]] prior to the time that the letter was exposed as a forgery, and its influence was present in early drafts of this work. The Salamander Letter inspired the author to postulate that Joseph Smith plagiarized a book called [[Book of Mormon and the Golden Pot|''The Golden Pot'']] during the production of the ''Book of Mormon''. The book heavily promotes and emphasizes the role of magic and treasure hunting in Joseph Smith, Jr.'s early life, and it concludes that Joseph deliberately enhanced and added fabricated detail to his later accounts of events such as the [[First Vision accounts|First Vision]], the [[Priesthood restoration]], the [[Book of Mormon witnesses|Three and Eight Witnesses]], and the visit of the angel Moroni. Although the stated purpose of the book is to "increase faith," it is clearly intended to demonstrate the Joseph Smith employed dishonesty in order to secure his position as head of the church.

Palmer's criticisms are not new; they have all been asked and answered. Palmer's sole contribution is the attempt to link "The Golden Pot" to the Book of Mormon, a theory based on the Hofmann forgeries. Palmer persists in his claim despite the discovery that Hofmann's documents were fakes.

==Claims made in this work==
{{Main|/Index|l1=Index to claims made in ''An Insider's View of Mormon Origins''}}

==Source analysis==
This section performs a detailed analysis of the use of selected sources by this work.

{{Main|An Insider's View of Mormon Origins/Use of sources|l1=Source analysis of selections from ''An Insider's View of Mormon Origins''}}


==Reviews of this work==
* {{FR-16-1-13}} 
* {{FR-15-2-13}} 
* George E. Cobabe, "A Summary of Five Reviews of Grant Palmer's "An Insider's View of Mormon Origins" (with a Few Comments of My Own)," (FAIR). {{fairlink|url=http://www.fairlds.org/Book_of_Mormon/Summary_of_Five_Reviews_of_Grant_Palmer.html}}
* {{FR-15-2-12}} 
* {{FR-15-2-14}} 
* {{FR-15-2-15}} 
* {{FR-15-2-16}} 

==Endnotes==
#{{note|midgley1}}{{FR-15-2-16}} 
#{{note|midgley2}}Midgley, ''Pry''ing.
#{{note|harper1}}{{FR-15-2-14}} 
#{{note|cowdery1}} ''The Reflector'', 2/13 (14 February 1831).

==Further reading==
{{FAIRAnalysisWiki}}

Criticism of Mormonism/Books/An Insider's View of Mormon Origins

2009-10-02T02:09:58Z

PaulMcNabb: /* Overview */

__NOTOC__
{{FAIRAnalysisHeader
|title=''An Insider's View of Mormon Origins''
|author=Grant Palmer
|noauthor=
|section=
|previous=
|next=
|notes={{AuthorsDisclaimer}}
}}

=Quick navigation=
*[[/Index|Index of claims]]—[[/Use of sources|Use of sources]]

=About this work=

{{Epigraph|Lest there be any question, let me say that my intent is to increase faith, not to diminish it. — Grant Palmer, ''An Insider's View of Mormon Origins'', p. ix.}}

{{Epigraph|Palmer's readers may well wonder what kind of faith he is trying to increase, for nothing in the book generates confidence in Joseph Smith or modern scripture. — {{FR-16-1-13}}}}

==Overview==
''An Insider's View of Mormon Origins'' was developed during a period of time that its author, Grant Palmer, worked as a teacher in the Church Educational System (CES), and it was not published until after Palmer's retirement from Church employment. He wrote the anti-Mormon work in private and did not disclose his lack of belief publicly until his CES pension was secure. He then published ''An Insider's View of Mormon Origins'' with Signature Books.{{ref|midgley1}}

The book attempts to explain many otherwise clearly described events of the restoration by reinterpreting them as spiritual rather than physical events. The author was originally inspired by [[Mark Hofmann|Mark Hofmann]]'s [[Mark Hofmann/Church reaction to forgeries|Salamander Letter]] prior to the time that the letter was exposed as a forgery, and its influence was present in early drafts of this work. The Salamander Letter inspired the author to postulate that Joseph Smith plagiarized a book called [[Book of Mormon and the Golden Pot|''The Golden Pot'']] during the production of the ''Book of Mormon''. The book heavily promotes and emphasizes the role of magic and treasure hunting in Joseph Smith, Jr's early life, and it concludes that Joseph deliberately enhanced and added fabricated detail to his later accounts of events such as the [[First Vision accounts|First Vision]], the [[Priesthood restoration]], the [[Book of Mormon witnesses|Three and Eight Witnesses]] and the visit of the angel Moroni. Although the stated purpose of the book is to "increase faith," it is clearly intended to demonstrate the Joseph Smith employed dishonesty in order to secure his position as head of the church.

Palmer's criticisms are not new; they have all been asked and answered. Palmer's sole contribution is the attempt to link "The Golden Pot" to the Book of Mormon: A theory based on the Hofmann forgeries. Palmer persists in his claim despite the discovery that Hofmann's documents were fakes.

==Claims made in this work==
{{Main|/Index|l1=Index to claims made in ''An Insider's View of Mormon Origins''}}

==Source analysis==
This section performs a detailed analysis of the use of selected sources by this work.

{{Main|An Insider's View of Mormon Origins/Use of sources|l1=Source analysis of selections from ''An Insider's View of Mormon Origins''}}


==Reviews of this work==
* {{FR-16-1-13}} 
* {{FR-15-2-13}} 
* George E. Cobabe, "A Summary of Five Reviews of Grant Palmer's "An Insider's View of Mormon Origins" (with a Few Comments of My Own)," (FAIR). {{fairlink|url=http://www.fairlds.org/Book_of_Mormon/Summary_of_Five_Reviews_of_Grant_Palmer.html}}
* {{FR-15-2-12}} 
* {{FR-15-2-14}} 
* {{FR-15-2-15}} 
* {{FR-15-2-16}} 

==Endnotes==
#{{note|midgley1}}{{FR-15-2-16}} 
#{{note|midgley2}}Midgley, ''Pry''ing.
#{{note|harper1}}{{FR-15-2-14}} 
#{{note|cowdery1}} ''The Reflector'', 2/13 (14 February 1831).

==Further reading==
{{FAIRAnalysisWiki}}

Criticism of Mormonism/Books/An Insider's View of Mormon Origins

2009-10-02T02:09:24Z

PaulMcNabb: /* Overview */

__NOTOC__
{{FAIRAnalysisHeader
|title=''An Insider's View of Mormon Origins''
|author=Grant Palmer
|noauthor=
|section=
|previous=
|next=
|notes={{AuthorsDisclaimer}}
}}

=Quick navigation=
*[[/Index|Index of claims]]—[[/Use of sources|Use of sources]]

=About this work=

{{Epigraph|Lest there be any question, let me say that my intent is to increase faith, not to diminish it. — Grant Palmer, ''An Insider's View of Mormon Origins'', p. ix.}}

{{Epigraph|Palmer's readers may well wonder what kind of faith he is trying to increase, for nothing in the book generates confidence in Joseph Smith or modern scripture. — {{FR-16-1-13}}}}

==Overview==
''An Insider's View of Mormon Origins'' was developed during a period of time that its author, Grant Palmer, worked as a teacher in the Church Educational System (CES), and it was not published until after Palmer's retirement from Church employment. He wrote the anti-Mormon work in private, and did not disclose his lack of belief publicly until his CES pension was secure. He then published ''An Insider's View of Mormon Origins'' with Signature Books.{{ref|midgley1}}

The book attempts to explain many otherwise clearly described events of the restoration by reinterpreting them as spiritual rather than physical events. The author was originally inspired by [[Mark Hofmann|Mark Hofmann]]'s [[Mark Hofmann/Church reaction to forgeries|Salamander Letter]] prior to the time that the letter was exposed as a forgery, and its influence was present in early drafts of this work. The Salamander Letter inspired the author to postulate that Joseph Smith plagiarized a book called [[Book of Mormon and the Golden Pot|''The Golden Pot'']] during the production of the ''Book of Mormon''. The book heavily promotes and emphasizes the role of magic and treasure hunting in Joseph Smith, Jr's early life, and it concludes that Joseph deliberately enhanced and added fabricated detail to his later accounts of events such as the [[First Vision accounts|First Vision]], the [[Priesthood restoration]], the [[Book of Mormon witnesses|Three and Eight Witnesses]] and the visit of the angel Moroni. Although the stated purpose of the book is to "increase faith," it is clearly intended to demonstrate the Joseph Smith employed dishonesty in order to secure his position as head of the church.

Palmer's criticisms are not new; they have all been asked and answered. Palmer's sole contribution is the attempt to link "The Golden Pot" to the Book of Mormon: A theory based on the Hofmann forgeries. Palmer persists in his claim despite the discovery that Hofmann's documents were fakes.

==Claims made in this work==
{{Main|/Index|l1=Index to claims made in ''An Insider's View of Mormon Origins''}}

==Source analysis==
This section performs a detailed analysis of the use of selected sources by this work.

{{Main|An Insider's View of Mormon Origins/Use of sources|l1=Source analysis of selections from ''An Insider's View of Mormon Origins''}}


==Reviews of this work==
* {{FR-16-1-13}} 
* {{FR-15-2-13}} 
* George E. Cobabe, "A Summary of Five Reviews of Grant Palmer's "An Insider's View of Mormon Origins" (with a Few Comments of My Own)," (FAIR). {{fairlink|url=http://www.fairlds.org/Book_of_Mormon/Summary_of_Five_Reviews_of_Grant_Palmer.html}}
* {{FR-15-2-12}} 
* {{FR-15-2-14}} 
* {{FR-15-2-15}} 
* {{FR-15-2-16}} 

==Endnotes==
#{{note|midgley1}}{{FR-15-2-16}} 
#{{note|midgley2}}Midgley, ''Pry''ing.
#{{note|harper1}}{{FR-15-2-14}} 
#{{note|cowdery1}} ''The Reflector'', 2/13 (14 February 1831).

==Further reading==
{{FAIRAnalysisWiki}}

Plural marriage and the Bible

2009-09-15T22:39:46Z

PaulMcNabb: /* David */

{{PolygamyPortal}}

==Criticism==
#Critics claim that plural marriage has no Biblical precedents—they point to condemnation of King David and King Solomon as evidence that polygamy is always forbidden by God.
#Critics claim that Abraham's polygamy "portrays his acceptance of plural marriage as a mark of disobedience to, and a lack of faith in, God."
#Critics claim that since the Bible didn't allow a man to marry two sisters, this proves that LDS plural marriage was "unbiblical" because some Mormons did so.
===Source(s) of the criticism===
*{{CriticalWork:Abanes:Becoming Gods|pages=237}}
*{{CriticalWork:Abanes:One Nation|pages=305 (PB)}}
*{{CriticalWork:Tanner:Changing World|pages=245-246}}
* {{SearchForTheTruthDVD}}
*{{QuestionsMormonsShouldAsk}}
* {{50Questions}}

=Response=

==Criticism #1: David and Solomon==

Critics take an extremely limited survey of the Bible with this claim. It is true that David and Solomon were condemned for some of their marriage practices. This problem was mentioned in Deuteronomy:

:15 Thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the LORD thy God shall choose: one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother...17 Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away... ({{s||Deuteronomy|17|15,17}}

Critics ignore the fact that only four chapters later, the Lord gives instructions on how to treat equitably plural wives and children. (See {{s||Deuteronomy|21|15-17}}.) Why does He not simply forbid plural marriage, if that is the intent of chapter 17? Why does He instruct the Israelites on how to conduct themselves in plural households, if all such households are forbidden?

So, rather than opposing plural marriage, the command to kings is that they:
#not multiply wives ''to themselves'' (i.e., only those who hold proper priesthood keys may approve plural marriage—see {{s|2|Samuel|12|8}}, {{s||Jacob|2|30}}, {{s||DC|132|38-39}});
#that these wives not be those who turn his heart away from God ({{s|1|Kings|11|3-4}});
#not take excessive numbers of wives (see {{s||Jacob|2|24}}).

David and Solomon are excellent examples of violating one or more of these Biblical principles, as described below.

===David===

David is well-known for his sin with Bathsheba and Uriah (see {{s|2|Samuel|12|1-27}}. Nathan the prophet arrived to condemn David's behavior, and told the king:

:7 ¶ And Nathan said to David...Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul;
:8 And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things.
:9 Wherefore hast thou despised the commandment of the LORD, to do evil in his sight? thou hast killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword, and hast taken his wife to be thy wife, and hast slain him with the sword of the children of Ammon.
:10 Now therefore the sword shall never depart from thine house; because thou hast despised me, and hast taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be thy wife. ({{s|2|Samuel|12|7-10}})

Nathan here tells David that the '''Lord''' "gave thee...thy master's wives." And, the Lord says, through His prophet, that He would have given even more than He has already given of political power, wives, and wealth.

But, David sinned and did evil ''in the matter of Uriah.'' If plural marriage is always a sin to God, then why did Nathan not take the opportunity to condemn David for it now? Or, why did the prophet not come earlier?

===Solomon===

Solomon's problem is described:

:1 BUT king Solomon loved many strange women, together with the daughter of Pharaoh, women of the Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Zidonians, and Hittites;
:2 Of the nations concerning which the LORD said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall not go in to them, neither shall they come in unto you: for surely they will turn away your heart after their gods: Solomon clave unto these in love...
:7 Then did Solomon build an high place for Chemosh, the abomination of Moab, in the hill that is before Jerusalem, and for Molech, the abomination of the children of Ammon.
:8 And likewise did he for all his strange wives, which burnt incense and sacrificed unto their gods. ({{s|1|Kings|11|1-8}}

Solomon's wives turned his heart away from, as Deuteronomy cautioned. Nothing is said against the plurality of wives, but merely of wives taken without authority that turn his heart away from the Lord.

==Criticism #2: Abraham and other Biblical examples==

David and Solomon do not prove the critics' point, but in fact demonstrate that plural marriage may, on occasion, be sanctioned (as in David's case certainly).

But, we need not rely on these examples only to demonstrate that plural marriage was practiced by righteous followers of God in the Bible. Other cases include:

* Abraham married Hagar ({{s||Genesis|16|3}}), Keturah ({{s||Genesis|25|1}}) and other unnamed concubines ({{s||Genesis|25|6}}).
* Jacob ({{s||Genesis|29|21-30}}, {{s||Genesis|30|3-4}}, {{s||Genesis|30|9}})
* Abijah had fourteen wives ({{s|2|Chronicles|13|21}}) and yet he is described as a righteous king of Judah who honored the Lord ({{s|2|Chronicles|13|8-12}}) and prosper in battle because of the Lord's blessing ({{s|2|Chronicles|13|16-18}})
* Jehoiada, priest under king Joash had two wives ({{s|2|Chronicles|3|}}) and is described at his death as one who "had done good in Israel, both toward God and toward his house. [i.e. family]" ({s|2|Chronicles|24|16}}).

and also possibly:

* Moses [married Zipporah ({{s||Exodus|2|22}} and an "Ethiopian" (Cushite) woman {{s||Numbers|12|1}} which may or may not be the same person.{{ref|josephus1}}]

===The Law of Moses===
As noted above, {{s||Deuteronomy|21|15}} provides rules governing Israelites who have plural wives. Further instructions are also given in {{s||Exodus|21|10}}. Why did God not ban plural marriage through Moses if it is always an immoral act?

==Criticism #3: Moses did not allow plural marriages to two sisters==

Latter-day Saint plural marriage did not rely on biblical authority or interpretation (though they used biblical parallels to explain and understand the command which they believed they had received from God via a modern prophet.)

Marrying two sisters was quite frequent, possibly because sisters had already learned to get along together, which made for more harmonious plural families. One researcher noted:

: Marriage to the wife's sister, defined as incest only by Anglican canon law, is the only form of polygamous marriage of the [potentially 'incestuous] categories...that occurs in significant numbers.{{ref|embry.1}}

The Saints did not claim to be restoring Mosaic plural marriage—they only used Moses' example as precedent for the fact that God ''could'' and ''had'' commanded plural marriage in the past. The specific structure, rules, and restrictions varied from time to time as guided by prophets.

==Conclusion==

The Bible does not forbid plural marriage. In fact, many of the most noble Biblical figures (e.g., Abraham) had more than one wife. Furthermore, Biblical laws quoted by critics forbid kings from being led astray by plural spouses, or entering relationships not sanctioned by God's authority. However, the same Biblical laws provide guidelines for legitimate plural relationships.

==Endnotes==

#{{note|josephus1}} {{JosephusAntiquities1|vol=2|start=10}}
#{{note|embry.1}} Jessie L. Embry, "Ultimate Taboos: Incest and Mormon Polygamy," ''Journal of Mormon History'' 18/1 (Spring 1992): 93–113.
==Further Reading==
===FAIR wiki articles===
{{PolygamyWiki}}

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

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

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

Mormonism and the nature of God/Polytheism

2009-08-04T13:30:44Z

PaulMcNabb: /* Response */

{{GodPortal}}
{{question}}

==Question==

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

===Source(s) of the Criticism===
*{{CriticalWork:Abanes:Becoming Gods|pages=109}}
*{{CriticalWork:Brodie:No Man Knows|pages=171}}
*{{CriticalWork:Martin:Kingdom of the Cults|pages=223}}
*{{CriticalWork:McKeeverJohnson:Mormonism 101|pages=Chapter 3}}
* {{50Questions}}

==Response==
Almost invariably when someone claims Mormons are polytheists, they are not seeking a clear explanation of Mormon thought on the nature of God, but are simply using a word with negative connotations in our religious culture as a club to intimidate or confuse others. Consider, for example, a conversation that Evangelical Christian author Richard Abanes, in his book ''Becoming Gods'' (pp. 107-8), claims to have had with a LDS bishop:

:Abanes: "Don't you believe in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost?"
:Bishop: "We certainly do, and they are one God."
:Abanes: "Don't you believe the Father is a god?"
:Bishop: "Yes, of course."
:Abanes: "And the Son is a god?"
:Bishop: "Yes"
:Abanes: "And the Holy Ghost is a god."
:Bishop: "Yes"
:Abanes: "That's three gods."
:Bishop: "No, they're one God."

The author goes on to describe that he felt he had entered some sort of ''Twilight Zone'' scenario, and goes on to declare all Mormons "polytheists." Yet, any Latter-day Saint, upon reading the conversation outlined above, would recognize the creation of a simplified version, or "strawman," of LDS belief. One might also seriously consider how an Evangelical Christian would answer these same questions. The reality is certainly more complex than the "strawman" above would lead us to believe.

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

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

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

The facts that the LDS do not believe the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are one in [[Godhead and the Trinity|substance]], and believe in [[Deification of man|deification/theosis]] (that humans may eventually become deified and become partakers in the divine nature), has been used to paint Mormons as polytheists. When we examine the technical terminology above, though, it becomes clear that a key point of demarcation is worship versus acknowledgment of existence. If members of the Church worshiped an extensive pantheon like the Greeks or Romans, then the label would be appropriate. In the context of doctrinal differences over the relationship among the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, however, or the doctrine of deification (which is a profoundly Christian doctrine and not just a Mormon one), use of the word "polytheistic" as a pejorative is both inaccurate and inappropriate.

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

===Are Christians monotheists?===

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

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


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

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

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

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

==Conclusion==

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

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

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

==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===

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

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

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

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

===Printed material===
{{GodPrint}}
[[de:Polytheismus]]

User:InProgress/Website reviews/Kitchen1

2009-07-28T18:36:54Z

PaulMcNabb: /* The Brethren have "little, if any time for deep study of controversial LDS Church history?" */

__NOTOC__
=Website review: ''StayLDS.com''=
{{Epigraph|I have now served in the general councils of this Church for 45 years. I have served as an Assistant to the Twelve, as a member of the Twelve, as a Counselor in the First Presidency, and now for eight years as President. I want to give you my testimony that although I have sat in literally thousands of meetings where Church policies and programs have been discussed, I have never been in one where the guidance of the Lord was not sought nor where there was any desire on the part of anyone present to advocate or do anything which would be injurious or coercive to anyone. The book of Revelation declares: “I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. “So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth” ({{s||Revelations|3|15–16}})....This is His work. He established it. He has revealed its doctrine. He has outlined its practices. He created its government. It is His work and His kingdom, and He has said, “They who are not for me are against me” ({{s|2|Nephi|10|16}}). —Gordon B. Hinckley, “Loyalty,” Ensign, May 2003, 58}}

{{Epigraph|Even though the brethren themselves often set things up as "all or nothing," "true or false," "legitimate or a complete fraud," you do not have to slavishly bow to these blatantly false dichotomies. —The author of Staylds.com'' (<nowiki>http://staylds.com/docs/HowToStay.html</nowiki>)}}

{{Epigraph|Don't think of it as God's one and only true and perfect church while all others as abominations. If you think that way, the church will always fall short. Instead, think of it as a bunch of men (and a few women -- in terms of leadership) who are just trying their best to fulfill their callings while balancing work, family, and personal stuff -- and stumbling a great deal along the way. Don't think of its leaders as having a direct, telephone-like communication line with God. They probably don't. —The author of Staylds.com'', setting up some false dichotomies of his own. (<nowiki>http://staylds.com/docs/HowToStay.html</nowiki>)}}
{{parabreak}}

=Overview=
==FAIR's evaluation of the web site ''StayLDS.com''==
{{Epigraph|I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth. —Rev. 3: 15-16}}
{{parabreak}}

The website is a study in how to be a lukewarm member of the Church. We agree with the web site's evaluation of how some members are shaken as a result of their fundamentalist views. We do not agree with the formula presented for dealing with it.

===The "Brethren's dilemma"===
The site discusses what it calls the "the situation of LDS General Authorities," and implies that they are lying. It portrays General Authorities as remaining in the Church for the following reasons:
*The site claims that General Authorities are from multi-generational LDS families.
*The site claims that General Authorities' "social status" is inextricably tied to the "church's exclusive truthfulness."
*The site claims that General Authorities are too busy to study "controversial LDS Church history."
*They state that the Church "once made a sincere attempt at openness and full disclosure" of Church history, and then gave up because of "decreased activity and commitment."
*The site claims that General Authorities do not dispute anything taught by past Church leaders because they do not want to "erode their own basis of power and influence."
*The site casts doubt upon the Brethren's sincerity by stating "Assuming that the brethren are sincere believers in both the truthfulness of the church, and in its goodness," that they play a balancing game of member retention by deliberately avoiding tough questions.
It is significant to note that nothing in the list above credits the Brethren for being committed to the Church because they sincerely have testimonies of Jesus Christ and the work that they are performing. Consider Elder Dieter F. Uchtdorf's definition of a testimony. Elder Uchtdorf notes that,
<blockquote>
The testimony of the truthfulness of the restored gospel of Jesus Christ is ''the most powerful motivating force in our lives.'' Jesus repeatedly emphasized the power of good thoughts and proper motives: “Look unto me in every thought; doubt not, fear not” ({{s||DC|6|36}})....a testimony of the restored gospel of Jesus Christ will always include these clear and simple truths
*God lives. He is our loving Father in Heaven, and we are His children.
*Jesus Christ is the Son of the living God and the Savior of the world.
*Joseph Smith is the prophet of God through whom the gospel of Jesus Christ was restored in the latter days.
*The Book of Mormon is the word of God.
*President Gordon B. Hinckley, his counselors, and the members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles are the prophets, seers, and revelators in our day. 
—Dieter F. Uchtdorf, [http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=66900d034ceae010VgnVCM100000176f620a____&vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD “The Power of a Personal Testimony,”] ''Ensign'', Nov 2006, 37–39 {{ea}}
</blockquote>
The "Brethren's dilemma" presented by the web site completely ignores the Brethren's own stated motivations for the work that they do, and therefore implies that they are lying. Elder Uchtdorf's description of his own motivations is quite at odds with that presented by the web site.

===The Brethren have "little, if any time for deep study of controversial LDS Church history?"===
"StayLDS" believes that the General Authorities are "simply not aware" of things that ''the site's authors'' are aware of,
<blockquote>
In the end, we are quite convinced that a majority of [the General Authorities] are simply not aware of peep stones, polyandry, Adam/God theory, blood atonement, the Danites, etc. Of course they have heard these terms throughout their lives, but they would have no real impetus, and most importantly, no time to study them deeply. They are super-busy men, and in their minds, the church is true -- so why dig much deeper? —StayLDS.com
</blockquote>
Why, then, has a Church magazine taught our children that Joseph translated using a "brown rock" called a "seer stone?"
{{Epigraph|To help him with the translation, Joseph found with the gold plates “a curious instrument which the ancients called Urim and Thummim, which consisted of two transparent stones set in a rim of a bow fastened to a breastplate.” Joseph also used an egg-shaped, brown rock for translating called a seer stone. — “A Peaceful Heart,” ''Friend'', Sep 1974, 7 {{Link|url=http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=5250e07368d9b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&vgnextoid=21bc9fbee98db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD}}}}

Why did a Church magazine teach our children that there was a group of Mormons called the "Danites" who attacked non-members?
{{Epigraph|One Mormon, Sampson Avard, formed a group, called the Danites, to seek revenge on the Missourians. But when the Danites attacked the nonmembers, it only gave them more reason to distrust the Saints. —Sherrie Johnson, “Persecutions in Missouri,” ''Friend'', Jul 1993, 47 {{Link|url=http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=042555faa5cab010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&vgnextoid=21bc9fbee98db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD}}}}

Why did a Church magazine talk about the use of the "[[Blood atonement|blood atonement]]" and polygamy in early anti-Mormon fiction?
{{Epigraph|Furthermore, what people heard about the Mormons as they gossiped over the back fence or sat in the barbershop was often twisted and shaped to appeal to the popular appetite for the lurid and sensational: secret rites, priestly orders, blood atonement, polygamy, and white slavery. —Neal E. Lambert and Richard H. Cracroft, “Through Gentile Eyes: A Hundred Years of the Mormon in Fiction,” New Era, Mar 1972, 14 {{Link|url=http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=6abc18e7c379b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&vgnextoid=024644f8f206c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD}}}}

Why did a Church magazine publish Spencer W. Kimball's repudiation of the Adam-God theory?
{{Epigraph|We hope that you who teach in the various organizations, whether on the campuses or in our chapels, will always teach the orthodox truth. We warn you against the dissemination of doctrines which are not according to the scriptures and which are alleged to have been taught by some of the General Authorities of past generations. Such, for instance, is the Adam-God theory. We denounce that theory and hope that everyone will be cautioned against this and other kinds of false doctrine. —Spencer W. Kimball, “Our Own Liahona,” Ensign, Nov 1976, 77 {{Link|url=http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=5fc6fd758096b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD}}}}

In fact, the only one of the items listed that does not come up in a search on lds.org is "polyandry," yet there are plenty of references to polygamy. So why is polyandry or polygamy not a commonly discussed subject in the Church? To answer that question, we once again refer to an official ''Church'' publication:
<blockquote>
'''Teachings for Our Day'''

This book deals with teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith that have application to our day. For example, this book does not discuss such topics as the Prophet’s teachings regarding the law of consecration as applied to stewardship of property. The Lord withdrew this law from the Church because the Saints were not prepared to live it (see D&C 119, section heading). This book also does not discuss plural marriage. The doctrines and principles relating to plural marriage were revealed to Joseph Smith as early as 1831. The Prophet taught the doctrine of plural marriage, and a number of such marriages were performed during his lifetime. Over the next several decades, under the direction of the Church Presidents who succeeded Joseph Smith, a significant number of Church members entered into plural marriages. In 1890, President Wilford Woodruff issued the Manifesto, which discontinued plural marriage in the Church (see Official Declaration 1). The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints no longer practices plural marriage. —''Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith'', (2007), pages vii–xiii
</blockquote>

Yet, "StayLDS" insists that the ''General Authorities'' are "simply not aware of peep stones," the Danites, the Adam-God theory, polyandry/polygamy or "blood atonement." The leaders of the Church have apparently "heard these terms throughout their lives," yet they are assumed to be ''unaware'' of their meaning? The approach taken to this subject by the "StayLDS" website is absolutely absurd.
So, are we to believe that the Church places these things in the official ''children's'' magazine, yet those leading the Church are ''unaware of its history?
{{ReadMore|Censorship and revision of LDS history}}

===Emphasizing the church's 'one trueness' is simply "an essential component of survival?"===
According to "StayLDS"
{{Epigraph|LDS Church leaders believe that emphasizing the church's "one trueness" is an essential component of survival.... Finally, what in the heck does it mean to call a church "true"? What an odd usage of the word. To us, it's like calling a ham sandwich "true." It just doesn't mean anything. —Staylds.com}}
No, LDS Church leaders ''believe'' that this ''is'' the only true and living church of Jesus Christ. Period.
*"My testimony that this is the true Church began in my childhood. But I received a powerful, certain witness before I was eight, even before I was baptized, that I was hearing a servant of God in the true Church of Jesus Christ." (Henry B. Eyring, “The True Church,” Friend, Mar 2009, 2–3)
*"You will be given opportunities, such as through the inspired messages of this conference, to find the one and only true Church of Jesus Christ, and you will recognize that Church." (Richard G. Scott, “Happiness Now and Forever,” Ensign, Nov 1979, 70)
*"The position that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the only true church upon the face of the earth is fundamental." (Boyd K. Packer, “The Only True and Living Church,” Ensign, Dec 1971, 40)
*"My intent is to assert with testimony and persuasion of scripture the reasons there can be only one Lord, one acceptable faith, one baptism, and one true church." (Delbert L. Stapley, “What Constitutes the True Church,” Ensign, May 1977, 21)
*"I testify to you that the Father and the Son appeared to Joseph Smith, and that he thereafter received revelations, powers, and keys, and was commanded to organize again on earth the Lord’s one true church." (Joseph Fielding Smith, “A Call to Serve,” New Era, Nov 1971, 5)
*"And so we have to be sure and prepare ourselves and know that we have found that one and only true church that Paul spoke about." (LeGrand Richards, “One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism,” Ensign, May 1975, 95)
There is simply no ambiguity here. The leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints most firmly believe and teach that it is the ''one true Church of Jesus Christ''. We teach this. We believe this. It does not mean that we ought to disrespect others' beliefs, but we believe in the uniqueness of the Church nonetheless. This will not evolve or change in the future—it is a fundamental concept upon which the Church is built.

===The "buffet Mormon"===
The web site encourages members to choose which Church teachings they wish to accept and reject the rest. Take, for example, the way the site redefines the law of tithing,
{{Epigraph|[I]f you're not comfortable giving 10%, consider giving 5%. If you can't muster 5%, give what you feel the church is worth to you in your life. And if you do drop your tithing to 5% or 1%, we strongly recommend (from experience) that you continue trying to obeying the law, and instead divert the other X% to really worthwhile charitable organizations. There are lots of good causes out there: cleft palate repair, children with AIDS, homeless shelters, the Red Cross, environmental movements, NPR and PBS, or other forums, publications, or programs that are important to your spiritual development. The LDS Church Humanitarian fund and the Perpetual Education Fund also seem like very worthwhile places to contribute, if you are comfortable doing so. So while we're not in any way encouraging a decrease in tithing to the church, we are all big believers in the law of the tithe, and are quite confident that "God" will appreciate any contribution you make to any organization that seeks to relieve suffering. We're also relatively sure that the church would warmly accept 5% rather than 0% (if it comes to this). —StayLDS.com}}

So, essentially, we are told that a full and honest tithe—what we are asked if we are paying during the temple recommend interview—is apparently so undefined that we don't ''really'' need to pay all 10% to the Church! Instead, just about anything goes, including, oddly enough, diverting tithing to the Church's own Humanitarian Fund! Finally, we are told that the Church will "warmly" accept our money regardless of how much we actually decide to contribute. As far as "StayLDS" is concerned, any spiritual element to tithing has been removed—it is simply a matter of paying money to an organization.

The General Authorities have a more direct approach:
*"Tithing is so simple and straightforward a thing. Tithing is paid by faith more than it is by money." (Gordon B. Hinckley, “The Sacred Law of Tithing,” Ensign, Dec 1989, 2)
*"If you are one who has doubted the blessings of tithing, I encourage you to accept the Lord’s invitation to “prove [Him] now herewith.” Pay your tithing." (Robert D. Hales, “Tithing: A Test of Faith with Eternal Blessings,” Liahona, Nov 2002, 26–29)
*"If I did not pay my tithing, I should expect the Lord to withhold His blessings from me. I pay my tithing, not only because it is a law of God, but because I expect a blessing by doing it." (Jeffrey R. Holland, “‘Like a Watered Garden’,” Liahona, Jan 2002, 37–39)
So once again, where "StayLDS" advocates ambiguity, the Brethren show no ambiguity whatsoever.

==="Shelving" or "tossing" the "bad doctrine"===
{{Epigraph|Anyone who has studied LDS Church history will confirm that lots of things that were considered hard, unchangeable doctrine have been completely wiped from the books (e.g., polygamy as a requirement for salvation, blacks as less valiant in the pre-mortal existence, dynastic sealings, multiple baptisms, Adam-God theory, Native Americans as descendants of Lamanites, etc.). So if you don't like a doctrine, just wait a while. Like the weather, it has a good probability of changing anyway (at least over time). —StayLDS.com}}
The purpose of having a living prophet is to direct the Church ''for our time''. In some cases, such as the Adam-God theory, Church leaders ''already'' "shelved" or "tossed" what the web site refers to as "bad doctrine." Do we reject the teachings of Christ because He ended and fulfilled the Law of Moses? We address the specific points mentioned in separate articles:
*[[The only men who become gods are those that practice polygamy?|Polygamy as a requirement for salvation?]]
*[[Blacks and the priesthood/Pre-existence|Blacks portrayed as "less valiant" in the pre-mortal existence?]]
*[[Joseph Smith and polygamy/Marriages to young women|Dynastic sealings to young women]]
*[[Mormon Reformation|Multiple baptisms or rebaptism during the "Mormon reformation"]]
*[[Adam-God|Adam-God theory]]
*[[Amerindians as Lamanites|Native Americans as descendants of Lamanites]]

===Teaching your children that you go to Church simply because you "like it"===
{{Epigraph|We feel it's as good a place as any to seek out spirituality and community. —StayLDS.org}}
If you plan to teach your children that you are a Latter-day Saint because it is "as good a place as any" to have a good social environment, then expect your children to go their separate ways when they are adults.

===Looking elsewhere?===
{{Epigraph|If you are not feeling spiritually filled by your affiliation with the LDS Church, do not hesitate to supplement with other sources. I know many, many active LDS Church members who look to other faith traditions to supplement their spiritual needs. Some look to other Christian denominations or Buddhism to fill a void. Best of all, this approach is even encouraged by LDS scripture, LDS doctrine, and both historical and contemporary comments by LDS General Authorities (references available upon request). StayLDS.com}}
No, the scriptures and LDS General Authorities ''do not'' encourage you to "supplement" your spiritual needs by attending other churches, or by becoming a Buddist!

=Conclusion=
*We object to the site's characterization of the Brethren as being primarily motivated to remain in the Church due to social status, without acknowledgment or regard for their frequently expressed testimonies of the Savior and the work that they are doing.
*We reject the idea that Church leaders are unaware of elements of Church history, while Church magazines include such items.
*We reject the idea that Church leaders only claim that this is the "one true Church" as a means to encourage growth.
*We reject the idea that law of tithing is something that can be arbitrarily redefined as a matter of convenience and comfort.
*We reject the blatantly false statement that the Brethren encourage members to "supplement" their spiritual needs by looking at other religions.
There is one thing that we ''do'' agree with:
{{Epigraph|The "Middle Way of Mormonism" is not for everyone, and is definitely not likely to be sanctioned by church leaders anytime soon. —StayLDS.com}}
Indeed, we might go so far as to say that the "Middle Way of Mormonism"" will ''never'' be sanctioned by Church leaders. Christ did not teach the "middle way" to salvation or exaltation. This does ''not'' mean that we reject those who are challenged in their faith. These matters must be resolved through study and prayer. Unfortunately, the "StayLDS" web site encourages those who harbor doubts or encounter difficult issues to remain silent. This solves nothing. It does not help resolve these issues, and they will only become worse. It is implied that asking "difficult questions" will result in one being ostracized from the Church. However, we believe that questions ought to be asked and answered, and that they can be answered while strengthening the foundation of faith.

User:InProgress/Website reviews/Kitchen1

2009-07-28T18:34:40Z

PaulMcNabb: /* Website review: StayLDS.com */

__NOTOC__
=Website review: ''StayLDS.com''=
{{Epigraph|I have now served in the general councils of this Church for 45 years. I have served as an Assistant to the Twelve, as a member of the Twelve, as a Counselor in the First Presidency, and now for eight years as President. I want to give you my testimony that although I have sat in literally thousands of meetings where Church policies and programs have been discussed, I have never been in one where the guidance of the Lord was not sought nor where there was any desire on the part of anyone present to advocate or do anything which would be injurious or coercive to anyone. The book of Revelation declares: “I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. “So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth” ({{s||Revelations|3|15–16}})....This is His work. He established it. He has revealed its doctrine. He has outlined its practices. He created its government. It is His work and His kingdom, and He has said, “They who are not for me are against me” ({{s|2|Nephi|10|16}}). —Gordon B. Hinckley, “Loyalty,” Ensign, May 2003, 58}}

{{Epigraph|Even though the brethren themselves often set things up as "all or nothing," "true or false," "legitimate or a complete fraud," you do not have to slavishly bow to these blatantly false dichotomies. —The author of Staylds.com'' (<nowiki>http://staylds.com/docs/HowToStay.html</nowiki>)}}

{{Epigraph|Don't think of it as God's one and only true and perfect church while all others as abominations. If you think that way, the church will always fall short. Instead, think of it as a bunch of men (and a few women -- in terms of leadership) who are just trying their best to fulfill their callings while balancing work, family, and personal stuff -- and stumbling a great deal along the way. Don't think of its leaders as having a direct, telephone-like communication line with God. They probably don't. —The author of Staylds.com'', setting up some false dichotomies of his own. (<nowiki>http://staylds.com/docs/HowToStay.html</nowiki>)}}
{{parabreak}}

=Overview=
==FAIR's evaluation of the web site ''StayLDS.com''==
{{Epigraph|I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth. —Rev. 3: 15-16}}
{{parabreak}}

The website is a study in how to be a lukewarm member of the Church. We agree with the web site's evaluation of how some members are shaken as a result of their fundamentalist views. We do not agree with the formula presented for dealing with it.

===The "Brethren's dilemma"===
The site discusses what it calls the "the situation of LDS General Authorities," and implies that they are lying. It portrays General Authorities as remaining in the Church for the following reasons:
*The site claims that General Authorities are from multi-generational LDS families.
*The site claims that General Authorities' "social status" is inextricably tied to the "church's exclusive truthfulness."
*The site claims that General Authorities are too busy to study "controversial LDS Church history."
*They state that the Church "once made a sincere attempt at openness and full disclosure" of Church history, and then gave up because of "decreased activity and commitment."
*The site claims that General Authorities do not dispute anything taught by past Church leaders because they do not want to "erode their own basis of power and influence."
*The site casts doubt upon the Brethren's sincerity by stating "Assuming that the brethren are sincere believers in both the truthfulness of the church, and in its goodness," that they play a balancing game of member retention by deliberately avoiding tough questions.
It is significant to note that nothing in the list above credits the Brethren for being committed to the Church because they sincerely have testimonies of Jesus Christ and the work that they are performing. Consider Elder Dieter F. Uchtdorf's definition of a testimony. Elder Uchtdorf notes that,
<blockquote>
The testimony of the truthfulness of the restored gospel of Jesus Christ is ''the most powerful motivating force in our lives.'' Jesus repeatedly emphasized the power of good thoughts and proper motives: “Look unto me in every thought; doubt not, fear not” ({{s||DC|6|36}})....a testimony of the restored gospel of Jesus Christ will always include these clear and simple truths
*God lives. He is our loving Father in Heaven, and we are His children.
*Jesus Christ is the Son of the living God and the Savior of the world.
*Joseph Smith is the prophet of God through whom the gospel of Jesus Christ was restored in the latter days.
*The Book of Mormon is the word of God.
*President Gordon B. Hinckley, his counselors, and the members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles are the prophets, seers, and revelators in our day. 
—Dieter F. Uchtdorf, [http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=66900d034ceae010VgnVCM100000176f620a____&vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD “The Power of a Personal Testimony,”] ''Ensign'', Nov 2006, 37–39 {{ea}}
</blockquote>
The "Brethren's dilemma" presented by the web site completely ignores the Brethren's own stated motivations for the work that they do, and therefore implies that they are lying. Elder Uchtdorf's description of his own motivations is quite at odds with that presented by the web site.

===The Brethren have "little, if any time for deep study of controversial LDS Church history?"===
"StayLDS" believes that the General Authorities are "simply not aware" of things that ''the site's authors'' are aware of,
<blockquote>
In the end, we are quite convinced that a majority of [the General Authorities] are simply not aware of peep stones, polyandry, Adam/God theory, blood atonement, the Danites, etc. Of course they have heard these terms throughout their lives, but they would have no real impetus, and most importantly, no time to study them deeply. They are super-busy men, and in their minds, the church is true -- so why dig much deeper? —StayLDS.com
</blockquote>
Why, then, has a Church magazine taught our children that Joseph translated using a "brown rock" called a "seer stone?"
{{Epigraph|To help him with the translation, Joseph found with the gold plates “a curious instrument which the ancients called Urim and Thummim, which consisted of two transparent stones set in a rim of a bow fastened to a breastplate.” Joseph also used an egg-shaped, brown rock for translating called a seer stone. — “A Peaceful Heart,” ''Friend'', Sep 1974, 7 {{Link|url=http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=5250e07368d9b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&vgnextoid=21bc9fbee98db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD}}}}

Why did a Church magazine teach our children that there was a group of Mormons called the "Danites" who attacked non-members?
{{Epigraph|One Mormon, Sampson Avard, formed a group, called the Danites, to seek revenge on the Missourians. But when the Danites attacked the nonmembers, it only gave them more reason to distrust the Saints. —Sherrie Johnson, “Persecutions in Missouri,” ''Friend'', Jul 1993, 47 {{Link|url=http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=042555faa5cab010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&vgnextoid=21bc9fbee98db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD}}}}

Why did a Church magazine talk about the use of the "[[Blood atonement|blood atonement]]" and polygamy in early anti-Mormon fiction?
{{Epigraph|Furthermore, what people heard about the Mormons as they gossiped over the back fence or sat in the barbershop was often twisted and shaped to appeal to the popular appetite for the lurid and sensational: secret rites, priestly orders, blood atonement, polygamy, and white slavery. —Neal E. Lambert and Richard H. Cracroft, “Through Gentile Eyes: A Hundred Years of the Mormon in Fiction,” New Era, Mar 1972, 14 {{Link|url=http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=6abc18e7c379b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&vgnextoid=024644f8f206c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD}}}}

Why did a Church magazine publish Spencer W. Kimball's repudiation of the Adam-God theory?
{{Epigraph|We hope that you who teach in the various organizations, whether on the campuses or in our chapels, will always teach the orthodox truth. We warn you against the dissemination of doctrines which are not according to the scriptures and which are alleged to have been taught by some of the General Authorities of past generations. Such, for instance, is the Adam-God theory. We denounce that theory and hope that everyone will be cautioned against this and other kinds of false doctrine. —Spencer W. Kimball, “Our Own Liahona,” Ensign, Nov 1976, 77 {{Link|url=http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=5fc6fd758096b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD}}}}

In fact, the only one of the items listed that does not come up in a search on lds.org is "polyandry," yet there are plenty of references to polygamy. So why is polyandry or polygamy not a commonly discussed subject in the Church? To answer that question, we once again refer to an official ''Church'' publication:
<blockquote>
'''Teachings for Our Day'''

This book deals with teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith that have application to our day. For example, this book does not discuss such topics as the Prophet’s teachings regarding the law of consecration as applied to stewardship of property. The Lord withdrew this law from the Church because the Saints were not prepared to live it (see D&C 119, section heading). This book also does not discuss plural marriage. The doctrines and principles relating to plural marriage were revealed to Joseph Smith as early as 1831. The Prophet taught the doctrine of plural marriage, and a number of such marriages were performed during his lifetime. Over the next several decades, under the direction of the Church Presidents who succeeded Joseph Smith, a significant number of Church members entered into plural marriages. In 1890, President Wilford Woodruff issued the Manifesto, which discontinued plural marriage in the Church (see Official Declaration 1). The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints no longer practices plural marriage. —''Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith'', (2007), pages vii–xiii
</blockquote>

Yet, "StayLDS" insists that the ''General Authorities'' are "simply not aware of peep stones," the Danites, the Adam-God theory, polyandry/polygamy or "blood atonement." The leaders of the Church have apparently "heard these terms throughout their lives," yet they are assumed to be ''unaware'' of their meaning? The approach taken to this subject by the "StayLDS" website is absolutely absurd.
So, are we to believe that the Church places these things in the official ''children's'' magazine, yet those leading the Church are ''unaware of its history?
{{ReadMore|Censorship and revision of LDS history}}

===Emphasizing the church's 'one trueness' is simply "an essential component of survival?"===
According to "StayLDS"
{{Epigraph|LDS Church leaders believe that emphasizing the church's "one trueness" is an essential component of survival.... Finally, what in the heck does it mean to call a church "true"? What an odd usage of the word. To us, it's like calling a ham sandwich "true." It just doesn't mean anything. —Staylds.com}}
No, LDS Church leaders ''believe'' that this ''is'' the only true and living church of Jesus Christ. Period.
*"My testimony that this is the true Church began in my childhood. But I received a powerful, certain witness before I was eight, even before I was baptized, that I was hearing a servant of God in the true Church of Jesus Christ." (Henry B. Eyring, “The True Church,” Friend, Mar 2009, 2–3)
*"You will be given opportunities, such as through the inspired messages of this conference, to find the one and only true Church of Jesus Christ, and you will recognize that Church." (Richard G. Scott, “Happiness Now and Forever,” Ensign, Nov 1979, 70)
*"The position that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the only true church upon the face of the earth is fundamental." (Boyd K. Packer, “The Only True and Living Church,” Ensign, Dec 1971, 40)
*"My intent is to assert with testimony and persuasion of scripture the reasons there can be only one Lord, one acceptable faith, one baptism, and one true church." (Delbert L. Stapley, “What Constitutes the True Church,” Ensign, May 1977, 21)
*"I testify to you that the Father and the Son appeared to Joseph Smith, and that he thereafter received revelations, powers, and keys, and was commanded to organize again on earth the Lord’s one true church." (Joseph Fielding Smith, “A Call to Serve,” New Era, Nov 1971, 5)
*"And so we have to be sure and prepare ourselves and know that we have found that one and only true church that Paul spoke about." (LeGrand Richards, “One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism,” Ensign, May 1975, 95)
There is simply no ambiguity here. The leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints most firmly believe and teach that it is the ''one true Church of Jesus Christ''. We teach this. We believe this. It does not mean that we ought to disrespect others' beliefs, but we believe in the uniqueness of the Church nonetheless. This will not evolve or change in the future—it is a fundamental concept upon which the Church is built.

===The "buffet Mormon"===
The web site encourages members to choose which Church teachings they wish to accept and reject the rest. Take, for example, the way the site redefines the law of tithing,
{{Epigraph|[I]f you're not comfortable giving 10%, consider giving 5%. If you can't muster 5%, give what you feel the church is worth to you in your life. And if you do drop your tithing to 5% or 1%, we strongly recommend (from experience) that you continue trying to obeying the law, and instead divert the other X% to really worthwhile charitable organizations. There are lots of good causes out there: cleft palate repair, children with AIDS, homeless shelters, the Red Cross, environmental movements, NPR and PBS, or other forums, publications, or programs that are important to your spiritual development. The LDS Church Humanitarian fund and the Perpetual Education Fund also seem like very worthwhile places to contribute, if you are comfortable doing so. So while we're not in any way encouraging a decrease in tithing to the church, we are all big believers in the law of the tithe, and are quite confident that "God" will appreciate any contribution you make to any organization that seeks to relieve suffering. We're also relatively sure that the church would warmly accept 5% rather than 0% (if it comes to this). —StayLDS.com}}

So, essentially, we are told that a full and honest tithe—what we are asked if we are paying during the temple recommend interview—is apparently so undefined that we don't ''really'' need to pay all 10% to the Church! Instead, just about anything goes, including, oddly enough, diverting tithing to the Church's own Humanitarian Fund! Finally, we are told that the Church will "warmly" accept our money regardless of how much we actually decide to contribute. As far as "StayLDS" is concerned, any spiritual element to tithing has been removed—it is simply a matter of paying money to an organization.

The General Authorities have a more direct approach:
*"Tithing is so simple and straightforward a thing. Tithing is paid by faith more than it is by money." (Gordon B. Hinckley, “The Sacred Law of Tithing,” Ensign, Dec 1989, 2)
*"If you are one who has doubted the blessings of tithing, I encourage you to accept the Lord’s invitation to “prove [Him] now herewith.” Pay your tithing." (Robert D. Hales, “Tithing: A Test of Faith with Eternal Blessings,” Liahona, Nov 2002, 26–29)
*"If I did not pay my tithing, I should expect the Lord to withhold His blessings from me. I pay my tithing, not only because it is a law of God, but because I expect a blessing by doing it." (Jeffrey R. Holland, “‘Like a Watered Garden’,” Liahona, Jan 2002, 37–39)
So once again, where "StayLDS" advocates ambiguity, the Brethren show no ambiguity whatsoever.

==="Shelving" or "tossing" the "bad doctrine"===
{{Epigraph|Anyone who has studied LDS Church history will confirm that lots of things that were considered hard, unchangeable doctrine have been completely wiped from the books (e.g., polygamy as a requirement for salvation, blacks as less valiant in the pre-mortal existence, dynastic sealings, multiple baptisms, Adam-God theory, Native Americans as descendants of Lamanites, etc.). So if you don't like a doctrine, just wait a while. Like the weather, it has a good probability of changing anyway (at least over time). —StayLDS.com}}
The purpose of having a living prophet is to direct the Church ''for our time''. In some cases, such as the Adam-God theory, Church leaders ''already'' "shelved" or "tossed" what the web site refers to as "bad doctrine." Do we reject the teachings of Christ because He ended and fulfilled the Law of Moses? We address the specific points mentioned in separate articles:
*[[The only men who become gods are those that practice polygamy?|Polygamy as a requirement for salvation?]]
*[[Blacks and the priesthood/Pre-existence|Blacks portrayed as "less valiant" in the pre-mortal existence?]]
*[[Joseph Smith and polygamy/Marriages to young women|Dynastic sealings to young women]]
*[[Mormon Reformation|Multiple baptisms or rebaptism during the "Mormon reformation"]]
*[[Adam-God|Adam-God theory]]
*[[Amerindians as Lamanites|Native Americans as descendants of Lamanites]]

===Teaching your children that you go to Church simply because you "like it"===
{{Epigraph|We feel it's as good a place as any to seek out spirituality and community. —StayLDS.org}}
If you plan to teach your children that you are a Latter-day Saint because it is "as good a place as any" to have a good social environment, then expect your children to go their separate ways when they are adults.

===Looking elsewhere?===
{{Epigraph|If you are not feeling spiritually filled by your affiliation with the LDS Church, do not hesitate to supplement with other sources. I know many, many active LDS Church members who look to other faith traditions to supplement their spiritual needs. Some look to other Christian denominations or Buddhism to fill a void. Best of all, this approach is even encouraged by LDS scripture, LDS doctrine, and both historical and contemporary comments by LDS General Authorities (references available upon request). StayLDS.com}}
No, the scriptures and LDS General Authorities ''do not'' encourage you to "supplement" your spiritual needs by attending other churches, or by becoming a Buddist!

=Conclusion=
*We object to the site's characterization of the Brethren as being primarily motivated to remain in the Church due to social status, without acknowledgment or regard for their frequently expressed testimonies of the Savior and the work that they are doing.
*We reject the idea that Church leaders are unaware of elements of Church history, while Church magazines include such items.
*We reject the idea that Church leaders only claim that this is the "one true Church" as a means to encourage growth.
*We reject the idea that law of tithing is something that can be arbitrarily redefined as a matter of convenience and comfort.
*We reject the blatantly false statement that the Brethren encourage members to "supplement" their spiritual needs by looking at other religions.
There is one thing that we ''do'' agree with:
{{Epigraph|The "Middle Way of Mormonism" is not for everyone, and is definitely not likely to be sanctioned by church leaders anytime soon. —StayLDS.com}}
Indeed, we might go so far as to say that the "Middle Way of Mormonism"" will ''never'' be sanctioned by Church leaders. Christ did not teach the "middle way" to salvation or exaltation. This does ''not'' mean that we reject those who are challenged in their faith. These matters must be resolved through study and prayer. Unfortunately, the "StayLDS" web site encourages those who harbor doubts or encounter difficult issues to remain silent. This solves nothing. It does not help resolve these issues, and they will only become worse. It is implied that asking "difficult questions" will result in one being ostracized from the Church. However, we believe that questions ought to be asked and answered, and that they can be answered while strengthening the foundation of faith.

Question: In Mormonism, how do I know when I should confess a sin to my bishop?

2009-07-27T19:47:27Z

PaulMcNabb: /* Conclusion */

{{draft}} 
{{question}}

==Question==

I understand that some sins need to be discussed with my bishop, and other sins can be resolved on my own with the Lord. How do I know when I should talk to my bishop?

==Answer==

Bishops are set apart as judges in Israel, and as such they have the responsibility to administer that portion of the kingdom of God within
their stewardship. Bishops are responsible for discerning and judging regarding member worthiness to partake of priesthood ordinances (such as
baptism, sacrament, priesthood ordination, and temple ordinances) and to serve in the Church. In their capacities as judge in Israel and
presiding high priest they also minister to people who are struggling with sin and other issues. Bishops also aid members who find themselves in a circumstance in which they may have difficulty being guided by the Holy Ghost (e.g., after serious sin).

Bishops do not forgive sins or absolve the sinner in the eternal sense—that is an issue for the Savior. However, if a person is unwilling to confess sins to his or her bishop, who is Christ's authorized representative charged with such things, then the person is probably drifting somewhat away from Christ, which could itself have eternal ramifications.

You need to talk to your bishop about any issue that would affect your worthiness to participate in priesthood ordinances or to serve in the
Church. You should talk to the bishop if you need special counsel about problems, concerns, and questions in your life. It is probably wise to conclude that if you are wondering about whether or not you need to talk to your bishop, then it is probably a good idea to do so, even if the result is nothing more than a better understanding of your bishop's role and closer relationship to him.

No one—including FAIR—should be permitted to usurp the bishop's role, since he holds the keys to such matters for the members of his ward.

==Sins to confess==
The list below is not exhaustive, but prophets and apostles have consistently taught that any difficulty listed below should be discussed with our bishop:

* criminal activity
* adultery, fornication, or other violations of the law of chastity
* homosexual behavior
* encouraging, performing, paying for, or submitting to an abortion
* use of pornography
* violation of the Word of Wisdom: use of coffee, tea, alcohol, tobacco, street drugs, or the misuse or abuse of prescription medications
* violence, abuse, neglect, or mistreatment of family members
* failure to comply with court-mandated child-support payments
* failure to pay an honest tithing

==Other items to discuss==

In addition, some non-sin issues should be brought to the bishop's attention:
* those struggling with the ''consequences'' of other people's sins (e.g., those who have been sexually abused).
* those who need help from Church Welfare (e.g., bishop's storehouse)
* those wishing to serve a mission
* those wishing to receive the priesthood
* those wishing to be endowed or sealed in the temple

==Conclusion==
When in doubt, it is wisest to make an appointment to discuss any matters of concern with our bishop. He is best situated to give inspired guidance about what issues need addressed in each member's specific case.

==Further reading==
{{nw}}

Question: In Mormonism, how do I know when I should confess a sin to my bishop?

2009-07-27T19:42:59Z

PaulMcNabb: /* Answer */

{{draft}} 
{{question}}

==Question==

I understand that some sins need to be discussed with my bishop, and other sins can be resolved on my own with the Lord. How do I know when I should talk to my bishop?

==Answer==

Bishops are set apart as judges in Israel, and as such they have the responsibility to administer that portion of the kingdom of God within
their stewardship. Bishops are responsible for discerning and judging regarding member worthiness to partake of priesthood ordinances (such as
baptism, sacrament, priesthood ordination, and temple ordinances) and to serve in the Church. In their capacities as judge in Israel and
presiding high priest they also minister to people who are struggling with sin and other issues. Bishops also aid members who find themselves in a circumstance in which they may have difficulty being guided by the Holy Ghost (e.g., after serious sin).

Bishops do not forgive sins or absolve the sinner in the eternal sense—that is an issue for the Savior. However, if a person is unwilling to confess sins to his or her bishop, who is Christ's authorized representative charged with such things, then the person is probably drifting somewhat away from Christ, which could itself have eternal ramifications.

You need to talk to your bishop about any issue that would affect your worthiness to participate in priesthood ordinances or to serve in the
Church. You should talk to the bishop if you need special counsel about problems, concerns, and questions in your life. It is probably wise to conclude that if you are wondering about whether or not you need to talk to your bishop, then it is probably a good idea to do so, even if the result is nothing more than a better understanding of your bishop's role and closer relationship to him.

No one—including FAIR—should be permitted to usurp the bishop's role, since he holds the keys to such matters for the members of his ward.

==Sins to confess==
The list below is not exhaustive, but prophets and apostles have consistently taught that any difficulty listed below should be discussed with our bishop:

* criminal activity
* adultery, fornication, or other violations of the law of chastity
* homosexual behavior
* encouraging, performing, paying for, or submitting to an abortion
* use of pornography
* violation of the Word of Wisdom: use of coffee, tea, alcohol, tobacco, street drugs, or the misuse or abuse of prescription medications
* violence, abuse, neglect, or mistreatment of family members
* failure to comply with court-mandated child-support payments
* failure to pay an honest tithing

==Other items to discuss==

In addition, some non-sin issues should be brought to the bishop's attention:
* those struggling with the ''consequences'' of other people's sins (e.g., those who have been sexually abused).
* those who need help from Church Welfare (e.g., bishop's storehouse)
* those wishing to serve a mission
* those wishing to receive the priesthood
* those wishing to be endowed or sealed in the temple

==Conclusion==
When it doubt, it is wisest to make an appointment to discuss any matters of concern with our bishop. He is best situated to give inspired guidance about what issues need addressed in each member's specific case.

==Further reading==
{{nw}}

Question: In Mormonism, how do I know when I should confess a sin to my bishop?

2009-07-27T02:19:02Z

PaulMcNabb: /* Answer */

{{draft}} 
{{question}}

==Question==

I understand that some sins need to be discussed with my bishop, and other sins can be resolved on my own with the Lord. How do I know when I should talk to my bishop?

==Answer==

Bishops are set apart as judges in Israel, and as such they have the responsibility to administer that portion of the kingdom of God within
their stewardship. Bishops are responsible for discerning and judging regarding member worthiness to partake of priesthood ordinances (such as
baptism, sacrament, priesthood ordination, and temple ordinances) and for serving in the Church. In their capacities as judge in Israel and
presiding high priest they also minister to people who are struggling with sin and other issues. Bishops also aid members who find themselves in a circumstance in which they may have difficulty being guided by the Holy Ghost (e.g., after serious sin).

Bishops do not forgive sins or absolve the sinner in the eternal sense—that is an issue for the Savior. However, if a person is unwilling to confess sins to his or her bishop, who is Christ's authorized representative charged with such things, then the person is probably drifting somewhat away from Christ, which could itself have eternal ramifications.

You need to talk to your bishop about any issue that would affect your worthiness to participate in priesthood ordinances or to serve in the
Church. You should talk to the bishop if you need special counsel about problems, concerns, and questions in your life. It is probably wise to conclude that if you are wondering about whether or not you need to talk to your bishop, then it is probably a good idea to do so, even if the result is nothing more than a better understanding of your bishop's role and closer relationship to him.

No one—including FAIR—should be permitted to usurp the bishop's role, since he holds the keys to such matters for the members of his ward.

==Sins to confess==
The list below is not exhaustive, but prophets and apostles have consistently taught that any difficulty listed below should be discussed with our bishop:

* criminal activity
* adultery, fornication, or other violations of the law of chastity
* homosexual behavior
* encouraging, performing, paying for, or submitting to an abortion
* use of pornography
* violation of the Word of Wisdom: use of coffee, tea, alcohol, tobacco, street drugs, or the misuse or abuse of prescription medications
* violence, abuse, neglect, or mistreatment of family members
* failure to comply with court-mandated child-support payments
* failure to pay an honest tithing

==Other items to discuss==

In addition, some non-sin issues should be brought to the bishop's attention:
* those struggling with the ''consequences'' of other people's sins (e.g., those who have been sexually abused).
* those who need help from Church Welfare (e.g., bishop's storehouse)
* those wishing to serve a mission
* those wishing to receive the priesthood
* those wishing to be endowed or sealed in the temple

==Conclusion==
When it doubt, it is wisest to make an appointment to discuss any matters of concern with our bishop. He is best situated to give inspired guidance about what issues need addressed in each member's specific case.

==Further reading==
{{nw}}

Question: In Mormonism, how do I know when I should confess a sin to my bishop?

2009-07-27T00:44:26Z

PaulMcNabb: /* Answer */

{{draft}} 
{{question}}

==Question==

I understand that some sins need to be discussed with my bishop, and other sins can be resolved on my own with the Lord. How do I know when I should talk to my bishop?

==Answer==

Bishops are set apart as judges in Israel, and as such they have the responsibility to administer that portion of the kingdom of God within
their stewardship. Bishops are responsible for discerning and judging regarding member worthiness to partake of priesthood ordinances (such as
baptism, sacrament, priesthood ordination, and temple ordinances) and for serving in the Church. In their capacities as judge in Israel and
presiding high priest they also minister to people who are struggling with sin and other issues. Bishops also aid members who find themselves in a circumstance in which they may have difficulty being guided by the Holy Ghost (e.g., after serious sin).

Bishops do not forgive sins or absolve the sinner in the eternal sense---that is an issue for the Savior. However, if a person is unwilling to confess sins to his or her bishop, who is Christ's authorized representative charged with such things, then the person is probably drifting somewhat away from Christ, which could itself have eternal ramifications.

You need to talk to your bishop about any issue that would affect your worthiness to participate in priesthood ordinances or to serve in the
Church. You should talk to the bishop if you need special counsel about problems, concerns, and questions in your life. It is probably wise to conclude that if you are wondering about whether or not you need to talk to your bishop, then it is probably a good idea to do so, even if the result is nothing more than a better understanding of your bishop's role and closer relationship to him.

No one—including FAIR—should be permitted to usurp the bishop's role, since he holds the keys to such matters for the members of his ward.

==Sins to confess==
The list below is not exhaustive, but prophets and apostles have consistently taught that any difficulty listed below should be discussed with our bishop:

* criminal activity
* adultery, fornication, or other violations of the law of chastity
* homosexual behavior
* encouraging, performing, paying for, or submitting to an abortion
* use of pornography
* violation of the Word of Wisdom: use of coffee, tea, alcohol, tobacco, street drugs, or the misuse or abuse of prescription medications
* violence, abuse, neglect, or mistreatment of family members
* failure to comply with court-mandated child-support payments
* failure to pay an honest tithing

==Other items to discuss==

In addition, some non-sin issues should be brought to the bishop's attention:
* those struggling with the ''consequences'' of other people's sins (e.g., those who have been sexually abused).
* those who need help from Church Welfare (e.g., bishop's storehouse)
* those wishing to serve a mission
* those wishing to receive the priesthood
* those wishing to be endowed or sealed in the temple

==Conclusion==
When it doubt, it is wisest to make an appointment to discuss any matters of concern with our bishop. He is best situated to give inspired guidance about what issues need addressed in each member's specific case.

==Further reading==
{{nw}}

Question: In Mormonism, how do I know when I should confess a sin to my bishop?

2009-07-27T00:40:39Z

PaulMcNabb: /* Answer */

{{draft}} 
{{question}}

==Question==

I understand that some sins need to be discussed with my bishop, and other sins can be resolved on my own with the Lord. How do I know when I should talk to my bishop?

==Answer==

Bishops are set apart as judges in Israel, and as such they have the responsibility to administer that portion of the kingdom of God within
their stewardship. Bishops are responsible for discerning and judging regarding member worthiness to partake of priesthood ordinances (such as
baptism, sacrament, priesthood ordination, and temple ordinances) and for serving in the Church. In their capacities as judge in Israel and
presiding high priest they also minister to people who are struggling with sin and other issues.

Bishops do not forgive sins or absolve the sinner in the eternal sense---that is an issue for the Savior. However, if a person is unwilling to confess sins to his or her bishop, who is Christ's authorized representative charged with such things, then the person is probably drifting somewhat away from Christ, which could itself have eternal ramifications. Bishops also aid members who find themselves in a circumstance in which they may have difficulty being guided by the Holy Ghost (e.g., after serious sin).

You need to talk to your bishop about any issue that would affect your worthiness to participate in priesthood ordinances or to serve in the
Church. You should talk to the bishop if you need special counsel about problems, concerns, and questions in your life. It is probably wise to conclude that if you are wondering about whether or not you need to talk to your bishop, then it is probably a good idea to do so, even if the result is nothing more than a better understanding of your bishop's role and closer relationship to him.

No one—including FAIR—should be permitted to usurp the bishop's role, since he holds the keys to such matters for the members of his ward.

==Sins to confess==
The list below is not exhaustive, but prophets and apostles have consistently taught that any difficulty listed below should be discussed with our bishop:

* criminal activity
* adultery, fornication, or other violations of the law of chastity
* homosexual behavior
* encouraging, performing, paying for, or submitting to an abortion
* use of pornography
* violation of the Word of Wisdom: use of coffee, tea, alcohol, tobacco, street drugs, or the misuse or abuse of prescription medications
* violence, abuse, neglect, or mistreatment of family members
* failure to comply with court-mandated child-support payments
* failure to pay an honest tithing

==Other items to discuss==

In addition, some non-sin issues should be brought to the bishop's attention:
* those struggling with the ''consequences'' of other people's sins (e.g., those who have been sexually abused).
* those who need help from Church Welfare (e.g., bishop's storehouse)
* those wishing to serve a mission
* those wishing to receive the priesthood
* those wishing to be endowed or sealed in the temple

==Conclusion==
When it doubt, it is wisest to make an appointment to discuss any matters of concern with our bishop. He is best situated to give inspired guidance about what issues need addressed in each member's specific case.

==Further reading==
{{nw}}

Criticism of Mormonism/Criticism of "17 Points of the True Church"

2009-06-29T17:43:45Z

PaulMcNabb: /* Answer */

{{question}}

==Question==
'''''Someone wrote the FAIR Ask the Apologist service saying:'''''

:"My question is about that fellow who wrote the "17 Points of the True Church" and the validity of his story. I stumbled into a web site that talked about a particular fireside this man gave where someone approached him on the truth of his story. Afterwards the man was told by a stake president that he must confess that he lied because he had been essentially "found out," and that many details of his story were fabricated.

:My testimony is in no way based on the "17 Points," and I feel that it is overused and overemphasized within the Church, but regardless, I would like to know about the information claiming that his story his false."

==Answer==
The person responsible for the "17 Points of the True Church" is a man named Floyd Weston.

An ex-Mormon critic of the Church has claimed that Weston fabricated the details of how the "17 Points" were created. For example, Weston claims to have developed the list when he was a student at Cal Tech, and that during this time Albert Einstein visited the school. The critic has charged that Weston was actually at Cal Tech several years too late to see Einstein's visit. All of this is based on an email to the critic from an anonymous person who claims to know someone who knew Weston. So, the source is anonymous and almost impossible to verify. Anyone with further verifiable information is invited to [http://www.fairlds.org/contact.php contact FAIR].

What this has to do with the validity of Weston's "17 Points" is not entirely clear, but it seems that the critic is attempting to discredit Weston's list (and, by implication, the Church) by discrediting Weston himself. This would be a form of the [[Logical_fallacies#ad_hominem_abusive|''ad hominem'']] fallacy.

The assumptions underlying the "17 points" are highly dependent upon a worldview widely assumed by Utah Mormons, but which rarely reflects the situation of those who are not members of the LDS Church: the idea that there is "one true church" and that people will accept the LDS faith once they are logically convinced that it "matches" the New Testament Church in salient ways. In reality, these concepts are totally foreign to the worldview of most non-Mormons and depend a great deal on the assumptions which one brings to such an analysis.

"17 Points" is thus a resource that may be interesting to Latter-day Saints in examining the scriptural basis for certain features of the modern Church, but it is one that has relatively little value or relevance to the missionary effort unless the non-member already shares many aspects of the LDS world-view. Most non-members are likely more effectively approached about the gospel in entirely different ways, and following the Church's emphasis on such things as the mission of Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon are more likely to be effective missionary tools.

==Conclusion==

It makes little difference for the Church if Weston made up his story. (Though lying to defend the Church is not excusable.) The truth or falsity of Weston's personal history has no bearing whatsoever on the truth of the restored gospel.

Additionally, the "17 Points" may be used by certain individual members of the Church, but they have not been used in any official Church publications or adopted by the Church in any other way. The claims of the restored gospel stand independent of Weston's list.


==Further reading==

===External links===
*The 17 Points of the True Church (not associated with FAIR). {{link|url=http://www.keepright.net/17points.htm}}
*Some non English versions of the list (not associated with FAIR). {{link|url=http://cumorah.com/index.php?target=non_eng_res_links&ne_sec_id=31}}

[[de:17_Punkte_der_wahren_Kirche]]

Criticism of Mormonism/Books/One Nation Under Gods/Use of sources/Double standard on race

2009-01-19T14:50:14Z

PaulMcNabb: /* Historical Ignorance, or Race-baiting? */

__NOTOC__
{{FAIRAnalysisHeader
|title=[[../../]]
|author=Richard Abanes
|noauthor=
|section=[[../../Use of sources|Use of sources]], Chapter 16: "Mormon Racism" (pp. 355-372)
|previous=[[../Joseph F. Smith finally admits|Joseph F. Smith finally admits]]
|next=[[../Mormon Doctrine and race issues|McConkie's ''Mormon Doctrine'' and race issues]]
|notes={{AuthorsDisclaimer}}
}}
=The Church of Jesus Christ, its leaders, and theology are racist?=

==The Problem==
The author spends an entire chapter berating the LDS on the issue of race and either misrepresenting or misunderstanding LDS teachings on this matter. LDS views and sources are portrayed in the most hostile, prejudicial light possible.

Several chapters later, however, the author admits:

:Of course, when any religion or denomination is tainted by the stain of racism, it always leaves future members in a very awkward position. And to be fair, Mormonism is not alone in this predicament. A number of Christian denominations (e.g. the Southern Baptists) have had to work very hard at racial reconciliation, often using public declarations to repudiate past racist statements by leaders.

Unfortunately, this admission is only in the "[[One_Nation_Under_Gods/Index/Postscript|Postscript]]," and is not found in the hardcover edition of ONUG. This perspective is nowhere to be found in [[One_Nation_Under_Gods/Index/Chapter_16|Chapter 16]]. This concession thus provides the illusion of fairmindedness, while actually providing little context or balance to the book's portrayal of members of the Church of Jesus Christ and their beliefs.

Furthermore, the author ignores the fact that leaders of the LDS Church have ''also'' repudiated many past remarks by previous leaders. His statement leaves the impression that the Southern Baptists ''have'' done so, while leaders of the LDS Church ''have not''.
*'''''See:''''':
**[[Blacks_and_the_priesthood/Repudiated_ideas|Repudiated ideas]]
**[[Blacks_and_the_priesthood/Understanding_pre-1978_statements|Pre-1978 statements]]
**[[Racist_statements_by_Church_leaders|Racist statements by Church leaders?]]

The author of ONUG even goes so far as to quote Bruce R. McConkie's ''Mormon Doctrine'' without telling readers that this apostle published a revised version of his book, and repudiated some of his own remarks.
*'''''See:''''':
**[[One_Nation_Under_Gods/Use_of_sources/Mormon_Doctrine_and_race_issues|Use of sources: ''Mormon Doctrine'' and race issues]]

==Double standard==

Perhaps the double standard being applied to the LDS Church would be better understood if the author's complaint—that the Church has "underlying white supremacist beliefs," (353) and so they didn't support the Civil Rights movement (364)—is placed next to the image of Ferrell Griswold, pastor of the Minor Heights Baptist Church, addressing Klan supporters as Birmingham public schools began their first week of desegregation in 1963.{{ref|fn.9}} Would the author really have the reader believe there were no Christian leaders among those who refused blacks their basic civil liberties and denied them entrance to their churches, schools, civic centers, and voting booths? What were other high profile white religious leaders saying and doing to give blacks basic rights, let alone positions of leadership within their own churches? Two scholars have outlined how white leaders left the battle for civil rights to the black churches.

:In response to King's famous "I Have a Dream" speech that his children might one day play together with white children, [Billy] Graham, who had been invited but did not attend the 1963 March on Washington, said: "Only when Christ comes again will little white children of Alabama walk hand in hand with little black children." This was not meant to be harsh, but rather what he and most white evangelicals perceived to be realistic.{{ref|fn.10}}

Three years later on October 9, 1966, Martin Luther King gave his "The Pharisee and Publican" sermon to the Ebenezer Baptist Church in which he said:

:So often Negroes in Mississippi and Alabama and Georgia and other places have been taken to that tree that bears strange fruit. And do you know that the folk lynching them are often big deacons in the Baptist churches and stewards in the Methodist churches feeling that by killing and murdering and lynching another human being they are doing the will of Almighty God? The most vicious oppressors of the Negro today are probably in church.{{ref|fn.11}}

It is easy to look at the worst in one another, as ONUG has chosen to do. There are enough quotes indicting every religious tradition to make any thoughtful person cringe. There are also well-researched, honest, and informative books and articles available from scholars on every aspect of race and religion. So one must ask, why does the author of ONUG persist in this course of action? What purpose does it serve?

ONUG's barrage of the most negative and obscure data that can be mustered against the Latter-day Saints might lead one to conclude that all other Christian churches were fully integrated with all races participating in leadership positions in 1963, or even in 1978 when blacks were given the priesthood by the LDS Church. The following quotes from varied and respected sources are provided so that the reader has the appropriate historical context. They are not meant in any way to criticize other churches who are working so diligently to close the racial divide.

* Virtually all Protestant denominations have separate Negro churches, and thus the areas of association for religious purposes have been very small.{{ref|fn.12}}

*By the 1830's most southern evangelicals had thoroughly repudiated a heritage that valued blacks as fellow church members.{{ref|fn.13}}

*The black Methodist church, created not from a desire to be separate but from a desire to worship without discrimination at the hands of white brethren, was to become the most enduring legacy of Methodism's refusal to accord the black communicant all of the rights and privileges of membership in the body of Christ.{{ref|fn.14}}

*After the [Civil] war the southern churches, continuing the legacy of slavery, were among the first institutions to call for the separation of the races; by the twentieth century they had become bastions of segregation. With no desire to intrude into places where they were not welcome, most black Southerners were more comfortable in their own congregations.{{ref|fn.15}}

*By November 1968 a survey research by the Home Mission Board revealed that only eleven percent of Southern Baptist churches would admit African-Americans.{{ref|fn.16}}

*The most extensive research on integration was undertaken jointly by the United Lutherans, Congregational Christians, and Presbyterians (U.S.A.). They found that 1,331 out of 13,597 predominantly white churches have nonwhite members or attenders. That is just short of 10 per cent.{{ref|fn.17}}

*Still in 1964, no more than 10 per cent of the white Protestant congregations had Negroes worshiping with them. Even these 10 per cent had only a few members or occasional attenders, so that throughout the US probably no more than 1 per cent of all Negroes worshiped in integrated congregations on Sunday mornings.{{ref|fn.18}}

*According to the 1998 National Congregations Study, about 90 percent of American congregations are made up at least 90 percent of people of the same race.{{ref|fn.19}}

*About eighty percent of all black Christians are in seven major denominations.{{ref|fn.20}}

*In 1977, the American Baptist Churches in the USA had a larger number of blacks than any other non-black denomination… An interesting irony of the racial overtones still prevalent is that the American Baptist Churches of the South are now predominately a black sub-convention of the American Baptist Churches in the USA. There has been little white involvement since the influx of black Baptists.{{ref|fn.21}}

These statistics readily bring to mind the biblical teaching about the mote and the beam (see Matthew 7:3-4).

==Historical Ignorance, or Race-baiting?==

The author of ONUG seems to delight in recounting LDS leaders' ideas about skin color and the "curse of Cain." For the benefit of the reader we will here provide a few references from the widely available literature on the origins of this unfortunate concept:

:This interpretation of Noah's curse was no southern invention; indeed, it had been in circulation long before the discovery of America. Even so, it proved especially useful to white masters of the South because they had been put on the defensive by the powerful emancipationist movement.{{ref|fn.23}}

:The story of Noah's Curse was so ingrained into the orthodox Protestant mind that it was sometimes invoked far from the pulpit. Speaking before the Mississippi Democratic State Convention in 1859, none other than Jefferson Davis defended chattel slavery and the foreign slave trade by alluding to the "importation of the race of Ham" as a fulfillment of its destiny to be "servant of servants."{{ref|fn.24}}

Once again, the reader is left to wonder whether the author of ONUG is ignorant of the history of race theory, anthropology, and the centuries-old Christian use of the Bible to justify slavery or if he is simply race-baiting. The distinct lack of material that would reflect positively on Mormons, and the pronounced use of outdated quotations, is something that calls for serious consideration. The author draws upon little-known "Mormon" writers instead of using authoritative sources that the Saints recognize as accurately representing their beliefs. Modern Church practice and teachings are conspicuously lacking and context is not sufficiently considered. Thus, ONUG attempts to use Joseph Smith's racist-sounding quote about "confining" "the negro" "to his own species," as an indictment against the modern Church. Yet, ONUG fails to tell us everything else that Joseph Smith said on this subject that was progressive, and even radical, for its time (see [[One_Nation_Under_Gods/Notable_omissions#355|Notable omissions, p. 355]]).

Another example of problematic usage of LDS material on this issue is when Brigham Young is represented as describing inter-racial marriage as "one of the most heinous of deeds" (361). Yet, ONUG fails to acknowledge that there ''was'' no inter-racial marriage at the time and in the place where the comment was made. And any sexual relations with someone of African descent usually happened in a context of rape (see: [[Brigham_Young_on_race_mixing]]).

Here is one portion of the same sermon that the author neglects to show his readers:

:If the Government of the United States, in Congress assembled, had the right to pass an anti-polygamy bill, they had also the right to pass a law that slaves should not be abused as they have been; they had also a right to make a law that negroes should be used like human beings, and not worse than dumb brutes. For their abuse of that race, the whites will be cursed, unless they repent.{{ref|fn.27}}

Compare this to the views of the founder of American evangelicalism, George Whitefield, who "urged kinder treatment of slaves, but noted that cruelty can have the positive effect of heightening 'the sense of their natural misery,' thereby increasing receptivity to the Christian message."{{ref|fn.28}} Or the stories of "Christian slaveholders, including clergymen, 'brutalizing their slaves' which 'abound in the narratives of former slaves.'"{{ref|fn.29}}

==Conclusion==

Racism has become one of the most strident and damaging accusations that can be leveled in our society, and as such has become a useful weapon for those who wish to harm an organization or individual. As Southern Baptists know, "Few chapters in American religious history prove as embarrassing as the response of the American churches to the issue of race."{{ref|fn.39}} ONUG is obviously hoping its target audience will not notice that Latter-day Saints have always had integrated churches while Protestant churches struggle with the residual division brought about by their own prolonged discrimination against, or outright expulsion of, black members. Emerson and Smith assess the problem in the following manner:

:Our examination of a variety of data and consideration of a variety of levels of social influence suggest that many race issues that white evangelicals want to see solved are generated in part by the way they themselves do religion, interpret their world, and live their own lives. These factors range from the ways evangelicals and others organize into internally similar congregations, and the segregation and inequality such congregations help produce; to theologically rooted evangelical cultural tools, which tend to (1) minimize and individualize the race problem, (2) assign blame to blacks themselves for racial inequality, (3) obscure inequality as part of racial division, and (4) suggest uni-dimensional solutions to racial division.{{ref|fn.40}}

Latter-day Saints are, of course, not immune from the same human foibles. We, like all Christians, might wish that we had played a larger role in correcting social injustices. We must all look at our past and learn from it. But for the here and now, the LDS do have a decided advantage in our centralized leadership and our historical practice of maintaining congregations based on geographical boundaries rather than on personal preference or race. Our members have never traveled past a white or black church to get to their own. We cannot fire ministers who do not succumb to the wishes of a congregation to remain racially segregated. Yet, we join all concerned followers of Christ in acknowledging that we have work ahead of us in putting aside differences accumulated through centuries of misunderstanding and intolerance.

==Endnotes==
#{{note|fn.9}} Andrew M. Manis, "'Dying From the Neck Up:' Southern Baptist Resistance to the Civil Rights Movement," ''Baptist History and Heritage'' (Winter 1999), 41.
#{{note|fn.10}} Richard O. Emerson and Christian Smith, ''Divided by Faith: Evangelical Religion and the Problem of Race in America'' (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000), 47.
#{{note|fn.11}} Marty Bell, "Fire in My Bones: The Prophetic Preaching of Martin Luther King, Jr.," ''Baptist History and Heritage'' (Winter 1999), 13.
#{{note|fn.12}} Thomas F. Gossett, ''Race: The History of An Idea in America'' (New York: Oxford University Press, 1963), 447.
#{{note|fn.13}} Nathan O. Hatch, ''The Democratization of American Christianity'' (New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press, 1989), 107.
#{{note|fn.14}} Forrest G. Wood, ''The Arrogance of Faith: Christianity and Race in America from the Colonial Era to the Twentieth Century'' (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1990), 318.
#{{note|fn.15}} ''Ibid''., 293.
#{{note|fn.16}} Dana Martin, "The American Baptist Convention and the Civil Rights Movement: Rhetoric and Response," ''Baptist History and Heritage'' (Winter 1999), 44.
#{{note|fn.17}} Robert Root, ''Progress Against Prejudice: The Church Confronts the Race Problem'' (New York: Friendship Press, 1957), 59.
#{{note|fn.18}} J.C. Hough, ''Black Power and White Protestants: A Christian Response to the New Negro Pluralism'' (New York: Oxford University Press, 1968), 177.
#{{note|fn.19}} Emerson and Smith, ''Divided by Faith'', 136.
#{{note|fn.20}} Gregory E. Thomas, "Black and Baptist in the Bay State," ''American Baptist Quarterly'' (March, 2002), 68.
#{{note|fn.21}} ''Ibid''., 68-69.
#{{note|fn.23}} H. Shelton Smith, ''In His Image, But… Racism in Southern Religion, 1780-1910'' (Durham, North Carolina: Duke University Press, 1972), 131.
#{{note|fn.24}} Wood, ''The Arrogance of Faith'', 107.
#{{note|fn.27}} Brigham Young, "The Persecutions of the Saints, Etc.," 111.
#{{note|fn.28}} Emerson and Smith, ''Divided by Faith'', 26.
#{{note|fn.29}} Albert J. Raboteau, ''Slave Religion: The "Invisible Institution" in the Antebellum South'' (New York: Oxford University Press, 1978), 167.
#{{note|fn.39}} Manis, "'Dying From the Neck Up'," 33.
#{{note|fn.40}} Emerson and Smith, ''Divided by Faith'', 170.

=Further reading=
{{FAIRAnalysisWiki}}

Criticism of Mormonism/Books/One Nation Under Gods/Use of sources/Double standard on race

2009-01-19T14:47:21Z

PaulMcNabb: /* Double standard */

__NOTOC__
{{FAIRAnalysisHeader
|title=[[../../]]
|author=Richard Abanes
|noauthor=
|section=[[../../Use of sources|Use of sources]], Chapter 16: "Mormon Racism" (pp. 355-372)
|previous=[[../Joseph F. Smith finally admits|Joseph F. Smith finally admits]]
|next=[[../Mormon Doctrine and race issues|McConkie's ''Mormon Doctrine'' and race issues]]
|notes={{AuthorsDisclaimer}}
}}
=The Church of Jesus Christ, its leaders, and theology are racist?=

==The Problem==
The author spends an entire chapter berating the LDS on the issue of race and either misrepresenting or misunderstanding LDS teachings on this matter. LDS views and sources are portrayed in the most hostile, prejudicial light possible.

Several chapters later, however, the author admits:

:Of course, when any religion or denomination is tainted by the stain of racism, it always leaves future members in a very awkward position. And to be fair, Mormonism is not alone in this predicament. A number of Christian denominations (e.g. the Southern Baptists) have had to work very hard at racial reconciliation, often using public declarations to repudiate past racist statements by leaders.

Unfortunately, this admission is only in the "[[One_Nation_Under_Gods/Index/Postscript|Postscript]]," and is not found in the hardcover edition of ONUG. This perspective is nowhere to be found in [[One_Nation_Under_Gods/Index/Chapter_16|Chapter 16]]. This concession thus provides the illusion of fairmindedness, while actually providing little context or balance to the book's portrayal of members of the Church of Jesus Christ and their beliefs.

Furthermore, the author ignores the fact that leaders of the LDS Church have ''also'' repudiated many past remarks by previous leaders. His statement leaves the impression that the Southern Baptists ''have'' done so, while leaders of the LDS Church ''have not''.
*'''''See:''''':
**[[Blacks_and_the_priesthood/Repudiated_ideas|Repudiated ideas]]
**[[Blacks_and_the_priesthood/Understanding_pre-1978_statements|Pre-1978 statements]]
**[[Racist_statements_by_Church_leaders|Racist statements by Church leaders?]]

The author of ONUG even goes so far as to quote Bruce R. McConkie's ''Mormon Doctrine'' without telling readers that this apostle published a revised version of his book, and repudiated some of his own remarks.
*'''''See:''''':
**[[One_Nation_Under_Gods/Use_of_sources/Mormon_Doctrine_and_race_issues|Use of sources: ''Mormon Doctrine'' and race issues]]

==Double standard==

Perhaps the double standard being applied to the LDS Church would be better understood if the author's complaint—that the Church has "underlying white supremacist beliefs," (353) and so they didn't support the Civil Rights movement (364)—is placed next to the image of Ferrell Griswold, pastor of the Minor Heights Baptist Church, addressing Klan supporters as Birmingham public schools began their first week of desegregation in 1963.{{ref|fn.9}} Would the author really have the reader believe there were no Christian leaders among those who refused blacks their basic civil liberties and denied them entrance to their churches, schools, civic centers, and voting booths? What were other high profile white religious leaders saying and doing to give blacks basic rights, let alone positions of leadership within their own churches? Two scholars have outlined how white leaders left the battle for civil rights to the black churches.

:In response to King's famous "I Have a Dream" speech that his children might one day play together with white children, [Billy] Graham, who had been invited but did not attend the 1963 March on Washington, said: "Only when Christ comes again will little white children of Alabama walk hand in hand with little black children." This was not meant to be harsh, but rather what he and most white evangelicals perceived to be realistic.{{ref|fn.10}}

Three years later on October 9, 1966, Martin Luther King gave his "The Pharisee and Publican" sermon to the Ebenezer Baptist Church in which he said:

:So often Negroes in Mississippi and Alabama and Georgia and other places have been taken to that tree that bears strange fruit. And do you know that the folk lynching them are often big deacons in the Baptist churches and stewards in the Methodist churches feeling that by killing and murdering and lynching another human being they are doing the will of Almighty God? The most vicious oppressors of the Negro today are probably in church.{{ref|fn.11}}

It is easy to look at the worst in one another, as ONUG has chosen to do. There are enough quotes indicting every religious tradition to make any thoughtful person cringe. There are also well-researched, honest, and informative books and articles available from scholars on every aspect of race and religion. So one must ask, why does the author of ONUG persist in this course of action? What purpose does it serve?

ONUG's barrage of the most negative and obscure data that can be mustered against the Latter-day Saints might lead one to conclude that all other Christian churches were fully integrated with all races participating in leadership positions in 1963, or even in 1978 when blacks were given the priesthood by the LDS Church. The following quotes from varied and respected sources are provided so that the reader has the appropriate historical context. They are not meant in any way to criticize other churches who are working so diligently to close the racial divide.

* Virtually all Protestant denominations have separate Negro churches, and thus the areas of association for religious purposes have been very small.{{ref|fn.12}}

*By the 1830's most southern evangelicals had thoroughly repudiated a heritage that valued blacks as fellow church members.{{ref|fn.13}}

*The black Methodist church, created not from a desire to be separate but from a desire to worship without discrimination at the hands of white brethren, was to become the most enduring legacy of Methodism's refusal to accord the black communicant all of the rights and privileges of membership in the body of Christ.{{ref|fn.14}}

*After the [Civil] war the southern churches, continuing the legacy of slavery, were among the first institutions to call for the separation of the races; by the twentieth century they had become bastions of segregation. With no desire to intrude into places where they were not welcome, most black Southerners were more comfortable in their own congregations.{{ref|fn.15}}

*By November 1968 a survey research by the Home Mission Board revealed that only eleven percent of Southern Baptist churches would admit African-Americans.{{ref|fn.16}}

*The most extensive research on integration was undertaken jointly by the United Lutherans, Congregational Christians, and Presbyterians (U.S.A.). They found that 1,331 out of 13,597 predominantly white churches have nonwhite members or attenders. That is just short of 10 per cent.{{ref|fn.17}}

*Still in 1964, no more than 10 per cent of the white Protestant congregations had Negroes worshiping with them. Even these 10 per cent had only a few members or occasional attenders, so that throughout the US probably no more than 1 per cent of all Negroes worshiped in integrated congregations on Sunday mornings.{{ref|fn.18}}

*According to the 1998 National Congregations Study, about 90 percent of American congregations are made up at least 90 percent of people of the same race.{{ref|fn.19}}

*About eighty percent of all black Christians are in seven major denominations.{{ref|fn.20}}

*In 1977, the American Baptist Churches in the USA had a larger number of blacks than any other non-black denomination… An interesting irony of the racial overtones still prevalent is that the American Baptist Churches of the South are now predominately a black sub-convention of the American Baptist Churches in the USA. There has been little white involvement since the influx of black Baptists.{{ref|fn.21}}

These statistics readily bring to mind the biblical teaching about the mote and the beam (see Matthew 7:3-4).

==Historical Ignorance, or Race-baiting?==

The author of ONUG seems to delight in recounting LDS leaders' ideas about skin color and the "curse of Cain." For the benefit of the reader we will here provide a few references from the widely available literature on the origins of this unfortunate concept:

:This interpretation of Noah's curse was no southern invention; indeed, it had been in circulation long before the discovery of America. Even so, it proved especially useful to white masters of the South because they had been put on the defensive by the powerful emancipationist movement.{{ref|fn.23}}

:The story of Noah's Curse was so ingrained into the orthodox Protestant mind that it was sometimes invoked far from the pulpit. Speaking before the Mississippi Democratic State Convention in 1859, none other than Jefferson Davis defended chattel slavery and the foreign slave trade by alluding to the "importation of the race of Ham" as a fulfillment of its destiny to be "servant of servants."{{ref|fn.24}}

Once again, the reader is left to wonder whether the author of ONUG is ignorant of the history of race theory, anthropology, and the centuries-old Christian use of the Bible to justify slavery or if he is simply race-baiting. The distinct lack of material that would reflect positively on Mormons, and the pronounced use of outdated quotations, is something that calls for serious consideration. The author draws upon little-known "Mormon" writers instead of using authoritative sources that the Saints recognize as accurately representing their beliefs. Modern Church practice and teachings are conspicuously lacking and context is not sufficiently considered. Thus, ONUG attempts to use Joseph Smith's racist-sounding quote about "confining" "the negro" "to his own species," as an indictment against the modern Church. Yet, ONUG fails to tell us everything else that Joseph Smith said on this subject that was progressive, and even radical, for its time (see [[One_Nation_Under_Gods/Notable_omissions#355|Notable omissions, p. 355]]).

Another example of problematic usage of LDS material on this issue is when Brigham Young is represented as describing inter-racial marriage as "one of the most heinous of deeds" (361). Yet, ONUG fails to acknowledge that there ''was'' no inter-racial marriage at the time, and in the place, where the comment was made. And any sexual relations with someone of African descent usually happened in a context of rape (see: [[Brigham_Young_on_race_mixing]]).

Here is one portion of the same sermon that the author neglects to show his readers:

:If the Government of the United States, in Congress assembled, had the right to pass an anti-polygamy bill, they had also the right to pass a law that slaves should not be abused as they have been; they had also a right to make a law that negroes should be used like human beings, and not worse than dumb brutes. For their abuse of that race, the whites will be cursed, unless they repent.{{ref|fn.27}}

Compare this to the views of the founder of American evangelicalism, George Whitefield, who "urged kinder treatment of slaves, but noted that cruelty can have the positive effect of heightening 'the sense of their natural misery,' thereby increasing receptivity to the Christian message."{{ref|fn.28}} Or the stories of "Christian slaveholders, including clergymen, 'brutalizing their slaves' which 'abound in the narratives of former slaves.'"{{ref|fn.29}}

==Conclusion==

Racism has become one of the most strident and damaging accusations that can be leveled in our society, and as such has become a useful weapon for those who wish to harm an organization or individual. As Southern Baptists know, "Few chapters in American religious history prove as embarrassing as the response of the American churches to the issue of race."{{ref|fn.39}} ONUG is obviously hoping its target audience will not notice that Latter-day Saints have always had integrated churches while Protestant churches struggle with the residual division brought about by their own prolonged discrimination against, or outright expulsion of, black members. Emerson and Smith assess the problem in the following manner:

:Our examination of a variety of data and consideration of a variety of levels of social influence suggest that many race issues that white evangelicals want to see solved are generated in part by the way they themselves do religion, interpret their world, and live their own lives. These factors range from the ways evangelicals and others organize into internally similar congregations, and the segregation and inequality such congregations help produce; to theologically rooted evangelical cultural tools, which tend to (1) minimize and individualize the race problem, (2) assign blame to blacks themselves for racial inequality, (3) obscure inequality as part of racial division, and (4) suggest uni-dimensional solutions to racial division.{{ref|fn.40}}

Latter-day Saints are, of course, not immune from the same human foibles. We, like all Christians, might wish that we had played a larger role in correcting social injustices. We must all look at our past and learn from it. But for the here and now, the LDS do have a decided advantage in our centralized leadership and our historical practice of maintaining congregations based on geographical boundaries rather than on personal preference or race. Our members have never traveled past a white or black church to get to their own. We cannot fire ministers who do not succumb to the wishes of a congregation to remain racially segregated. Yet, we join all concerned followers of Christ in acknowledging that we have work ahead of us in putting aside differences accumulated through centuries of misunderstanding and intolerance.

==Endnotes==
#{{note|fn.9}} Andrew M. Manis, "'Dying From the Neck Up:' Southern Baptist Resistance to the Civil Rights Movement," ''Baptist History and Heritage'' (Winter 1999), 41.
#{{note|fn.10}} Richard O. Emerson and Christian Smith, ''Divided by Faith: Evangelical Religion and the Problem of Race in America'' (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000), 47.
#{{note|fn.11}} Marty Bell, "Fire in My Bones: The Prophetic Preaching of Martin Luther King, Jr.," ''Baptist History and Heritage'' (Winter 1999), 13.
#{{note|fn.12}} Thomas F. Gossett, ''Race: The History of An Idea in America'' (New York: Oxford University Press, 1963), 447.
#{{note|fn.13}} Nathan O. Hatch, ''The Democratization of American Christianity'' (New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press, 1989), 107.
#{{note|fn.14}} Forrest G. Wood, ''The Arrogance of Faith: Christianity and Race in America from the Colonial Era to the Twentieth Century'' (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1990), 318.
#{{note|fn.15}} ''Ibid''., 293.
#{{note|fn.16}} Dana Martin, "The American Baptist Convention and the Civil Rights Movement: Rhetoric and Response," ''Baptist History and Heritage'' (Winter 1999), 44.
#{{note|fn.17}} Robert Root, ''Progress Against Prejudice: The Church Confronts the Race Problem'' (New York: Friendship Press, 1957), 59.
#{{note|fn.18}} J.C. Hough, ''Black Power and White Protestants: A Christian Response to the New Negro Pluralism'' (New York: Oxford University Press, 1968), 177.
#{{note|fn.19}} Emerson and Smith, ''Divided by Faith'', 136.
#{{note|fn.20}} Gregory E. Thomas, "Black and Baptist in the Bay State," ''American Baptist Quarterly'' (March, 2002), 68.
#{{note|fn.21}} ''Ibid''., 68-69.
#{{note|fn.23}} H. Shelton Smith, ''In His Image, But… Racism in Southern Religion, 1780-1910'' (Durham, North Carolina: Duke University Press, 1972), 131.
#{{note|fn.24}} Wood, ''The Arrogance of Faith'', 107.
#{{note|fn.27}} Brigham Young, "The Persecutions of the Saints, Etc.," 111.
#{{note|fn.28}} Emerson and Smith, ''Divided by Faith'', 26.
#{{note|fn.29}} Albert J. Raboteau, ''Slave Religion: The "Invisible Institution" in the Antebellum South'' (New York: Oxford University Press, 1978), 167.
#{{note|fn.39}} Manis, "'Dying From the Neck Up'," 33.
#{{note|fn.40}} Emerson and Smith, ''Divided by Faith'', 170.

=Further reading=
{{FAIRAnalysisWiki}}

Criticism of Mormonism/Books/One Nation Under Gods/Use of sources/Double standard on race

2009-01-19T14:39:12Z

PaulMcNabb: /* The Problem */

__NOTOC__
{{FAIRAnalysisHeader
|title=[[../../]]
|author=Richard Abanes
|noauthor=
|section=[[../../Use of sources|Use of sources]], Chapter 16: "Mormon Racism" (pp. 355-372)
|previous=[[../Joseph F. Smith finally admits|Joseph F. Smith finally admits]]
|next=[[../Mormon Doctrine and race issues|McConkie's ''Mormon Doctrine'' and race issues]]
|notes={{AuthorsDisclaimer}}
}}
=The Church of Jesus Christ, its leaders, and theology are racist?=

==The Problem==
The author spends an entire chapter berating the LDS on the issue of race and either misrepresenting or misunderstanding LDS teachings on this matter. LDS views and sources are portrayed in the most hostile, prejudicial light possible.

Several chapters later, however, the author admits:

:Of course, when any religion or denomination is tainted by the stain of racism, it always leaves future members in a very awkward position. And to be fair, Mormonism is not alone in this predicament. A number of Christian denominations (e.g. the Southern Baptists) have had to work very hard at racial reconciliation, often using public declarations to repudiate past racist statements by leaders.

Unfortunately, this admission is only in the "[[One_Nation_Under_Gods/Index/Postscript|Postscript]]," and is not found in the hardcover edition of ONUG. This perspective is nowhere to be found in [[One_Nation_Under_Gods/Index/Chapter_16|Chapter 16]]. This concession thus provides the illusion of fairmindedness, while actually providing little context or balance to the book's portrayal of members of the Church of Jesus Christ and their beliefs.

Furthermore, the author ignores the fact that leaders of the LDS Church have ''also'' repudiated many past remarks by previous leaders. His statement leaves the impression that the Southern Baptists ''have'' done so, while leaders of the LDS Church ''have not''.
*'''''See:''''':
**[[Blacks_and_the_priesthood/Repudiated_ideas|Repudiated ideas]]
**[[Blacks_and_the_priesthood/Understanding_pre-1978_statements|Pre-1978 statements]]
**[[Racist_statements_by_Church_leaders|Racist statements by Church leaders?]]

The author of ONUG even goes so far as to quote Bruce R. McConkie's ''Mormon Doctrine'' without telling readers that this apostle published a revised version of his book, and repudiated some of his own remarks.
*'''''See:''''':
**[[One_Nation_Under_Gods/Use_of_sources/Mormon_Doctrine_and_race_issues|Use of sources: ''Mormon Doctrine'' and race issues]]

==Double standard==

Perhaps the double standard being applied to the LDS Church would be better understood if the author's complaint -- that the Church has "underlying white supremacist beliefs," (353) and so they didn't support the Civil Rights movement (364) -- is placed next to the image of Ferrell Griswold, pastor of the Minor Heights Baptist Church, addressing Klan supporters as Birmingham public schools began their first week of desegregation in 1963.{{ref|fn.9}} Would the author really have the reader believe there were no Christian leaders among those who refused blacks their basic civil liberties and denied them entrance to their churches, schools, civic centers and voting booths? What were other high profile white religious leaders saying and doing to give blacks basic rights, let alone positions of leadership within their own churches? Two scholars have outlined how white leaders left the battle for civil rights to the black churches.

:In response to King's famous "I Have a Dream" speech that his children might one day play together with white children, [Billy] Graham, who had been invited but did not attend the 1963 March on Washington, said: "Only when Christ comes again will little white children of Alabama walk hand in hand with little black children." This was not meant to be harsh, but rather what he and most white evangelicals perceived to be realistic.{{ref|fn.10}}

Three years later on October 9, 1966, Martin Luther King gave his "The Pharisee and Publican" sermon to the Ebenezer Baptist Church in which he said:

:So often Negroes in Mississippi and Alabama and Georgia and other places have been taken to that tree that bears strange fruit. And do you know that the folk lynching them are often big deacons in the Baptist churches and stewards in the Methodist churches feeling that by killing and murdering and lynching another human being they are doing the will of Almighty God? The most vicious oppressors of the Negro today are probably in church.{{ref|fn.11}}

It is easy to look at the worst in one another, as ONUG has chosen to do. There are enough quotes indicting every religious tradition to make any thoughtful person cringe. There are also well-researched, honest and informative books and articles available from scholars on every aspect of race and religion. So one must ask, why does the author of ONUG persist in this course of action? What purpose does it serve?

ONUG's barrage of the most negative and obscure data that can be mustered against the Latter-day Saints might lead one to conclude that all other Christian churches were fully integrated with all races participating in leadership positions in 1963, or even in 1978 when blacks were given the priesthood by the LDS Church. The following quotes from varied and respected sources are provided so that the reader has the appropriate historical context. They are not meant in any way to criticize other churches who are working so diligently to close the racial divide.

* Virtually all Protestant denominations have separate Negro churches, and thus the areas of association for religious purposes have been very small.{{ref|fn.12}}

*By the 1830's most southern evangelicals had thoroughly repudiated a heritage that valued blacks as fellow church members.{{ref|fn.13}}

*The black Methodist church, created not from a desire to be separate but from a desire to worship without discrimination at the hands of white brethren, was to become the most enduring legacy of Methodism's refusal to accord the black communicant all of the rights and privileges of membership in the body of Christ.{{ref|fn.14}}

*After the [Civil] war the southern churches, continuing the legacy of slavery, were among the first institutions to call for the separation of the races; by the twentieth century they had become bastions of segregation. With no desire to intrude into places where they were not welcome, most black Southerners were more comfortable in their own congregations.{{ref|fn.15}}

*By November 1968 a survey research by the Home Mission Board revealed that only eleven percent of Southern Baptist churches would admit African-Americans.{{ref|fn.16}}

*The most extensive research on integration was undertaken jointly by the United Lutherans, Congregational Christians, and Presbyterians (U.S.A.). They found that 1,331 out of 13,597 predominantly white churches have nonwhite members or attenders. That is just short of 10 per cent.{{ref|fn.17}}

*Still in 1964, no more than 10 per cent of the white Protestant congregations had Negroes worshiping with them. Even these 10 per cent had only a few members or occasional attenders, so that throughout the US probably no more than 1 per cent of all Negroes worshiped in integrated congregations on Sunday mornings.{{ref|fn.18}}

*According to the 1998 National Congregations Study, about 90 percent of American congregations are made up at least 90 percent of people of the same race.{{ref|fn.19}}

*About eighty percent of all black Christians are in seven major denominations.{{ref|fn.20}}

*In 1977, the American Baptist Churches in the USA had a larger number of blacks than any other non-black denomination… An interesting irony of the racial overtones still prevalent is that the American Baptist Churches of the South are now predominately a black sub-convention of the American Baptist Churches in the USA. There has been little white involvement since the influx of black Baptists.{{ref|fn.21}}

These statistics readily bring to mind the biblical teaching about the mote and the beam (see Matthew 7:3-4).

==Historical Ignorance, or Race-baiting?==

The author of ONUG seems to delight in recounting LDS leaders' ideas about skin color and the "curse of Cain." For the benefit of the reader we will here provide a few references from the widely available literature on the origins of this unfortunate concept:

:This interpretation of Noah's curse was no southern invention; indeed, it had been in circulation long before the discovery of America. Even so, it proved especially useful to white masters of the South because they had been put on the defensive by the powerful emancipationist movement.{{ref|fn.23}}

:The story of Noah's Curse was so ingrained into the orthodox Protestant mind that it was sometimes invoked far from the pulpit. Speaking before the Mississippi Democratic State Convention in 1859, none other than Jefferson Davis defended chattel slavery and the foreign slave trade by alluding to the "importation of the race of Ham" as a fulfillment of its destiny to be "servant of servants."{{ref|fn.24}}

Once again, the reader is left to wonder whether the author of ONUG is ignorant of the history of race theory, anthropology, and the centuries-old Christian use of the Bible to justify slavery or if he is simply race-baiting. The distinct lack of material that would reflect positively on Mormons, and the pronounced use of outdated quotations, is something that calls for serious consideration. The author draws upon little-known "Mormon" writers instead of using authoritative sources that the Saints recognize as accurately representing their beliefs. Modern Church practice and teachings are conspicuously lacking and context is not sufficiently considered. Thus, ONUG attempts to use Joseph Smith's racist-sounding quote about "confining" "the negro" "to his own species," as an indictment against the modern Church. Yet, ONUG fails to tell us everything else that Joseph Smith said on this subject that was progressive, and even radical, for its time (see [[One_Nation_Under_Gods/Notable_omissions#355|Notable omissions, p. 355]]).

Another example of problematic usage of LDS material on this issue is when Brigham Young is represented as describing inter-racial marriage as "one of the most heinous of deeds" (361). Yet, ONUG fails to acknowledge that there ''was'' no inter-racial marriage at the time, and in the place, where the comment was made. And any sexual relations with someone of African descent usually happened in a context of rape (see: [[Brigham_Young_on_race_mixing]]).

Here is one portion of the same sermon that the author neglects to show his readers:

:If the Government of the United States, in Congress assembled, had the right to pass an anti-polygamy bill, they had also the right to pass a law that slaves should not be abused as they have been; they had also a right to make a law that negroes should be used like human beings, and not worse than dumb brutes. For their abuse of that race, the whites will be cursed, unless they repent.{{ref|fn.27}}

Compare this to the views of the founder of American evangelicalism, George Whitefield, who "urged kinder treatment of slaves, but noted that cruelty can have the positive effect of heightening 'the sense of their natural misery,' thereby increasing receptivity to the Christian message."{{ref|fn.28}} Or the stories of "Christian slaveholders, including clergymen, 'brutalizing their slaves' which 'abound in the narratives of former slaves.'"{{ref|fn.29}}

==Conclusion==

Racism has become one of the most strident and damaging accusations that can be leveled in our society, and as such has become a useful weapon for those who wish to harm an organization or individual. As Southern Baptists know, "Few chapters in American religious history prove as embarrassing as the response of the American churches to the issue of race."{{ref|fn.39}} ONUG is obviously hoping its target audience will not notice that Latter-day Saints have always had integrated churches while Protestant churches struggle with the residual division brought about by their own prolonged discrimination against, or outright expulsion of, black members. Emerson and Smith assess the problem in the following manner:

:Our examination of a variety of data and consideration of a variety of levels of social influence suggest that many race issues that white evangelicals want to see solved are generated in part by the way they themselves do religion, interpret their world, and live their own lives. These factors range from the ways evangelicals and others organize into internally similar congregations, and the segregation and inequality such congregations help produce; to theologically rooted evangelical cultural tools, which tend to (1) minimize and individualize the race problem, (2) assign blame to blacks themselves for racial inequality, (3) obscure inequality as part of racial division, and (4) suggest uni-dimensional solutions to racial division.{{ref|fn.40}}

Latter-day Saints are, of course, not immune from the same human foibles. We, like all Christians, might wish that we had played a larger role in correcting social injustices. We must all look at our past and learn from it. But for the here and now, the LDS do have a decided advantage in our centralized leadership and our historical practice of maintaining congregations based on geographical boundaries rather than on personal preference or race. Our members have never traveled past a white or black church to get to their own. We cannot fire ministers who do not succumb to the wishes of a congregation to remain racially segregated. Yet, we join all concerned followers of Christ in acknowledging that we have work ahead of us in putting aside differences accumulated through centuries of misunderstanding and intolerance.

==Endnotes==
#{{note|fn.9}} Andrew M. Manis, "'Dying From the Neck Up:' Southern Baptist Resistance to the Civil Rights Movement," ''Baptist History and Heritage'' (Winter 1999), 41.
#{{note|fn.10}} Richard O. Emerson and Christian Smith, ''Divided by Faith: Evangelical Religion and the Problem of Race in America'' (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000), 47.
#{{note|fn.11}} Marty Bell, "Fire in My Bones: The Prophetic Preaching of Martin Luther King, Jr.," ''Baptist History and Heritage'' (Winter 1999), 13.
#{{note|fn.12}} Thomas F. Gossett, ''Race: The History of An Idea in America'' (New York: Oxford University Press, 1963), 447.
#{{note|fn.13}} Nathan O. Hatch, ''The Democratization of American Christianity'' (New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press, 1989), 107.
#{{note|fn.14}} Forrest G. Wood, ''The Arrogance of Faith: Christianity and Race in America from the Colonial Era to the Twentieth Century'' (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1990), 318.
#{{note|fn.15}} ''Ibid''., 293.
#{{note|fn.16}} Dana Martin, "The American Baptist Convention and the Civil Rights Movement: Rhetoric and Response," ''Baptist History and Heritage'' (Winter 1999), 44.
#{{note|fn.17}} Robert Root, ''Progress Against Prejudice: The Church Confronts the Race Problem'' (New York: Friendship Press, 1957), 59.
#{{note|fn.18}} J.C. Hough, ''Black Power and White Protestants: A Christian Response to the New Negro Pluralism'' (New York: Oxford University Press, 1968), 177.
#{{note|fn.19}} Emerson and Smith, ''Divided by Faith'', 136.
#{{note|fn.20}} Gregory E. Thomas, "Black and Baptist in the Bay State," ''American Baptist Quarterly'' (March, 2002), 68.
#{{note|fn.21}} ''Ibid''., 68-69.
#{{note|fn.23}} H. Shelton Smith, ''In His Image, But… Racism in Southern Religion, 1780-1910'' (Durham, North Carolina: Duke University Press, 1972), 131.
#{{note|fn.24}} Wood, ''The Arrogance of Faith'', 107.
#{{note|fn.27}} Brigham Young, "The Persecutions of the Saints, Etc.," 111.
#{{note|fn.28}} Emerson and Smith, ''Divided by Faith'', 26.
#{{note|fn.29}} Albert J. Raboteau, ''Slave Religion: The "Invisible Institution" in the Antebellum South'' (New York: Oxford University Press, 1978), 167.
#{{note|fn.39}} Manis, "'Dying From the Neck Up'," 33.
#{{note|fn.40}} Emerson and Smith, ''Divided by Faith'', 170.

=Further reading=
{{FAIRAnalysisWiki}}

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

2009-01-16T19:07:16Z

PaulMcNabb: /* Up, Awake, Ye Defenders of Zion! (p. 73) */

__NOTOC__
{{FAIRAnalysisHeader
|title=[[../../]]
|author=Richard Abanes
|noauthor=
|section=[[../../Use of sources|Use of sources]], Vengeance hymns
|previous=[[../Approved marriages 1890-1899|Approved marriages 1890-1899]]
|next=[[../Joseph F. Smith finally admits|Joseph F. Smith finally admits]]
|notes={{AuthorsDisclaimer}}
}}
=Vengeance hymns=
==The Quotes==
===One Nation under Gods, page 334 (hardback and paperback)===

In the mid to late 1800s "the Saints actually were singing church hymns that glorified taking vengeance."

==The References==
===Endnote 10, page 594 (hardback); page 592 (paperback)===

*''Sacred Hymns and Spiritual Songs'' (1871) {{link|url=http://books.google.ca/books?hl=en&id=5XYoAAAAYAAJ&dq=%22Sacred+Hymns+and+Spiritual+Songs%22&printsec=frontcover&source=web&ots=kuGSIY4p_M&sig=CJ0XD4KFK5g6tUwjFBtuDDjsbgs&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result}}. Quoted in {{CriticalWork:Quinn:Mormon Hierarchy2|pages=250}}

==The Problem==

On page 334, the author presents a table (15.1) with verses from four hymns (marked with an asterisk, '*') that he claims "glorified taking vengeance." Each of these will be examined below, and it will be seen that in every case ONUG's characterization has distorted the hymn's intent.

The author's source (Quinn) says that "throughout the last half of the nineteenth century, Mormon congregations sang five hymns that mentioned vengeance and violence upon anti-Mormons" (pg 249). The footnotes (162 and 163) list the songs (more than 5) as these:

* The Reformation
* Up, Awake, Ye Defenders of Zion!
* Lift Up Your Heads, Ye Scattered Saints
* Awake, Ye Saints of God, Awake!
* Wake, O Wake, the World from Sleeping!
* O! Ye Mountains High
* Deseret, Deseret!

Though ONUG includes only four songs in its table, all of Quinn's examples are listed below. Italics and emphasis are added in each case.

==The Reformation==

This song is not listed in the hymnbook scan above. Its omission is not a surprise; it is most like doggerel of the five. The on-line text of this hymn (dated from 1856) reads in part:

<blockquote>To gain these blessings we must try 
And do what we are told; 
I'll tell you what we ought to do, 
If you won't think me bold: 
''We ought to put down wickedness,'' 
We ought to watch and pray, 
We ought to build the kingdom up-- 
Not loaf our time away. 

We ought to have our houses neat, 
Our Teachers to obey, 
We ought to keep our bodies clean, 
Our tithing always pay: 
We ought our brother's character 
Keep sacred as our own, 
''Attend to business all we can, 
Let other folks alone.'' 

We ought our Bishops to sustain, 
Their counsels to abide, 
''And knock down every dwelling 
Where wicked folks reside:'' 
We ought our Teachers to respect, 
Not give them looks nor snubs; 
And keep our ditches free from pots, 
Likewise from stinking tubs. </blockquote>

Though the Saints are to "put down wickedness" and "knock down every dwelling where wicked folks reside," they are also to "let other folks alone." There is certainly no call for vengeance. The discussion about dwellings may refer to taverns, grog shops, or houses of ill repute—the absence of which was something which visitors to Utah often remarked upon, in contrast to other frontier settlements.

==Up, Awake, Ye Defenders of Zion! (p. 73)==
<blockquote>
1. Up, awake, ye defenders of Zion! 
The ''foe's at the door of your homes''; 
Let each heart be the heart of a lion 
Unyielding and proud as he roams. 
Remember the wrongs of Missouri 
Forget not the fate of Nauvoo: 
When the God-hating foe is before ye, 
Stand firm, and be faithful and true... 
 
3 Shall we bear with oppression for ever? 
Shall we tamely submit to the foe, 
While the ''ties of our kindred they sever?'' 
''Shall the blood of the prophets still flow?'' 
No! The though sets the heart wildly beating; 
Our vows at each pulse we renew, 
Ne'er rest ''till our foes are retreating,'' 
While we remain faithful and true. 
 
4 Though, assisted by legions infernal 
''The plundering wretches advance,'' 
With a host from the regions eternal, 
Soon "the Kingdom" will be independent; 
In wonder the nations will view 
The despised ones in glory resplendent; 
Then let us be faithful and true! </blockquote>
This does not call for vengeance. It encourages those who are attacked with "foes at the door of your homes" who seek "plunder" to defend their families, and not to flee if enemies "sever" their kindred or spill the blood of the prophets. The song does not call for extermination of enemies, but only to stand firm until they "are retreating"—that is, until they have protected their homes and families from imminent danger.

==* Lift Up Your Heads, Ye Scattered Saints (p. 314)==

<blockquote>1 Life up your heads, ye scattered Saints 
Redemption draweth nigh; 
''Our Savior hears'' the orphan's plaints, 
The widow's mournful cry. 
 
2 The blood of those who have been slain 
For vengeance cries aloud 
Nor shall its cries ascend in vain 
For vengeance on the proud 
 
3 The signs in heaven and earth appear 
And blood and smoke and fire 
Men's hearts are failing them for fear 
Redemption's drawing nigher. 
 
4 Earthquakes are bellowing 'neath the ground, 
And tempests through the air; 
The trumpet's blast, with fearful sound, 
Proclaims th' alarm of war. 
 
5 The Saints are scattered to and fro 
Through all the earth abroad; 
The Gospel trump again to blow, 
And then behold their God. 
 
6 Rejoice, ye servants of our Lord, 
Who to the end endure; 
Rejoice, for great is your reward, 
And your defence is sure. 
 
7 ''Although this body should be slain 
By curel wicked hands'', 
I'll praise my God in higher strains, 
And on Mount Zion stand. 
 
8 Glory to God! ye Saints rejoice! 
And sigh and groan no more; 
But listen to the Spirit's voice— 
Redemption's at the door. </blockquote>

Here again there is no call for members to take vengeance. They pray only that the cries of widows and orphans (i.e., those killed by the wicked) will ascend to ''the Savior.'' Signs appear in the heavens, and earthquakes speak—surely this is no mortal vengeance, but rather the judgments of God come upon the wicked.

The song envisages the Saints "scattered to and fro," and needing to "endure." But, they are promised a reward, though their bodies may "be slain" and they may have cause to "sigh and groan." However, the Saints may look forward to the Lord's redemption and justice when he comes again.

==* Awake, Ye Saints of God, Awake! (p. 329)==

<blockquote>1 Awake, ye Saints of God, awake! 
Call on the Lord in mighty prayer, 
That ''he will Zion's bondage break'' 
And bring to naught the fowler's snare. 
 
2 ''He'' will regard his people's cry, 
The ''window's tear, the orphan's moan''; 
The blood of those that slaughtered lie, 
''Pleads not in vain before His throne!'' 
 
3 Though Zion's foes have counselled deep, 
Although they bind with fetters strong, 
The God of Jacob does not sleep; 
''His vengeance'' will not slumber long. 
 
4 Then let your souls be stayed on God 
A glorious scene is drawing nigh; 
Though tempests gather like a flood, 
The storm, though fierce, will soon pass by. 
 
5 With constant faith and fervent prayer, 
With deep humility of soul, 
With steadfast mind and heart prepare 
To see th'eternal purpose roll. 
 
6 ''Our God in judgment'' will come near, 
His mighty arm he will make bare; 
For Zion's sake he will appear; 
Then O, ye Saints, awake, prepare! 
 
7 Awake to righteousness, be one, 
Or saith the Lord, you are not mine! 
Yea, like the Father and the Son, 
Let all the Saints in union join. </blockquote>

Here again, there is no urge to vengeance. The singers pray again that God "will Zion's bondage break," and that he will hear the cry for justice of blood of the slaughtered and tears of the innocent orphans and widows. God's vengeance is coming, and so what are the Saints to do? Arm themselves? Plot against their enemies? No, they are to have "constant faith and fervent prayer," humility, and strive to be one with the Saints, that ''they'' may not likewise be subject to God's punishing justice when He comes.

==* Wake, O Wake, the World from Sleeping! (p. 332)==

<blockquote>1 Wake, O wake, the world from sleeping! 
Watchman, watchman, what's the hour? 
Hark ye, only hear him saying 
'Tis the last, the eleventh hour! 
 
'''Chorus''' 
::We're the true born sons of Zion, 
::Who with us that can compare 
::We're the royal branch of Joseph, 
::The bright and glorious morning star. 
 
2 Lo! the Lion's left his thicket; 
Up, ye watchmen, be in haste; 
The destroyer of the Gentiles 
Goes to lay their cities waste.... 
 
3 Bring the remnants from their exile, 
For the promise is to them; 
Japhet's ruled the world his time out; 
He must leave the "tents of Shem." 
 
4 Comfort ye the house of Israel; 
They are pardoned; gather them; 
Hear the watchman's proclamation,— 
Jews, rebuild Jerusalem. 
 
5 Soon the Jews will know their error— 
How they killed the Holy One, 
And they'll mourn and shout Hosannah! 
This is "THE BELOVED SON!" 
 
6 Sound the trumpet with the tidings— 
Call in all of Abra'm's seed; 
Though the Gentiles may reject it, 
Christ will come in very deed. </blockquote>

This song sings of the last days, and God's redemption of Israel. It is he, "the Lion" who is the "destroyer of the Gentiles," who will redeem and gather scattered Israel and reclaim the Jews. This is no call for vengeance; the Saints remain "the watchmen"—witnesses to God's triumph and justice, not the instruments of it.

==* O! Ye Mountains High (p. 376)==

<blockquote>1 O! ye mountains high, where the clear blue sky 
Arches over the vales of the free, 
Where the pure breezes blow 
And the clear streamlets flow, 
HOw I've long to your bosom to flee. 
O Zion! dear Zion! home of the free: 
My own mountain home now to thee I have come; 
All my fond hopes are centred in thee. 
 
2 Though the great and the wise all thy beauties despise, 
To the humble and pure thou art dear; 
Though the haughty male smile 
And the wicked revile, 
Yet we love thy glad tidings to hear. 
O Zion! dear Zion! home of the free; 
''Though thou wert forced to fly to thy chambers on high, 
Yet we'll share joy or sorrow with thee.'' 
 
3 In thy mountan retreat, God will strengthen thy feet; 
''On the necks of thy foes thou shalt tread;'' 
And their silver and gold, as the Prophets have told, 
Shall be brought to adorn thy fair head. 
O Zion! Dear Zion! home of the free; 
Soon thy towers will shine with a splendor divine, 
And eternal thy glory shall be. 
 
4 Here our voices we'll raise, and we'll sing to thy praise, 
Sacred home of the Prophets of God; 
Thy deliverance is nigh, ''thy oppressors shall die'', 
And the Gentiles shall bow 'neath thy rod. 
O Zion! dear Zion! home of the free 
In thy temples we'll bend, ''all thy rights we'll defend'' 
And our home shall be ever with thee.</blockquote>

There is no mention of vengeance at all in this hymn. Verse two describes the Zion of Enoch, forced to flee by the world's wickedness (compare {{s||Moses|7|69}}). The song has a strong Millenarian flavor, and uses some apocalyptic imagery. Isaiah promises that

:I will break the Assyrian in my land, and upon my '''mountains tread him under foot''': then shall his yoke depart from off them, and his burden depart from off their shoulders. ({{b||Isaiah|14|25}}; see also {{s|2|Nephi|24|25}})

This calls to mind the third verse, where foes will be tread underfoot when God strengthens the mountain retreat.

Apart from Isaiah, this is not an uncommon image. For example, the "necks of foes" are "tread" on, in the same vein as {{b||Psalms|60|12}} ("Through God we shall do valiantly: for he it is that shall tread down our enemies") or {{b||Psalms|44|4-8}}:

:4 Thou art my King, O God: command deliverances for Jacob.
:5 Through thee will we push down our enemies: through thy name will we tread them under that rise up against us.
:6 For I will not trust in my bow, neither shall my sword save me.
:7 But thou hast saved us from our enemies, and hast put them to shame that hated us.
:8 In God we boast all the day long, and praise thy name for ever.

In the hymn—as in the Psalms—the righteous will tread down the wicked—but, not through weapons (bows or swords) but by God's judgments and deliverance (see also {{b||Psalms|91|9-16}} and {{b||Psalms|1081|11-13}}). This imagery anticipates the second coming of Christ (see {{s||DC|133|51}}), who will "arise with healing in his wings,"and ye shall tread down the wicked; for they shall be ashes under the soles of your feet in the day that I shall do this, saith the LORD of hosts" ({{s||Malachi|4|3}}; see also {{s|3|Nephi|25|3}}).

That the "oppressors shall die/And the Gentiles shall bow 'neath thy rod" is also a common scriptural image. In this case, it probably derives from {{b||Isaiah|9|4-6}}, which testifies of the Messiah's coming:

:For thou hast broken the yoke of his burden, and the staff of his shoulder, the '''rod''' of his '''oppressor'''...For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. (see also {{s|2|Nephi|19|4-6}})

Yet, despite this potentially violent image, we do not charge all Christians with vengeance fantasies. It is understood in the symbolic and eschalogical context in which we find it, in which during the Millennial reign of Christ,

:...the LORD will have mercy on Jacob, and will yet choose Israel, and set them in their own land: and the strangers shall be joined with them, and they shall cleave to the house of Jacob. And the people shall take them, and bring them to their place: and the house of Israel shall possess them in the land of the LORD for servants and handmaids: and they shall take them captives, whose captives they were; and they shall ''rule over their oppressors''. ({{b||Isaiah|14|1-2}}; {{s|2|Nephi|14|1-2}})

We note, too, that these Isaiah scriptures are all included in the Book of Mormon—further evidence that they would have been treasured and appreciated by the Saints, besides being classic texts in Christian Millennial thinking.

Thus, to argue that this hymn urges the Saints to take vengeance is a gross distortion of the hymn, and ignores clear precedent for use of such language in the Old Testament and Christian apocalyptic generally.

== Deseret, Deseret! (p. 383) ==
<blockquote>1 Deseret, Desret! 'tis the home of the free, 
And dearer than all other lands 'tis to me; 
Where the Saints are secure from oppression and strife, 
And enjoy to the full the rich blessings of life.... 
 
2 Deseret, Desret! she has long been opprest, 
But now, for a while, she is taking her rest, 
She feels like a giant, refreshed with new wine 
And enjoys from Jehovah his blessings benign. 
There are hearts that can feel for another's deep woe, 
And with charity, blessings on others bestow; 
Return '''good for evil to those who oppress''', 
And await the time coming to give them redress.... 
 
4 Deseret, Deseret! she's the pride of the world, 
Where the banner of freedom is widely unfurled; 
Where oppression is hated and liberty loved, 
And truth and sincerity highly approved; 
Where labor is honored, nor workman oppressed; 
Where youth is instructed and age finds a rest; 
Where society frowns upon vice and deceit, 
And adulterers find Heaven's laws they must meet. 
 
5 Deseret, Deseret shows the pattern to all 
That all may take warning ere Bab'lon shall fall 
And ''flee to the mountains when trouble shall come,'' 
To be free from the plagues in this beautiful home. 
O, how my heart yearns for the time to draw near 
When ''earth will be freed from oppression and fear'', 
And the truth rule triumphant o'er sea and o'er land, 
''And Jesus as King of the nations will stand.''</blockquote>

Far from advocating violence or vengeance, this hymn encourages the Saints to "Return good for evil to those who oppress," while awaitng the time when "Jesus as King of the nations will stand," which is the time when "the time coming to give them redress" will be here. Those oppressed are not encouraged to fight or war with the world, but to flee out of it to Zion. There is nothing here about vengeance, save God's eventual justice in the Millennium.

==Conclusion==

These hymns are a rather mild Christian apocalyptic. When we consider that the hymn book cited contains 330 hymns spread over 398 pages, it is difficult to conclude that the Saints' hymns were obsessed with violence or vengeance. Presumably, ONUG has chosen the most dramatic examples of supposed hymn-endorsed vengeance—and, as we have seen, even these are nothing of the sort.

The author of ONUG may not like the idea of the Saints awaiting God's vengeance and judgment upon the wicked; however, the idea is thoroughly biblical, and has been a comfort to many oppressed believers through the ages. See, for example, {{b||Matthew|16|27}}, {{b||Romans|12|19}}, {{b||Isaiah|59|18}}, {{b||Leviticus|19|18}}, {{b||Proverbs|20|22}}.

This may explain why even the author's source, Quinn's ''Mormon Hierarchy'', later concludes, "the historical evidence indicates that most early Mormons avoided violence and were saddened by the news of such incidents" (260).

=Further reading=
{{FAIRAnalysisWiki}}

Criticism of Mormonism/Books/One Nation Under Gods/Use of sources/Dallin H. Oaks on God

2009-01-16T17:10:31Z

PaulMcNabb: /* The Problem */

__NOTOC__
{{FAIRAnalysisHeader
|title=[[../../]]
|author=Richard Abanes
|noauthor=
|section=[[../../Use of sources|Use of sources]], Dallin H. Oaks on God
|previous=[[../An Example of Biased Histories|An Example of Biased Histories]]
|next=[[../Destroying Governments and Religions|Destroying Governments and Religions]]
|notes={{AuthorsDisclaimer}}
}}
=Dallin H. Oaks on God=
==The Quotes==

===One Nation under Gods, page 448 (paperback)===

* Dallin Oaks told Mormons in 1995 "that so-called Christianity sees God as an entirely different kind of being."

==The References==
===Endnote 34, page 616 (paperback)===

Dallin H. Oaks, "[http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=2dd843097758b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1 Apostasy and Restoration]," ''Ensign'', May 1995, 84.

==The Problem==

In the cited article, Elder Oaks says ''nothing'' about "so-called Christianity." Instead, he uses such phrases as:

* The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has many beliefs in common with other Christian churches....
* In common with the rest of Christianity, we believe in a Godhead of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.
* Like other Christians, we believe in a heaven or paradise and a hell following mortal life, but to us that two-part division of the righteous and the wicked is merely temporary, while the spirits of the dead await their resurrections and final judgments.
* It is the reality of these glorious possibilities that causes us to proclaim our message of restored Christianity to all people, even to good practicing Christians with other beliefs.

He also describes the differences between LDS belief and that of many other Christians as due to the influence of Greek philosophy after the loss of the apostles:

:We maintain that the concepts identified by such nonscriptural terms as “the incomprehensible mystery of God” and “the mystery of the Holy Trinity” are attributable to the ideas of Greek philosophy. These philosophical concepts transformed Christianity in the first few centuries following the deaths of the Apostles. For example, philosophers then maintained that physical matter was evil and that God was a spirit without feelings or passions. Persons of this persuasion, including learned men who became influential converts to Christianity, had a hard time accepting the simple teachings of early Christianity: an Only Begotten Son who said he was in the express image of his Father in Heaven and who taught his followers to be one as he and his Father were one, and a Messiah who died on a cross and later appeared to his followers as a resurrected being with flesh and bones.

:The collision between the speculative world of Greek philosophy and the simple, literal faith and practice of the earliest Christians produced sharp contentions that threatened to widen political divisions in the fragmenting Roman empire. This led Emperor Constantine to convene the first churchwide council in a.d. 325. The action of this council of Nicaea remains the most important single event after the death of the Apostles in formulating the modern Christian concept of deity. The Nicene Creed erased the idea of the separate being of Father and Son by defining God the Son as being of “one substance with the Father.”

:Other councils followed, and from their decisions and the writings of churchmen and philosophers there came a synthesis of Greek philosophy and Christian doctrine in which the orthodox Christians of that day lost the fulness of truth about the nature of God and the Godhead. The consequences persist in the various creeds of Christianity, which declare a Godhead of only one being and which describe that single being or God as “incomprehensible” and “without body, parts, or passions.” One of the distinguishing features of the doctrine of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is its rejection of all of these ''postbiblical'' creeds {{ia}}.

==Conclusion==

Elder Oaks' contention is that the LDS God is not the Christian God, but rather that many Christian faiths have grafted non-scriptural ideas onto their conception of God. He does not deny the label of Christian to others who differ with us, or think that we do not also have many points in common.

==Endnotes==
''None''

=Further reading=
{{FAIRAnalysisWiki}}
{{GodWiki}}

User:SteveWilloughby/Sandbox

2008-12-23T02:17:31Z

PaulMcNabb: fixed strikeout. sorry...

'''Sandbox for "FAIR Does Not Speak For the Church"'''

{{FAQPortal}}
{{Draft}} {{Question}}

==Question==

FAIR's articles, responses to [http://www.fairlds.org/contact.php "Ask the Apologist"] queries, etc., contain a disclaimer to the effect that FAIR volunteers and authors are not speaking authoritatively for the Church (or even for FAIR itself) but only giving their personal opinion or perspective on each issue or question.

Why should anyone listen to FAIR, then, if they can't speak with authority for the Church? Who can one turn to for the authorized, "final answer" on every topic?

==Answer==

First of all, FAIR is an organization completely independent of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and is not owned or endorsed by the Church as an official mouthpiece, so FAIR ''cannot'' claim any official status. <strike>In the interest of full disclosure, and so as not to cause any confusion on this matter, FAIR is careful to explicitly disclaim any such status.</strike> From the FAIR [http://www.fairlds.org/faq.html FAQ article] we read:

<blockquote>
<strike>We are not affiliated with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and are therefore not doing this under the direction of the priesthood. . . .
</strike>
We try very hard to not give the impression that we are speaking for the Church in any way. We are not affiliated with the Church. We therefore try to avoid doctrinal declarations. Most of the time it isn't an issue as we are discussing things from a historical or scholarly point of view. Occasionally we get into discussions of doctrine when we feel our beliefs as Latter-day Saints have been misrepresented. At those times the writers are speaking from their own experience and beliefs.
</blockquote>

This seems to raise two questions in our readers' minds from time to time, <strike>namely, "What value are FAIR's answers if they lack the authority to speak definitively for the Church?" and "Why does the Church itself leave room for private speculation or discussion on various doctrinal topics rather than give the official answers once and for all?" (Or, to put the second question a different way, "If FAIR isn't an 'official' voice for the church, who else should I turn to in order to get the real, official answer to my question?")</strike> which we will address separately below.

===Of what value are FAIR's answers if they lack authority to speak for the Church?===

Only the Church's duly authorized agents can speak officially on behalf of the Church or give official pronouncements which establish doctrine that is binding upon the Church <strike>(the latter case, specifically coming from the First Presidency)</strike>. However, is this necessarily a problem when considering answers coming from a group such as FAIR?

There are many questions that people have, and there is plenty of benefit to having brothers and sisters in the faith "reason together" and learn from one another, and not expect to simply look to someone to give the one, final answer to any question. In this author's opinion, the Lord and Church leaders are wise to leave us to the exercise of working out these things and developing our mental and spiritual capacities to gain more understanding.

<strike>Does an answer about doctrine or Church history necessarily need to have an official stamp of approval from the Church hierarchy to be helpful, factual or true? Of course not, so there is still much room for organizations such as FAIR to be a great resource without needing to speak ''for'' the Church in some sort of officially binding way.</strike>
While the responses to issues offered by FAIR volunteers are not official statements by the Church, we believe them to be consistent with the Church's official teachings and are given by faithful, active, believing LDS members. These responses need not carry an official endorsement to be true or helpful in answering questions.

<strike>The Church exists to serve an extremely vital role, but a fairly specific and narrowly-defined one. The number of things the Church must take an official position about are limited to the core of the gospel of Jesus Christ and what bears directly on their work in administering the affairs of the Church. That leaves a lot of room for personal study and growth. We think we can help each other with a great deal of that, even if it's not something the Church has felt the need to make a declaration about.</strike>

FAIR's main mission is to answer criticisms about the Church, and we can certainly do so based on what we know, can study, and reason, as well as what the Spirit guides us to say as we prayerfully consider these issues, without necessarily receiving this as an official calling or going to the First Presidency to speak on each and every issue.

===If FAIR is not an official voice for the Church, to whom do I turn for the official answer to my question?===

In the early days of the Church, it was more commonplace for the local members to ask Joseph Smith <strike>various questions and hear</strike> for his teachings on <strike>the matter</strike> various matters. Obviously, the logistics involved in running a church of 500 members is rather different than it is with a church of 13 million, and it isn't possible to expect the First Presidency or Quorum of the Twelve to be able to teach all the individual members who have questions. The LDS Church, of course, ''does'' make official doctrinal statements but generally only on significantly important "core" issues. There is much room for all of us to study and learn independently and in local groups.

Beyond that, <strike>do we</strike> we do not need a "thus saith the Lord" answer to every question. We at FAIR sustain and support the leaders of the Church and follow their direction in matters of doctrine and the operation of the Church, but that doesn't mean we ''must'' look to someone else to simply provide us with ''the'' answer to every question we have. The Lord Himself commanded us:
<blockquote>
For behold, it is not meet that I should command in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant; wherefore he receiveth no reward.

Verily, I say, men should be anxiously engaged in a good cause, and do many things of their own free will, and bring to pass much righteousness;

For the power is in them, wherein they are agents unto themselves. . . .
{{ref|dc1}}
</blockquote>
Is it inappropriate to assume that at least some of these good works that we are to be engaged in include studying the gospel and striving to learn more through the scriptures, personal prayer, discussions with each other, and by reading the best books? Along with not expecting us to remain idle until explicitly commanded to do something, the Lord expects us to seek knowledge and learn and grow without simply being told what to think about everything.

Further,
<blockquote>
Whatever principle of intelligence we attain unto in this life, it will rise with us in the resurrection.

And if a person gains more knowledge and intelligence in this life through his diligence and obedience than another, he will have so much the advantage in the world to come. {{ref|dc2}}
</blockquote>
An important part of the process of gaining this knowledge and intelligence is working diligently to study and learn, and not simply seek to have someone tell us the answers to memorize.

FAIR, <strike>religion </strike>teachers among the membership of the Church, and even our Church leaders have latitude to hold and express their best understanding of various topics, even to publish books (e.g., Elder Bruce R. McConkie's ''Mormon Doctrine''). Since none of these talks, lessons, papers, blogs, conversations, or books have been accepted into the canon, they are not binding as 'the official word of the Church itself.' Does that mean they are useless to help us gain more understanding? No, there's much we can learn from each other, even if we're imperfect in our understanding along the way.

==Conclusion==

FAIR need not speak with the authority of the Church itself, or be an official representative of the Church, in order to provide a useful resource for people to gain a better understanding of Latter-day Saint history and teachings. Further, it is not necessarily correct for us to expect to turn to our Church leaders, particularly the general authorities, for the answer to every single question on a gospel topic.

On many issues, there ''is'' no official Church position, and so there is nothing that an official Church response will provide. In such cases, members are encouraged to use their agency to "study it out in [their] mind" as they seek knowledge and revelation from human and divine sources.

==Endnotes==
#{{note|dc1}}{{s||DC|58|26-28}}
#{{note|dc2}}{{s||DC|130|18-19}}

==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===

===FAIR web site===
[http://www.fairlds.org/faq.html FAIR FAQ] answers the question "How authoritative are the things that you write?"

===External links===
[http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/approaching-mormon-doctrine Official LDS Church Newsroom Article] emphasizing that not every statement by church leaders is official doctrine, and that individual members are encouraged to study independently and together to find gospel answers, in addition to following the "core" gospel doctrinal statements official endorsed or canonized by the Church.

[http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Truth Encyclopedia of Mormonism] entry for Truth, which provides some interesting thoughts about what "truth" is. We can all come to a greater understanding of life's truths from many places and sources, not all of which must be official church pronouncements to be "true".

===Printed material===

User:SteveWilloughby/Sandbox

2008-12-23T02:16:17Z

PaulMcNabb: changed "religion teachers" to just "teachers"---fixed some punctuation.

'''Sandbox for "FAIR Does Not Speak For the Church"'''

{{FAQPortal}}
{{Draft}} {{Question}}

==Question==

FAIR's articles, responses to [http://www.fairlds.org/contact.php "Ask the Apologist"] queries, etc., contain a disclaimer to the effect that FAIR volunteers and authors are not speaking authoritatively for the Church (or even for FAIR itself) but only giving their personal opinion or perspective on each issue or question.

Why should anyone listen to FAIR, then, if they can't speak with authority for the Church? Who can one turn to for the authorized, "final answer" on every topic?

==Answer==

First of all, FAIR is an organization completely independent of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and is not owned or endorsed by the Church as an official mouthpiece, so FAIR ''cannot'' claim any official status. <strike>In the interest of full disclosure, and so as not to cause any confusion on this matter, FAIR is careful to explicitly disclaim any such status.</strike> From the FAIR [http://www.fairlds.org/faq.html FAQ article] we read:

<blockquote>
<strike>We are not affiliated with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and are therefore not doing this under the direction of the priesthood. . . .
</strike>
We try very hard to not give the impression that we are speaking for the Church in any way. We are not affiliated with the Church. We therefore try to avoid doctrinal declarations. Most of the time it isn't an issue as we are discussing things from a historical or scholarly point of view. Occasionally we get into discussions of doctrine when we feel our beliefs as Latter-day Saints have been misrepresented. At those times the writers are speaking from their own experience and beliefs.
</blockquote>

This seems to raise two questions in our readers' minds from time to time, <strike>namely, "What value are FAIR's answers if they lack the authority to speak definitively for the Church?" and "Why does the Church itself leave room for private speculation or discussion on various doctrinal topics rather than give the official answers once and for all?" (Or, to put the second question a different way, "If FAIR isn't an 'official' voice for the church, who else should I turn to in order to get the real, official answer to my question?")</strike> which we will address separately below.

===Of what value are FAIR's answers if they lack authority to speak for the Church?===

Only the Church's duly authorized agents can speak officially on behalf of the Church or give official pronouncements which establish doctrine that is binding upon the Church <strike>(the latter case, specifically coming from the First Presidency)</strike>. However, is this necessarily a problem when considering answers coming from a group such as FAIR?

There are many questions that people have, and there is plenty of benefit to having brothers and sisters in the faith "reason together" and learn from one another, and not expect to simply look to someone to give the one, final answer to any question. In this author's opinion, the Lord and Church leaders are wise to leave us to the exercise of working out these things and developing our mental and spiritual capacities to gain more understanding.

<strike>Does an answer about doctrine or Church history necessarily need to have an official stamp of approval from the Church hierarchy to be helpful, factual or true? Of course not, so there is still much room for organizations such as FAIR to be a great resource without needing to speak ''for'' the Church in some sort of officially binding way.</strike>
While the responses to issues offered by FAIR volunteers are not official statements by the Church, we believe them to be consistent with the Church's official teachings and are given by faithful, active, believing LDS members. These responses need not carry an official endorsement to be true or helpful in answering questions.

<strike>The Church exists to serve an extremely vital role, but a fairly specific and narrowly-defined one. The number of things the Church must take an official position about are limited to the core of the gospel of Jesus Christ and what bears directly on their work in administering the affairs of the Church. That leaves a lot of room for personal study and growth. We think we can help each other with a great deal of that, even if it's not something the Church has felt the need to make a declaration about.</strike>

FAIR's main mission is to answer criticisms about the Church, and we can certainly do so based on what we know, can study, and reason, as well as what the Spirit guides us to say as we prayerfully consider these issues, without necessarily receiving this as an official calling or going to the First Presidency to speak on each and every issue.

===If FAIR is not an official voice for the Church, to whom do I turn for the official answer to my question?===

In the early days of the Church, it was more commonplace for the local members to ask Joseph Smith <strike>various questions and hear</strike> for his teachings on <strike>the matter</strike> various matters. Obviously, the logistics involved in running a church of 500 members is rather different than it is with a church of 13 million, and it isn't possible to expect the First Presidency or Quorum of the Twelve to be able to teach all the individual members who have questions. The LDS Church, of course, ''does'' make official doctrinal statements but generally only on significantly important "core" issues. There is much room for all of us to study and learn independently and in local groups.

Beyond that, <strike>do we</strike> we do not need a "thus saith the Lord" answer to every question. We at FAIR sustain and support the leaders of the Church and follow their direction in matters of doctrine and the operation of the Church, but that doesn't mean we ''must'' look to someone else to simply provide us with ''the'' answer to every question we have. The Lord Himself commanded us:
<blockquote>
For behold, it is not meet that I should command in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant; wherefore he receiveth no reward.

Verily, I say, men should be anxiously engaged in a good cause, and do many things of their own free will, and bring to pass much righteousness;

For the power is in them, wherein they are agents unto themselves. . . .
{{ref|dc1}}
</blockquote>
Is it inappropriate to assume that at least some of these good works that we are to be engaged in include studying the gospel and striving to learn more through the scriptures, personal prayer, discussions with each other, and by reading the best books? Along with not expecting us to remain idle until explicitly commanded to do something, the Lord expects us to seek knowledge and learn and grow without simply being told what to think about everything.

Further,
<blockquote>
Whatever principle of intelligence we attain unto in this life, it will rise with us in the resurrection.

And if a person gains more knowledge and intelligence in this life through his diligence and obedience than another, he will have so much the advantage in the world to come. {{ref|dc2}}
</blockquote>
An important part of the process of gaining this knowledge and intelligence is working diligently to study and learn, and not simply seek to have someone tell us the answers to memorize.

FAIR, <strike>religion <strike>teachers among the membership of the Church, and even our Church leaders have latitude to hold and express their best understanding of various topics, even to publish books (e.g., Elder Bruce R. McConkie's ''Mormon Doctrine''). Since none of these talks, lessons, papers, blogs, conversations, or books have been accepted into the canon, they are not binding as 'the official word of the Church itself.' Does that mean they are useless to help us gain more understanding? No, there's much we can learn from each other, even if we're imperfect in our understanding along the way.

==Conclusion==

FAIR need not speak with the authority of the Church itself, or be an official representative of the Church, in order to provide a useful resource for people to gain a better understanding of Latter-day Saint history and teachings. Further, it is not necessarily correct for us to expect to turn to our Church leaders, particularly the general authorities, for the answer to every single question on a gospel topic.

On many issues, there ''is'' no official Church position, and so there is nothing that an official Church response will provide. In such cases, members are encouraged to use their agency to "study it out in [their] mind" as they seek knowledge and revelation from human and divine sources.

==Endnotes==
#{{note|dc1}}{{s||DC|58|26-28}}
#{{note|dc2}}{{s||DC|130|18-19}}

==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===

===FAIR web site===
[http://www.fairlds.org/faq.html FAIR FAQ] answers the question "How authoritative are the things that you write?"

===External links===
[http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/approaching-mormon-doctrine Official LDS Church Newsroom Article] emphasizing that not every statement by church leaders is official doctrine, and that individual members are encouraged to study independently and together to find gospel answers, in addition to following the "core" gospel doctrinal statements official endorsed or canonized by the Church.

[http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Truth Encyclopedia of Mormonism] entry for Truth, which provides some interesting thoughts about what "truth" is. We can all come to a greater understanding of life's truths from many places and sources, not all of which must be official church pronouncements to be "true".

===Printed material===

User:SteveWilloughby/Sandbox

2008-12-23T02:10:04Z

PaulMcNabb: punctuation...

'''Sandbox for "FAIR Does Not Speak For the Church"'''

{{FAQPortal}}
{{Draft}} {{Question}}

==Question==

FAIR's articles, responses to [http://www.fairlds.org/contact.php "Ask the Apologist"] queries, etc., contain a disclaimer to the effect that FAIR volunteers and authors are not speaking authoritatively for the Church (or even for FAIR itself) but only giving their personal opinion or perspective on each issue or question.

Why should anyone listen to FAIR, then, if they can't speak with authority for the Church? Who can one turn to for the authorized, "final answer" on every topic?

==Answer==

First of all, FAIR is an organization completely independent of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and is not owned or endorsed by the Church as an official mouthpiece, so FAIR ''cannot'' claim any official status. <strike>In the interest of full disclosure, and so as not to cause any confusion on this matter, FAIR is careful to explicitly disclaim any such status.</strike> From the FAIR [http://www.fairlds.org/faq.html FAQ article] we read:

<blockquote>
<strike>We are not affiliated with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and are therefore not doing this under the direction of the priesthood. . . .
</strike>
We try very hard to not give the impression that we are speaking for the Church in any way. We are not affiliated with the Church. We therefore try to avoid doctrinal declarations. Most of the time it isn't an issue as we are discussing things from a historical or scholarly point of view. Occasionally we get into discussions of doctrine when we feel our beliefs as Latter-day Saints have been misrepresented. At those times the writers are speaking from their own experience and beliefs.
</blockquote>

This seems to raise two questions in our readers' minds from time to time, <strike>namely, "What value are FAIR's answers if they lack the authority to speak definitively for the Church?" and "Why does the Church itself leave room for private speculation or discussion on various doctrinal topics rather than give the official answers once and for all?" (Or, to put the second question a different way, "If FAIR isn't an 'official' voice for the church, who else should I turn to in order to get the real, official answer to my question?")</strike> which we will address separately below.

===Of what value are FAIR's answers if they lack authority to speak for the Church?===

Only the Church's duly authorized agents can speak officially on behalf of the Church or give official pronouncements which establish doctrine that is binding upon the Church <strike>(the latter case, specifically coming from the First Presidency)</strike>. However, is this necessarily a problem when considering answers coming from a group such as FAIR?

There are many questions that people have, and there is plenty of benefit to having brothers and sisters in the faith "reason together" and learn from one another, and not expect to simply look to someone to give the one, final answer to any question. In this author's opinion, the Lord and Church leaders are wise to leave us to the exercise of working out these things and developing our mental and spiritual capacities to gain more understanding.

<strike>Does an answer about doctrine or Church history necessarily need to have an official stamp of approval from the Church hierarchy to be helpful, factual or true? Of course not, so there is still much room for organizations such as FAIR to be a great resource without needing to speak ''for'' the Church in some sort of officially binding way.</strike>
While the responses to issues offered by FAIR volunteers are not official statements by the Church, we believe them to be consistent with the Church's official teachings and are given by faithful, active, believing LDS members. These responses need not carry an official endorsement to be true or helpful in answering questions.

<strike>The Church exists to serve an extremely vital role, but a fairly specific and narrowly-defined one. The number of things the Church must take an official position about are limited to the core of the gospel of Jesus Christ and what bears directly on their work in administering the affairs of the Church. That leaves a lot of room for personal study and growth. We think we can help each other with a great deal of that, even if it's not something the Church has felt the need to make a declaration about.</strike>

FAIR's main mission is to answer criticisms about the Church, and we can certainly do so based on what we know, can study, and reason, as well as what the Spirit guides us to say as we prayerfully consider these issues, without necessarily receiving this as an official calling or going to the First Presidency to speak on each and every issue.

===If FAIR is not an official voice for the Church, to whom do I turn for the official answer to my question?===

In the early days of the Church, it was more commonplace for the local members to ask Joseph Smith <strike>various questions and hear</strike> for his teachings on <strike>the matter</strike> various matters. Obviously, the logistics involved in running a church of 500 members is rather different than it is with a church of 13 million, and it isn't possible to expect the First Presidency or Quorum of the Twelve to be able to teach all the individual members who have questions. The LDS Church, of course, ''does'' make official doctrinal statements but generally only on significantly important "core" issues. There is much room for all of us to study and learn independently and in local groups.

Beyond that, <strike>do we</strike> we do not need a "thus saith the Lord" answer to every question. We at FAIR sustain and support the leaders of the Church and follow their direction in matters of doctrine and the operation of the Church, but that doesn't mean we ''must'' look to someone else to simply provide us with ''the'' answer to every question we have. The Lord Himself commanded us:
<blockquote>
For behold, it is not meet that I should command in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant; wherefore he receiveth no reward.

Verily, I say, men should be anxiously engaged in a good cause, and do many things of their own free will, and bring to pass much righteousness;

For the power is in them, wherein they are agents unto themselves. . . .
{{ref|dc1}}
</blockquote>
Is it inappropriate to assume that at least some of these good works that we are to be engaged in include studying the gospel and striving to learn more through the scriptures, personal prayer, discussions with each other and by reading the best books? Along with not expecting us to remain idle until explicitly commanded to do something, the Lord expects us to seek knowledge and learn and grow without simply being told what to think about everything.

Further,
<blockquote>
Whatever principle of intelligence we attain unto in this life, it will rise with us in the resurrection.

And if a person gains more knowledge and intelligence in this life through his diligence and obedience than another, he will have so much the advantage in the world to come. {{ref|dc2}}
</blockquote>
An important part of the process of gaining this knowledge and intelligence is working diligently to study and learn, and not simply seek to have someone tell us the answers to memorize.

FAIR, religion teachers among the membership of the Church, and even our Church leaders have latitude to hold and express their best understanding of various topics, even to publish books (e.g., Elder Bruce R. McConkie's ''Mormon Doctrine''). Since none of these talks, lessons, papers, blogs, conversations or books have been accepted into the canon, they are not binding as 'the official word of the Church itself.' Does that mean they are useless to help us gain more understanding? No, there's much we can learn from each other, even if we're imperfect in our understanding along the way.

==Conclusion==

FAIR need not speak with the authority of the Church itself, or be an official representative of the Church, in order to provide a useful resource for people to gain a better understanding of Latter-day Saint history and teachings. Further, it is not necessarily correct for us to expect to turn to our Church leaders, particularly the general authorities, for the answer to every single question on a gospel topic.

On many issues, there ''is'' no official Church position, and so there is nothing that an official Church response will provide. In such cases, members are encouraged to use their agency to "study it out in [their] mind" as they seek knowledge and revelation from human and divine sources.

==Endnotes==
#{{note|dc1}}{{s||DC|58|26-28}}
#{{note|dc2}}{{s||DC|130|18-19}}

==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===

===FAIR web site===
[http://www.fairlds.org/faq.html FAIR FAQ] answers the question "How authoritative are the things that you write?"

===External links===
[http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/approaching-mormon-doctrine Official LDS Church Newsroom Article] emphasizing that not every statement by church leaders is official doctrine, and that individual members are encouraged to study independently and together to find gospel answers, in addition to following the "core" gospel doctrinal statements official endorsed or canonized by the Church.

[http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Truth Encyclopedia of Mormonism] entry for Truth, which provides some interesting thoughts about what "truth" is. We can all come to a greater understanding of life's truths from many places and sources, not all of which must be official church pronouncements to be "true".

===Printed material===

Mormonism and politics/California Proposition 8/Questions and myths

2008-12-04T20:53:48Z

PaulMcNabb: /* Questions */

{{Heading1|California Proposition 8: Questions and Myths}}

=Questions=

{{Heading2|Were Church members who were opposed to Proposition 8 disciplined?}}
The Church did not ask members how they would vote on the proposition. California ballots are cast by [http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=elec&group=02001-03000&file=2300 "secret ballot"] in a manner that they can vote free from intimidation. As such, votes cast by Church members remain private unless they themselves chose to disclose this information. The Church does not apply discipline based upon a member’s voting record and has a long standing respect for the separation of civic responsibility and church participation.

The Church may apply discipline based upon other behavior by individual members. Such discipline, if any, is left to local leaders (bishops and stake presidents) who are more intimately acquainted with the behavior that may be in question. it is conceivable that strong feelings on the Church's position compelled certain members to individually take public stands against the Church or its leadership. Depending on the nature of behavior of the individual, some persons may have received admonition or other actions relative to their membership that would be considered "disciplinary" in nature. However, such actions would only be in reaction to the behavior of the individual and not in reaction to their personal feelings or their voting record. Elder L. Whitney Clayton was asked if "Latter-day Saints who publicly opposed Prop. 8 would be subject to some kind of church discipline," to which he responded, "those judgments are left up to local bishops and stake presidents and the particular circumstances involved." {{ref|deseretnews.clayton1}}

{{Heading2|Did the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints contribute money to the "Yes on 8" campaign?}}
The Church as an institution made no direct monetary contributions to the "Yes on 8" campaign. All monetary donations came from individual Church members, who decided if and how much they would contribute.

The Church did, however, make two in-kind donations with the equivalent values of [http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_10842051 $2,078.97] (October 25, 2008) and $2,864.21 (November 1, 2008). The term "in-kind" represents donations that are made to the Church in some form other than cash (For example, the payment of tithing using stock constitutes a in-kind donation). In this case, the in-kind donations were to cover out-of-pocket expenses such as airfare and lodging that were incurred by several Church leaders who travelled to California in support of the proposition. The Church declared these donations, as required by law, and they are part of the public record.

'''Related articles'''
*Dennis Wyatt, [http://www.mantecabulletin.com/main.asp?SectionID=24&SubSectionID=54&ArticleID=60437 It's an outrage! Mormon church donated $2,864 to Yes on 8 effort], ''Manteca Bulletin.com'' (Nov. 29, 2008)

{{Heading2|Did the Church use its facilities or donation processing system to collect money destined for the "Yes on 8" campaign?}}
No. Members wishing to donate were told explicitly that if they chose to donate, the donations had to be made directly to the "ProtectMarriage" organization.

Donations could be made through the online "protectmarriage.com" web site, and members were required to state their name and employer as required by California law. Members were also told that donations should ''not'' go to the Church. In other words, all member donations went directly from the member to the campaign and did not go through any Church processing. In addition, it was made clear to members that donations to the Prop 8 campaign were ''not'' tax deductible.

{{Heading2|Did the Church violate its tax-exempt status by participating in the "Yes on 8" campaign?}}
[[Image:22million.jpg|right|200px]]
From the Internal Revenue Service:
:''Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office…Political campaign intervention includes any and all activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office.''

The church did not participate in or intervene in any of the political campaigns for any of the candidates running in the 2008 election. The IRS does, however, permit a Church to take positions on issues:

:''Under federal tax law, section 501(c)(3) organizations may take positions on public policy issues, including issues that divide candidates in an election for public office.'' {{ref|irs1}}

According to Barry Lynn, executive director of "Americans United for the Separation of Church and State" (and who, for the record, was "outraged by the Prop. 8 victory"):

:"They almost certainly have not violated their tax exemption...While the tax code has a zero tolerance for endorsements of candidates, the tax code gives wide latitude for churches to engage in discussions of policy matters and moral questions, including when posed as initiatives." {{ref|sfgate.11-28}}

Nonprofit 501c(3) organizations are prohibited from spending more than 20 percent of their budgets on political activities. "The 20 percent threshold means that the Catholic or Mormon churches, whose organizations span the globe, would have had to spend hundreds of millions of dollars—if not billions—to violate their tax-exempt status." {{ref|sfgate.11-28.2}}

{{Heading2|But what about the companies that the Church owns?}}
Some companies that are owned by the Church, such as Bonneville Communications, are in business to make profit. These businesses pay their taxes just like any other business: They are not part of the tax-exempt portion of the Church.

There is no evidence that any Church owned for-profit companies made contributions to the Yes on 8 campaign or any supporting organization.

{{Heading2|Were the contributions made by Church members tax deductible?}}
California members who chose to donate to the Prop 8 campaign were explicitly told that their donations would not be tax deductible. None of the funds donated to the campaign are allowed as deductions.

{{Heading2|Were Church members told how much to contribute to the effort?}}
Church headquarters did not pass down individual contribution goals to members. In some cases local Church leaders may have asked members to contribute a specific amount. Some goals were suggested to the general membership by their Stake President, such as “one dollar per day.” Some Stakes provided wards with goals that they were expected to meet.

{{Heading2|Did the Church invest more money in Proposition 8 than in all of its combined humanitarian efforts?}}
The question is not relevant, since the Church as an ''organization'' did not donate any money to “Yes on 8.”

Members contribute to humanitarian efforts sponsored by the church based on their specific abilities. For example, [http://providentliving.org/content/display/0,11666,7416-1-4005-1,00.html fast offerings] are donations to a fund for assisting local and other members who are financially struggling. These funds represent a generous offering of the value of 2 meals abstained from on the first Sunday of each month. The combination of personal sacrifice (fasting) and financial sacrifice make such contributions particularly meaningful for both the donor and the recipient.

The Church also manages a significant humanitarian effort known as "[http://www.lds.org/ldsfoundation/welfare/welcome/0,7133,1325-1-9,00.html LDS Humanitarian Services]". This organization provides relief and assistance for disasters and other urgent humanitarian needs. The amount contributed by the Church to humanitarian causes far outweighs anything that individual members contributed toward the effort to pass Prop 8. According to a [http://providentliving.org/welfare/pdf/2006WelfareFactSheet.pdf 2007 report] from the Presiding Bishopric of the Church, external humanitarian efforts exceeded $1 billion in cash and material contributions from 1985 until 2007. This does not include contributions of many millions more as part of the Church Welfare program.

Other humanitarian efforts include:
* [http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=f318118dd536c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=46398d00422fe010VgnVCM100000176f620a____&hideNav=1 Perpetual Education Fund]
* [http://providentliving.org/channel/0,11677,2022-1,00.html Deseret Industries]
* [http://providentliving.org/channel/0,11677,1703-1,00.html Employment Services]

Many Latter-day Saints make significant contributions to humanitarian efforts outside of LDS sponsored channels. For example, in 2007, high profile Latter-day Saints [http://specials.slate.com/slate60/2007/ John and Karen Huntsman] donated more than $672 million for charitable causes not associated with the LDS Church. [http://www.bc.edu/research/cwp/meta-elements/ssi/vol11.html Utah] in general was ranked #2 of all 50 states in charitable contributions in 2007.

{{Heading2|Wouldn't the money that Church members contributed to the cause have been better spent on humanitarian needs?}}
Church members have always been encouraged to contribute to humanitarian causes. Since all contributions came from individual members, those that donated made the choice to support the “Yes on 8” campaign.

It should be noted that the Latter-day saints believe that family is central to the plan of God for the eternal destiny of His children and has been instituted by divine design for the betterment of society. The First Presidency and Quorum of the 12 Apostles warned "that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets" (see the [http://www.lds.org/library/display/0,4945,161-1-11-1,00.html Proclamation)]. For these reasons, many Latter-day Saints and their leaders believe that Proposition 8, whose original title was "The California Marriage Protection Act" was a cause of great significance and worthy of their most noble efforts.

*Bishop H. David Burton, [http://lds.org/conference/talk/display/0,5232,23-1-851-18,00.html And Who Is My Neighbor?], April 2008 General Conference.

{{Heading2|How does the Church reconcile its opposition to same-sex marriage when it once supported plural marriage?}}
[[Image:6wives1husband.jpg|right|200px|6 wives vs. 1 husband?]]
The same type of question was asked when, after supporting polygamy for years, the Church ceased its practice. The Church no longer practices polygamy, and should not be confused with splinter groups who continue the practice. Prop 8 protesters, however, do like to raise the issue of polygamy, and make no distinction between the LDS Church and splinter groups.

It is important to realize that 19th century Mormons who practiced plural marriage did not seek federal recognition of their marriages. They would have been pleased to simply be left alone, instead of being subject to spy networks, home invasion by federal marshals, loss of the right to vote simply for being members of the Church even if they were not polygamists, jail time, and threats of military occupation by the Congress.

Homosexuals in California with access to domestic partnership laws have far more legal protection and benefits for their cohabitation relationships than 19th century Mormons ever had. Homosexuals who choose to simply cohabitate are likewise unmolested by the state, unlike LDS polygamists of the 19th century.

LDS opposition to the use of the term "marriage" for same-sex unions derives, however, from a belief that homosexual behavior is wrong, contrary to the commandments of God, and something which believers should not support. Homosexuals are free to make their own choices about behavior, but Church members cannot in good conscience encourage that behavior by lending their voice to efforts which socially sanction it.

=Myths=
Critics of the Church have taken advantage of the Proposition 8 backlash to promote their agenda. The following section addresses some of these claims.
{{Heading2|MYTH: Large numbers of people are resigning from the Church because of its support of Prop 8}}
No evidence has been offered for this expansive claim. Throughout the history of the Church, some left the Church over new doctrines in Kirtland or Nauvoo, over strife in Missouri, over the initiation of polygamy, over the move West, over the repeal of polygamy, over the [[Blacks and the priesthood|priesthood ban]], over the repeal of the priesthood ban, over the Church's position on the ERA, and now over Proposition 8. The Church continues to survive and thrive.

Those that do seem to receive media attention for leaving the Church over this issue typically appear to be inactive members who left the Church "in spirit" long ago, but used this as an occasion to formalize their exit:

*'''Massachusetts'''. A "37-year-old" member "who had been inactive in the church since he left Utah at age 20, but who formally asked the church to remove his name from its rolls because of its support of Proposition 8." {{ref|boston.globe.1}}
*'''Massachusetts'''. A gay 32-year-old Boston resident who "also resigned after years as an inactive Mormon." {{ref|boston.globe.2}}

According to Church spokesman Michael Otterson, "All the reports we have received indicate that the vast majority of members solidly support the church position. A few may not, and that's their choice. But you could never describe it as a movement. You can only describe it as a ripple." {{ref|boston.com3}}

{{Heading2|MYTH: Mormons were motivated to do this merely as a vehicle to be considered more mainstream Christian}}
Latter-day Saints object when others attempt to [[Latter-day Saints aren't Christians|classify us as non-Christian]], however, this does not mean that Latter-day Saints are attempting to become "mainstream" Christians. We appreciate being invited to participate in the coalition by our Christian brothers, and did so willingly because we share many of the same family values, even if our theologies differ. Likewise, we welcomed the opportunity to cooperate with Muslims, Jews, and others who share our values and concerns for society.

{{Heading2|MYTH: The church sent thousands of missionaries door to door in CA handing out fliers}}
NO missionaries were asked to participate in the distribution of flyers. Missionaries do not participate in political activities while on their mission.

{{Heading2|MYTH: The Church sent large numbers of out-of-state people in to assist with the "Yes-on-8" campaign}}
Support from the campaign was generated from within congregations in California under direction of the Protect Marriage coalition.{{ref|protectmarriage}} There were no "busloads" of out-of-state people brought in.

=Endnotes=

#{{note|deseretnews.clayton1}}Carrie A. Moore, [http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,705260852,00.html?pg=1 LDS official lauds work for California's Prop. 8], ''Deseret News'' (Nov. 16, 2008)

#{{note|irs1}}[http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=154712,00.html Election Year Activities and the Prohibition on Political Campaign Intervention for Section 501(c)(3) Organizations], Internal Revenue Service
#{{note|sfgate.11-28}}Matthai Kuruvila, [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/27/BAB214BA4E.DTL Tax-exempt benefit disputed in Prop. 8 campaign], ''SFGate'' (Nov. 28, 2008)
#{{note|sfgate.11-28.2}}Matthai Kuruvila, [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/27/BAB214BA4E.DTL Tax-exempt benefit disputed in Prop. 8 campaign], ''SFGate'' (Nov. 28, 2008)

#{{note|boston.globe.1}}Michael Paulson, [http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2008/11/24/gay_marriage_debate_roils_unites_mormons/?page=2 Gay-marriage debate roils, unites Mormons], ''Boston Globe'' (Nov. 24, 2008)
#{{note|boston.globe.2}}Michael Paulson, [http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2008/11/24/gay_marriage_debate_roils_unites_mormons/?page=2 Gay-marriage debate roils, unites Mormons], ''Boston Globe'' (Nov. 24, 2008)
#{{note|boston.globe.3}}Michael Paulson, [http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2008/11/24/gay_marriage_debate_roils_unites_mormons/?page=2 Gay-marriage debate roils, unites Mormons], ''Boston Globe'' (Nov. 24, 2008)
#{{note|protectmarriage}}[http://www.protectmarriage.com/ Protectmarriage.com].

Mormonism and politics/California Proposition 8/Questions and myths

2008-12-04T20:53:04Z

PaulMcNabb: /* Questions */

{{Heading1|California Proposition 8: Questions and Myths}}

=Questions=

{{Heading2|Were Church members who were opposed to Proposition 8 disciplined?}}
The Church did not ask members how they would vote on the proposition. California ballots are cast by [http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=elec&group=02001-03000&file=2300 "secret ballot"] in a manner that they can vote free from intimidation. As such, votes cast by Church members remain private unless they themselves chose to disclose this information. The Church does not apply discipline based upon a member’s voting record and has a long standing respect for the separation of civic responsibility and church participation.

The Church may apply discipline based upon other behavior by individual members. Such discipline, if any, is left to local leaders (bishops and stake presidents) who are more intimately acquainted with the behavior that may be in question. it is conceivable that strong feelings on the Church's position compelled certain members to individually take public stands against the Church or its leadership. Depending on the nature of behavior of the individual, some persons may have received admonition or other actions relative to their membership that would be considered "disciplinary" in nature. However, such actions would only be in reaction to the behavior of the individual and not in reaction to their personal feelings or their voting record. Elder L. Whitney Clayton was asked if "Latter-day Saints who publicly opposed Prop. 8 would be subject to some kind of church discipline," to which he responded, "those judgments are left up to local bishops and stake presidents and the particular circumstances involved." {{ref|deseretnews.clayton1}}

{{Heading2|Did the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints contribute money to the "Yes on 8" campaign?}}
The Church as an institution made no direct monetary contributions to the "Yes on 8" campaign. All monetary donations came from individual Church members, who decided if and how much they would contribute.

The Church did, however, make two in-kind donations with the equivalent values of [http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_10842051 $2,078.97] (October 25, 2008) and $2,864.21 (November 1, 2008). The term "in-kind" represents donations that are made to the Church in some form other than cash (For example, the payment of tithing using stock constitutes a in-kind donation). In this case, the in-kind donations were to cover out-of-pocket expenses such as airfare and lodging that were incurred by several Church leaders who travelled to California in support of the proposition. The Church declared these donations, as required by law, and they are part of the public record.

'''Related articles'''
*Dennis Wyatt, [http://www.mantecabulletin.com/main.asp?SectionID=24&SubSectionID=54&ArticleID=60437 It's an outrage! Mormon church donated $2,864 to Yes on 8 effort], ''Manteca Bulletin.com'' (Nov. 29, 2008)

{{Heading2|Did the Church use its facilities or donation processing system to collect money destined for the "Yes on 8" campaign?}}
No. Members wishing to donate were told explicitly that if they chose to donate, the donations had to be made directly to the "ProtectMarriage" organization.

Donations could be made through the online "protectmarriage.com" web site, and members were required to state their name and employer as required by California law. Members were also told that donations should ''not'' go to the Church. In other words, all member donations went directly from the member to the campaign, and did not go through any Church processing. In addition, it was made clear to members that donations to the Prop 8 campaign were ''not'' tax deductible.

{{Heading2|Did the Church violate its tax-exempt status by participating in the "Yes on 8" campaign?}}
[[Image:22million.jpg|right|200px]]
From the Internal Revenue Service:
:''Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office…Political campaign intervention includes any and all activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office.''

The church did not participate in or intervene in any of the political campaigns for any of the candidates running in the 2008 election. The IRS does, however, permit a Church to take positions on issues:

:''Under federal tax law, section 501(c)(3) organizations may take positions on public policy issues, including issues that divide candidates in an election for public office.'' {{ref|irs1}}

According to Barry Lynn, executive director of "Americans United for the Separation of Church and State" (and who, for the record, was "outraged by the Prop. 8 victory"):

:"They almost certainly have not violated their tax exemption...While the tax code has a zero tolerance for endorsements of candidates, the tax code gives wide latitude for churches to engage in discussions of policy matters and moral questions, including when posed as initiatives." {{ref|sfgate.11-28}}

Nonprofit 501c(3) organizations are prohibited from spending more than 20 percent of their budgets on political activities. "The 20 percent threshold means that the Catholic or Mormon churches, whose organizations span the globe, would have had to spend hundreds of millions of dollars—if not billions—to violate their tax-exempt status." {{ref|sfgate.11-28.2}}

{{Heading2|But what about the companies that the Church owns?}}
Some companies that are owned by the Church, such as Bonneville Communications, are in business to make profit. These businesses pay their taxes just like any other business: They are not part of the tax-exempt portion of the Church.

There is no evidence that any Church owned for-profit companies made contributions to the Yes on 8 campaign or any supporting organization.

{{Heading2|Were the contributions made by Church members tax deductible?}}
California members who chose to donate to the Prop 8 campaign were explicitly told that their donations would not be tax deductible. None of the funds donated to the campaign are allowed as deductions.

{{Heading2|Were Church members told how much to contribute to the effort?}}
Church headquarters did not pass down individual contribution goals to members. In some cases local Church leaders may have asked members to contribute a specific amount. Some goals were suggested to the general membership by their Stake President, such as “one dollar per day.” Some Stakes provided wards with goals that they were expected to meet.

{{Heading2|Did the Church invest more money in Proposition 8 than in all of its combined humanitarian efforts?}}
The question is not relevant, since the Church as an ''organization'' did not donate any money to “Yes on 8.”

Members contribute to humanitarian efforts sponsored by the church based on their specific abilities. For example, [http://providentliving.org/content/display/0,11666,7416-1-4005-1,00.html fast offerings] are donations to a fund for assisting local and other members who are financially struggling. These funds represent a generous offering of the value of 2 meals abstained from on the first Sunday of each month. The combination of personal sacrifice (fasting) and financial sacrifice make such contributions particularly meaningful for both the donor and the recipient.

The Church also manages a significant humanitarian effort known as "[http://www.lds.org/ldsfoundation/welfare/welcome/0,7133,1325-1-9,00.html LDS Humanitarian Services]". This organization provides relief and assistance for disasters and other urgent humanitarian needs. The amount contributed by the Church to humanitarian causes far outweighs anything that individual members contributed toward the effort to pass Prop 8. According to a [http://providentliving.org/welfare/pdf/2006WelfareFactSheet.pdf 2007 report] from the Presiding Bishopric of the Church, external humanitarian efforts exceeded $1 billion in cash and material contributions from 1985 until 2007. This does not include contributions of many millions more as part of the Church Welfare program.

Other humanitarian efforts include:
* [http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=f318118dd536c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=46398d00422fe010VgnVCM100000176f620a____&hideNav=1 Perpetual Education Fund]
* [http://providentliving.org/channel/0,11677,2022-1,00.html Deseret Industries]
* [http://providentliving.org/channel/0,11677,1703-1,00.html Employment Services]

Many Latter-day Saints make significant contributions to humanitarian efforts outside of LDS sponsored channels. For example, in 2007, high profile Latter-day Saints [http://specials.slate.com/slate60/2007/ John and Karen Huntsman] donated more than $672 million for charitable causes not associated with the LDS Church. [http://www.bc.edu/research/cwp/meta-elements/ssi/vol11.html Utah] in general was ranked #2 of all 50 states in charitable contributions in 2007.

{{Heading2|Wouldn't the money that Church members contributed to the cause have been better spent on humanitarian needs?}}
Church members have always been encouraged to contribute to humanitarian causes. Since all contributions came from individual members, those that donated made the choice to support the “Yes on 8” campaign.

It should be noted that the Latter-day saints believe that family is central to the plan of God for the eternal destiny of His children and has been instituted by divine design for the betterment of society. The First Presidency and Quorum of the 12 Apostles warned "that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets" (see the [http://www.lds.org/library/display/0,4945,161-1-11-1,00.html Proclamation)]. For these reasons, many Latter-day Saints and their leaders believe that Proposition 8, whose original title was "The California Marriage Protection Act" was a cause of great significance and worthy of their most noble efforts.

*Bishop H. David Burton, [http://lds.org/conference/talk/display/0,5232,23-1-851-18,00.html And Who Is My Neighbor?], April 2008 General Conference.

{{Heading2|How does the Church reconcile its opposition to same-sex marriage when it once supported plural marriage?}}
[[Image:6wives1husband.jpg|right|200px|6 wives vs. 1 husband?]]
The same type of question was asked when, after supporting polygamy for years, the Church ceased its practice. The Church no longer practices polygamy, and should not be confused with splinter groups who continue the practice. Prop 8 protesters, however, do like to raise the issue of polygamy, and make no distinction between the LDS Church and splinter groups.

It is important to realize that 19th century Mormons who practiced plural marriage did not seek federal recognition of their marriages. They would have been pleased to simply be left alone, instead of being subject to spy networks, home invasion by federal marshals, loss of the right to vote simply for being members of the Church even if they were not polygamists, jail time, and threats of military occupation by the Congress.

Homosexuals in California with access to domestic partnership laws have far more legal protection and benefits for their cohabitation relationships than 19th century Mormons ever had. Homosexuals who choose to simply cohabitate are likewise unmolested by the state, unlike LDS polygamists of the 19th century.

LDS opposition to the use of the term "marriage" for same-sex unions derives, however, from a belief that homosexual behavior is wrong, contrary to the commandments of God, and something which believers should not support. Homosexuals are free to make their own choices about behavior, but Church members cannot in good conscience encourage that behavior by lending their voice to efforts which socially sanction it.

=Myths=
Critics of the Church have taken advantage of the Proposition 8 backlash to promote their agenda. The following section addresses some of these claims.
{{Heading2|MYTH: Large numbers of people are resigning from the Church because of its support of Prop 8}}
No evidence has been offered for this expansive claim. Throughout the history of the Church, some left the Church over new doctrines in Kirtland or Nauvoo, over strife in Missouri, over the initiation of polygamy, over the move West, over the repeal of polygamy, over the [[Blacks and the priesthood|priesthood ban]], over the repeal of the priesthood ban, over the Church's position on the ERA, and now over Proposition 8. The Church continues to survive and thrive.

Those that do seem to receive media attention for leaving the Church over this issue typically appear to be inactive members who left the Church "in spirit" long ago, but used this as an occasion to formalize their exit:

*'''Massachusetts'''. A "37-year-old" member "who had been inactive in the church since he left Utah at age 20, but who formally asked the church to remove his name from its rolls because of its support of Proposition 8." {{ref|boston.globe.1}}
*'''Massachusetts'''. A gay 32-year-old Boston resident who "also resigned after years as an inactive Mormon." {{ref|boston.globe.2}}

According to Church spokesman Michael Otterson, "All the reports we have received indicate that the vast majority of members solidly support the church position. A few may not, and that's their choice. But you could never describe it as a movement. You can only describe it as a ripple." {{ref|boston.com3}}

{{Heading2|MYTH: Mormons were motivated to do this merely as a vehicle to be considered more mainstream Christian}}
Latter-day Saints object when others attempt to [[Latter-day Saints aren't Christians|classify us as non-Christian]], however, this does not mean that Latter-day Saints are attempting to become "mainstream" Christians. We appreciate being invited to participate in the coalition by our Christian brothers, and did so willingly because we share many of the same family values, even if our theologies differ. Likewise, we welcomed the opportunity to cooperate with Muslims, Jews, and others who share our values and concerns for society.

{{Heading2|MYTH: The church sent thousands of missionaries door to door in CA handing out fliers}}
NO missionaries were asked to participate in the distribution of flyers. Missionaries do not participate in political activities while on their mission.

{{Heading2|MYTH: The Church sent large numbers of out-of-state people in to assist with the "Yes-on-8" campaign}}
Support from the campaign was generated from within congregations in California under direction of the Protect Marriage coalition.{{ref|protectmarriage}} There were no "busloads" of out-of-state people brought in.

=Endnotes=

#{{note|deseretnews.clayton1}}Carrie A. Moore, [http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,705260852,00.html?pg=1 LDS official lauds work for California's Prop. 8], ''Deseret News'' (Nov. 16, 2008)

#{{note|irs1}}[http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=154712,00.html Election Year Activities and the Prohibition on Political Campaign Intervention for Section 501(c)(3) Organizations], Internal Revenue Service
#{{note|sfgate.11-28}}Matthai Kuruvila, [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/27/BAB214BA4E.DTL Tax-exempt benefit disputed in Prop. 8 campaign], ''SFGate'' (Nov. 28, 2008)
#{{note|sfgate.11-28.2}}Matthai Kuruvila, [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/27/BAB214BA4E.DTL Tax-exempt benefit disputed in Prop. 8 campaign], ''SFGate'' (Nov. 28, 2008)

#{{note|boston.globe.1}}Michael Paulson, [http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2008/11/24/gay_marriage_debate_roils_unites_mormons/?page=2 Gay-marriage debate roils, unites Mormons], ''Boston Globe'' (Nov. 24, 2008)
#{{note|boston.globe.2}}Michael Paulson, [http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2008/11/24/gay_marriage_debate_roils_unites_mormons/?page=2 Gay-marriage debate roils, unites Mormons], ''Boston Globe'' (Nov. 24, 2008)
#{{note|boston.globe.3}}Michael Paulson, [http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2008/11/24/gay_marriage_debate_roils_unites_mormons/?page=2 Gay-marriage debate roils, unites Mormons], ''Boston Globe'' (Nov. 24, 2008)
#{{note|protectmarriage}}[http://www.protectmarriage.com/ Protectmarriage.com].

Apostasy/The "gates of hell"

2008-12-01T04:47:29Z

PaulMcNabb: /* Latter-day Saint perspective */

{{EarlyChristianityPortal}}
==Criticism==
Critics argue that a universal apostasy is impossible, because Jesus told Peter, "upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." ({{s||Matthew|16|18}}) Critics claim that this means the Church organized by Jesus would never suffer apostasy and loss.

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

==Response==

It is not surprising that this issue revolves around how one interprets Jesus' remark. There are several options. Key to understanding the passage, however, is figuring out what the final "it" refers to: the church or the rock. Does the passage mean "the gates of hell shall not prevail against the church," or does the passage mean "the gates of hell shall not prevail against this rock?" If it refers to the "rock," then one must determine what "the rock" refers to. Similarly, the word "prevail" can be interpreted in a number of ways.

===Catholic perspective===

The Catholic church, of course, thinks that "this rock" is literally Peter, and have based their claims to apostolic succession on the unbroken succession of bishops of Rome back to Peter. Other churches must necessarily define a different meaning, because they cannot claim apostolic succession in this way.

Churches (such as the Protestants) who believe that the Church of Rome is somehow flawed or in apostasy from the pure truth must adopt a different reading.

===Protestant perspective===

Protestant readers have generally interpreted "the rock" to refer to the Christian Church. Under this reading, Jesus is promising that the church will never be entirely overcome by death and/or the forces of Satan.

===Latter-day Saint perspective===

Latter-day Saints have generally read this verse as referring to the only true, unmovable rock that exists--revelation from God. That is the rock upon which any Church must be built, and it is evidenced by the verses just before this one. In {{s||Matthew|16|13-17}}, the subject is literally revelation given to Peter as to who Jesus Christ really is. This knowledge came by revelation from God ({{s||Matthew|16|17}}), and Christ taught Peter that this revelation is the rock upon which He would build His Church. This is confirmed by Joseph Smith's teachings.

:Jesus in His teaching says, “upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” What rock? Revelation.{{ref|js1}}

Both the Protestant and Catholic versions must contend with the fact that other Biblical authors taught an inevitable [[Prediction of the apostasy|apostasy]]. It would seem strange for such Biblical authors, including Peter, to teach something which Jesus here denies.

One must also notice that gates only prevail against something by keeping it out or by holding it in. It makes little sense for gates, which by nature keep inhabitants in or out of a place, to "prevail" by forcing something to enter is completely illogical. The Catholic and Protestant interpretations force an interpretation that isn't logical, namely, that gates prevail by forcing someone to enter or someone to leave. Gates, of course, serve no such function. Gates keep things in or out, but they do not force things to go in or to go out.

'''Prevail meaning to keep out'''

The word translated as "hell" in the KJV is actually ''Hades'', the dwelling place of all departed spirits. For the gates of Hades to not prevail against them could mean that the gates would not be able to stop the church from entering therein. (By comparison, in ''The Gospel of Nicodemus'' the "gates" mentioned in Psalm 24 refer to the gates of Hades and the attempt made there to keep out Jesus in the period between his death and resurrection. [See ''The Gospel of Nicodemus'', Part II, 6 in ANF 8:436-437.]) In other words, Christ’s Church, his disciples, would preach the gospel not only among the living, but also among the dead—not even the gates of Hades could keep them out.

In this context, Jesus gives Peter the sealing power to bind on earth and have it bound in heaven. For Latter-day Saints the word "bind" in Matthew 16:19 is synonymous with "seal." This passage has reference to priesthood authority to perform ordinances or sacraments, such as baptism, echoing the ''Shepherd of Hermas''’ usage of the word "seal." {{ref|Hermas}} When a baptism (seal) is performed vicariously for the dead by proper priesthood authority, the seal (baptism) is recognized in heaven. Thus, Joseph Smith explained, "there is a way to release the spirit of the dead; that is, by the power and authority of the Priesthood—by binding and loosing on earth." {{ref|JS}}

As extreme as this interpretation may seem, this was not a foreign concept to early Christians. Clement of Alexandria (AD 160-215), among others, believed that the apostles of Christ preached the gospel to the departed spirits in Hades. "And it has been shown also…that the apostles, following the Lord, preached the Gospel to those in Hades. For it was requisite, in my opinion, that as here, so also there, the best of the disciples should be imitators of the master..." {{ref|Clement}}

'''Prevail meaning to keep in'''

Another interpretation is that "prevail" has reference to keeping inhabitants inside. In this thought, gates could only prevail against something that is already inside of them and not external to them. This interpretation would be that Christ was saying that His Church would soon be inside the gates of the spirit world alone because of apostasy on earth, but that the Church would later come out from the world of the dead and back to earth—that His Church would shortly be confined to the spirit world, held back by its gates, but that later, members of Christ's ancient church (such as Peter, James, and John) would come, by revelation, out from behind the gates of Hades to restore the gospel to the earth.

Both of the above readings are distinct possibilities. Both reconcile all the Biblical data.

'''Prevail meaning shut up against'''

A literal translation of the passage reads as follows:

:''"You are Peter or a small stone broken from a larger rock and upon the original larger rock I will establish my church and the gates of the world of spirts, or sheol, will not be shut up against my church or overpower the dead saints."'' <ref>Personal translation taken from [http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/c.pl?book=Mat&chapter=16&verse=18&version=KJV#18 Blueletter Bible] and BYU Professor Wilf Griggs</ref>

In this context the passage could be Christ teaching that the spirits of the departed will have the chance to hear the gospel. This is supported by Peter's teaching about Christ's ministry to the world of spirits just prior to his ressurrection in [http://scriptures.lds.org/en/1_pet/3/18-22 2 Peter 3:18-22] through [http://scriptures.lds.org/en/1_pet/4/1-7 2 Peter 4:1-6]).

Latter-day Saints believe that this sealing power given to Peter is the same power and keys that can seal families on both sides of the veil.

===Jesus is also the Rock===

It is not just revelation, however, that is key, but the revelation of Christ by God the Father.

The image of a rock is found throughout scripture, and bears directly on Jesus' remark to Peter:

:But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace; And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby: And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh. For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father. Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit. ({{s||Ephesians|2|13-22}})

Paul argues that the Church is built on a foundation of, among others, apostles and prophets, who were grounded in Christ as the cornerstone. Thus, Christ is the rock, as are those who receive revelation of Christ (such as the apostles and prophets) and His mission as part of their calling. Significantly, the apostasy resulted in the loss of apostolic authority (unless one accepts the apostolic succession of Rome).

Paul cautioned the Corinthian saints against presuming they could build on anyone or thing besides Christ:

: For we are labourers together with God: ye are God's husbandry, ye are God's building. According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon. '''For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.''' Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble; Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is. If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire. Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are. Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness. And again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain. Therefore let no man glory in men. For all things are yours; Whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or the world, or life, or death, or things present, or things to come; all are yours; And ye are Christ's; and Christ is God's. ({{s|1|Corinthians|3|9-23}}) {{ea}}

Paul tells the saints that they are building the Church; but the Church cannot be built on man or men, even great men like Paul, Apollos, or Peter. (Of course, one cannot ''reject'' the testimony of the prophets and apostles either. But, relying on a mortal, fallible man alone will not suffice.)

Only Christ is a sufficiently firm basis for faith, practice, and belief. And, Christ cannot be found through the "wisdom of this world," but only through on-going ''revelation''.

Paul noted the use of the same symbol later in the epistle, tying the Christians to covenant Israel:

: MOREOVER, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; And did all eat the same spiritual meat; And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and '''that Rock was Christ'''. ({{s|1|Corinthians|10|1-4}}) {{ea}}

One must ask again, How was Israel guided? By a prophet, who provided knowledge by revelation of the Rock of Israel. This symbol was a common one, of course, for the Israelites:

:Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner [stone], a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste. Judgment also will I lay to the line, and righteousness to the plummet: and the hail shall sweep away the refuge of lies, and the waters shall overflow the hiding place. ({{s||Isaiah|28|16-17}})

==Conclusion==

Jesus' teaching about the rock is not a reference to any individual church or group of believers, since even well-intentioned mortals must fail. Christ is the only sure foundation upon which a church can be built, and the knowledge of Christ must come as it always has, as it came to Peter—by direct revelation from the Father. Christ's Church will then be built upon those who have such revelation of Christ, including prophets and apostles.

The gates of hell prevailing against the church must refer to keeping the church in or out of the Hades, the dwelling place of departed spirits. Gates do not force people to enter or leave, but they do keep people from going in or out. Therefore, the Catholic and Protestant interpretations are not very intelligible whereas the Latter-day Saints can interpret the passage in at least two logical, Biblically sound ways.
==Endnotes==
#{{note|js1}} {{wordsjs|start=156|end=158}}; {{HoC1|vol=5|start=258}}; {{TPJS1|start=274}}
#{{note|Hermas}}''The Pastor of Hermas'', ANF 2:49. See also, Bruce R. McConkie ''Mormon Doctrine'', 615-616; and Doctrine and Covenants 128.
#{{note|JS}}Joseph Smith in ''The Essential Joseph Smith'' (Salt Lake City: Signature, 1995), 151-152.
#{{note|Clement}} Clement of Alexandria, ''The Stromata,'' or ''Miscellanies VI.'' in ANF, 2:490.

==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===
{{ApostasyWiki}}
{{PriesthoodWiki}}

===FAIR web site===
{{ApostasyFAIR}}

==Videos==
{{Video:Keller:2004:The Apostasy}}

===External links===
{{ApostasyLinks}}

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

Apostasy/The "gates of hell"

2008-12-01T04:45:59Z

PaulMcNabb: /* Response */

{{EarlyChristianityPortal}}
==Criticism==
Critics argue that a universal apostasy is impossible, because Jesus told Peter, "upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." ({{s||Matthew|16|18}}) Critics claim that this means the Church organized by Jesus would never suffer apostasy and loss.

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

==Response==

It is not surprising that this issue revolves around how one interprets Jesus' remark. There are several options. Key to understanding the passage, however, is figuring out what the final "it" refers to: the church or the rock. Does the passage mean "the gates of hell shall not prevail against the church," or does the passage mean "the gates of hell shall not prevail against this rock?" If it refers to the "rock," then one must determine what "the rock" refers to. Similarly, the word "prevail" can be interpreted in a number of ways.

===Catholic perspective===

The Catholic church, of course, thinks that "this rock" is literally Peter, and have based their claims to apostolic succession on the unbroken succession of bishops of Rome back to Peter. Other churches must necessarily define a different meaning, because they cannot claim apostolic succession in this way.

Churches (such as the Protestants) who believe that the Church of Rome is somehow flawed or in apostasy from the pure truth must adopt a different reading.

===Protestant perspective===

Protestant readers have generally interpreted "the rock" to refer to the Christian Church. Under this reading, Jesus is promising that the church will never be entirely overcome by death and/or the forces of Satan.

===Latter-day Saint perspective===

Latter-day Saints have generally read this verse as referring to the only true, unmovable rock that exists--revelation from God. That is the rock upon which any Church must be built, and it is evidenced by the verses just before this one. In {{s||Matthew|16|13-17}}, the subject is literally revelation given to Peter as to who Jesus Christ really is. This knowledge came by revelation from God ({{s||Matthew|16|17}}), and Christ taught Peter that this revelation is the rock upon which He would build His Church. This is confirmed by Joseph Smith's teachings.

:Jesus in His teaching says, “upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” What rock? Revelation.{{ref|js1}}

Both the Protestant and Catholic versions must contend with the fact that other Biblical authors taught an inevitable [[Prediction of the apostasy|apostasy]]. It would seem strange for such Biblical authors, including Peter, to teach something which Jesus here denies.

One must also notice that gates only prevail against something by keeping it out or by holding it in. It makes little sense for gates, which by nature keep inhabitants in or out of a place, to "prevail" by forcing something to enter is completely illogical. The Catholic and Protestant interpretations force an interpretation that isn't logical, namely, that gates prevail by forcing someone to enter or someone to leave. Gates, of course, serve no such function. Gates keep things in or out, but they do not force things to go in or to go out.

'''Prevail meaning to keep out'''

The word translated as "hell" in the KJV is actually ''Hades'', the dwelling place of all departed spirits. For the gates of Hades to not prevail against them could mean that the gates would not be able to stop the church from entering therein. (By comparison, in ''The Gospel of Nicodemus'' the "gates" mentioned in Psalm 24 refer to the gates of Hades and the attempt made there to keep out Jesus in the period between his death and resurrection. [See ''The Gospel of Nicodemus'', Part II, 6 in ANF 8:436-437.]) In other words, Christ’s Church, his disciples, would preach the gospel not only among the living, but also among the dead—not even the gates of Hades could keep them out.

In this context, Jesus gives Peter the sealing power to bind on earth and have it bound in heaven. For Latter-day Saints the word "bind" in Matthew 16:19 is synonymous with "seal." This passage has reference to priesthood authority to perform ordinances or sacraments, such as baptism, echoing the ''Shepherd of Hermas''’ usage of the word "seal." {{ref|Hermas}} When a baptism (seal) is performed vicariously for the dead by proper priesthood authority, the seal (baptism) is recognized in heaven. Thus, Joseph Smith explained, "there is a way to release the spirit of the dead; that is, by the power and authority of the Priesthood—by binding and loosing on earth." {{ref|JS}}

As extreme as this interpretation may seem, this was not a foreign concept to early Christians. Clement of Alexandria (AD 160-215), among others, believed that the apostles of Christ preached the gospel to the departed spirits in Hades. "And it has been shown also…that the apostles, following the Lord, preached the Gospel to those in Hades. For it was requisite, in my opinion, that as here, so also there, the best of the disciples should be imitators of the master..." {{ref|Clement}}

'''Prevail meaning to keep in'''

Another interpretation is that "prevail" has reference to keeping inhabitants inside. In this thought, gates could only prevail against something that is already inside of them and not external to them. This interpretation would be that Christ was saying that His Church would soon be inside the gates of the spirit world alone because of apostasy on earth, but that the Church would later come out from the world of the dead and back to earth—that His Church would shortly be confined to the spirit world, held back by its gates, but that later, members of Christ's Ancient Church (such as Peter, James, and John) would come, by revelation, out from behind the gates of Hades to restore the gospel to the earth.

Both of the above readings are distinct possibilities. Both reconcile all the Biblical data.

'''Prevail meaning shut up against'''

A literal translation of the passage reads as follows:

:''"You are Peter or a small stone broken from a larger rock and upon the original larger rock I will establish my church and the gates of the world of spirts, or sheol, will not be shut up against my church or overpower the dead saints."'' <ref>Personal translation taken from [http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/c.pl?book=Mat&chapter=16&verse=18&version=KJV#18 Blueletter Bible] and BYU Professor Wilf Griggs</ref>

In this context the passage could be Christ teaching that the spirits of the departed will have the chance to hear the gospel. This is supported by Peter's teaching about Christ's ministry to the world of spirits just prior to his ressurrection in [http://scriptures.lds.org/en/1_pet/3/18-22 2 Peter 3:18-22] through [http://scriptures.lds.org/en/1_pet/4/1-7 2 Peter 4:1-6]).

Latter-day Saints believe that this sealing power given to Peter is the same power and keys that can seal families on both sides of the veil.

===Jesus is also the Rock===

It is not just revelation, however, that is key, but the revelation of Christ by God the Father.

The image of a rock is found throughout scripture, and bears directly on Jesus' remark to Peter:

:But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace; And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby: And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh. For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father. Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit. ({{s||Ephesians|2|13-22}})

Paul argues that the Church is built on a foundation of, among others, apostles and prophets, who were grounded in Christ as the cornerstone. Thus, Christ is the rock, as are those who receive revelation of Christ (such as the apostles and prophets) and His mission as part of their calling. Significantly, the apostasy resulted in the loss of apostolic authority (unless one accepts the apostolic succession of Rome).

Paul cautioned the Corinthian saints against presuming they could build on anyone or thing besides Christ:

: For we are labourers together with God: ye are God's husbandry, ye are God's building. According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon. '''For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.''' Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble; Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is. If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire. Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are. Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness. And again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain. Therefore let no man glory in men. For all things are yours; Whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or the world, or life, or death, or things present, or things to come; all are yours; And ye are Christ's; and Christ is God's. ({{s|1|Corinthians|3|9-23}}) {{ea}}

Paul tells the saints that they are building the Church; but the Church cannot be built on man or men, even great men like Paul, Apollos, or Peter. (Of course, one cannot ''reject'' the testimony of the prophets and apostles either. But, relying on a mortal, fallible man alone will not suffice.)

Only Christ is a sufficiently firm basis for faith, practice, and belief. And, Christ cannot be found through the "wisdom of this world," but only through on-going ''revelation''.

Paul noted the use of the same symbol later in the epistle, tying the Christians to covenant Israel:

: MOREOVER, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; And did all eat the same spiritual meat; And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and '''that Rock was Christ'''. ({{s|1|Corinthians|10|1-4}}) {{ea}}

One must ask again, How was Israel guided? By a prophet, who provided knowledge by revelation of the Rock of Israel. This symbol was a common one, of course, for the Israelites:

:Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner [stone], a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste. Judgment also will I lay to the line, and righteousness to the plummet: and the hail shall sweep away the refuge of lies, and the waters shall overflow the hiding place. ({{s||Isaiah|28|16-17}})

==Conclusion==

Jesus' teaching about the rock is not a reference to any individual church or group of believers, since even well-intentioned mortals must fail. Christ is the only sure foundation upon which a church can be built, and the knowledge of Christ must come as it always has, as it came to Peter—by direct revelation from the Father. Christ's Church will then be built upon those who have such revelation of Christ, including prophets and apostles.

The gates of hell prevailing against the church must refer to keeping the church in or out of the Hades, the dwelling place of departed spirits. Gates do not force people to enter or leave, but they do keep people from going in or out. Therefore, the Catholic and Protestant interpretations are not very intelligible whereas the Latter-day Saints can interpret the passage in at least two logical, Biblically sound ways.
==Endnotes==
#{{note|js1}} {{wordsjs|start=156|end=158}}; {{HoC1|vol=5|start=258}}; {{TPJS1|start=274}}
#{{note|Hermas}}''The Pastor of Hermas'', ANF 2:49. See also, Bruce R. McConkie ''Mormon Doctrine'', 615-616; and Doctrine and Covenants 128.
#{{note|JS}}Joseph Smith in ''The Essential Joseph Smith'' (Salt Lake City: Signature, 1995), 151-152.
#{{note|Clement}} Clement of Alexandria, ''The Stromata,'' or ''Miscellanies VI.'' in ANF, 2:490.

==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===
{{ApostasyWiki}}
{{PriesthoodWiki}}

===FAIR web site===
{{ApostasyFAIR}}

==Videos==
{{Video:Keller:2004:The Apostasy}}

===External links===
{{ApostasyLinks}}

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

Will "endless punishment" last forever?

2008-11-30T06:35:03Z

PaulMcNabb: /* Conclusion */

==Criticism==
*Critics claim that the Church teaches that "endless punishment" does not actually last forever, and that this contradicts the Book of Mormon.

===Source(s) of the criticism===
*{{CriticalWork:Tanner:Changing World|pages=506}}

==Response==
===The nature of "endless" and "eternal" punishment===
The Lord often uses the phrases "endless punishment," "endless torment," and "eternal damnation" to describe the type of punishment that will be administered to the wicked. It is natural to assume, given our understanding of the words "endless" and "eternal," to believe that punishment would continue forever. In fact, the Book of Mormon states:

{{s|1|Nephi|9|16}}

:And assuredly, as the Lord liveth, for the Lord God hath spoken it, and it is his eternal word, which cannot pass away, that they who are righteous shall be righteous still, and they who are filthy shall be filthy still; wherefore, they who are filthy are the devil and his angels; and they shall go away into everlasting fire, prepared for them; and their torment is as a lake of fire and brimstone, whose flame ascendeth up forever and ever and has no end.

This certainly initially appears to support the critic's assertion that the Book of Mormon indicates that the suffering of the wicked will go on forever without end. In fact, Alma's son Corianton was concerned about the nature of this punishment.

{{s||Alma|42|1}}

:And now, my son, I perceive there is somewhat more which doth worry your mind, which ye cannot understand—which is concerning the justice of God in the punishment of the sinner; for ye do try to suppose that it is injustice that the sinner should be consigned to a state of misery.

Alma's response to his son emphasized the need to repent in order to satisfy justice, but he did not elaborate on the exact nature of the punishment that would be administered if one did not repent. The natural concern is the idea that people would be "consigned to suffer throughout all eternity for what was done during the few years of mortality." {{ref|clark1}} Fortunately, the Lord clarified the meaning of these terms to Joseph Smith in a revelation given in March, 1830.

{{s||DC|19|4-12}} states:

:And surely every man must repent or suffer, for I, God, am endless.
:Wherefore, I revoke not the judgments which I shall pass, but woes shall go forth, weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth, yea, to those who are found on my left hand.
:Nevertheless, it is not written that there shall be no end to this torment, but it is written endless torment.
:Again, it is written eternal damnation; wherefore it is more express than other scriptures, that it might work upon the hearts of the children of men, altogether for my name’s glory.
:Wherefore, I will explain unto you this mystery, for it is meet unto you to know even as mine apostles.
:I speak unto you that are chosen in this thing, even as one, that you may enter into my rest.
:For, behold, the mystery of godliness, how great is it! For, behold, I am endless, and the punishment which is given from my hand is endless punishment, for Endless is my name. Wherefore—
:Eternal punishment is God’s punishment.
:Endless punishment is God’s punishment.

===The Book of Mormon provides clues about the meaning of "endless" and "eternal"===
However, the Book of Mormon does indeed provide some indication of the true nature of "eternal" and "endless" punishment. Consider Alma's description of his conversion experience during the three days that he was incapacitated after seeing an angel. Alma says,

:I was racked with '''eternal''' torment, for my soul was harrowed up to the greatest degree and racked with all my sins. ({{s||Alma|36|12}}) {{ea}}

Alma's "eternal torment" ''lasted only three days'', which implies that he was describing the ''nature'' of his torment rather than its duration. Similarly, in {{s||Mosiah|27|28}} Alma says

:Nevertheless, after wading through much tribulation, repenting nigh unto death, the Lord in mercy hath seen fit to '''snatch me out of an everlasting burning''', and I am born of God.

The term "everlasting burning" obviously refers to a state of torment rather than a duration.

In the Book of Mormon, which the critics say does not teach of a deliverance from such punishment, we find:

:O the greatness of the mercy of our God, the Holy One of Israel! For he '''delivereth his saints from that awful monster the devil, and death, and hell, and that lake of fire and brimstone, which is endless torment'''. {{s|2|Nephi|9:19}} {{ea}}

The statements by Alma and Nephi effectively negate the criticism that the Book of Mormon contradicts Joseph Smith's teachings on the nature of "endless" and "eternal" punishment.

===Two different states of "hell"===

{{s||John|5|29}} states that both the righteous and the wicked will be resurrected:

:And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

Since both the righteous and wicked will be resurrected, there are two states that can be described as "hell" in the scriptures. {{ref|ensign.apr.1986}}
1. The temporary condition of the wicked between physical death and resurrection.
2. The never-ending state of the wicked after resurrection and judgment.

Support for this concept of a redemption from the temporary "hell" as the result of Christ's atonement may be obtained from the Bible. For example, David is promised that his soul will not be left "in hell:"

{{s||Psalms|16|10}}

:For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.

Isaiah also alludes to a redemption of the "prisoners:"

{{s||Isaiah|49|8-9}}

:Thus saith the Lord, In an acceptable time have I heard thee, and in a day of salvation have I helped thee: and I will preserve thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, to establish the earth, to cause to inherit the desolate heritages;
:That thou mayest say to the prisoners, Go forth; to them that are in darkness, Shew yourselves. They shall feed in the ways, and their pastures shall be in all high places.

===The concept of the redemption after this life is not unique to Mormonism===
The concept that God's mercy applies to those who have died is not unique in LDS theology. Pope Pius IX once stated,

:Far be it from Us, Venerable Brethren, to presume to establish limits to the divine mercy, which is infinite. {{ref|pius1}}

Anglican Oliver Chase Quick said,
:Such universal redemption may be said to be the antecedent purpose of God's atoning work in Christ, and we dare not set limits to what the cross may achieve.{{ref|quick1}}

Rev. G. Frederick Wright states in 1882 in his book ''An Inquiry Concerning the Relation of Death to Probation'',

:The grounds upon which the Christian public is advised to abandon the historical belief that man's character for eternity is determined by his conduct before death are twofold

:''First''. That certain passages of Scripture, either directly or by implication, teach that some will have their probation continued after death.

:''Second''. That with the supposition of such a continuance of probation the character of God appears more and merciful.{{ref|wright1}}

Continuing on this subject in 1883, Wright states,

:It is, indeed, true that if we collect together in one magazine article an account of the individual Christian teachers who during the eighteen hundred years of the existence of Christianity have expressed themselves in favor of restoration or of some sort of probation after death, the list seems formidable. Even Luther can be quoted as favoring a belief that some of the heathen will have the gospel extended to them after death.{{ref|wright2}}

In 1900, George B. Eager suggested that, "It does not become us to set limits to the grace of God." {{ref|eager1}}

The concept that one could be redeemed after death through Christ's atonement is clearly not unique to Mormonism.

===The meaning of "eternal" life===
Given the "eternal" punishment represents "God's punishment," it stands to reason the "eternal" life refers to "God's life." Arthur R. Bassett states in the February 1978 ''Ensign'':

:The significant relationship between knowing God and eternal life is clarified by the Lord’s explanation to Joseph in 1830 that “Endless” is another name properly applied to Him, and, consequently, that Eternal punishment, or Endless punishment, is God’s punishment. (See D&C 19:10–12.) It seems to follow then that eternal life is God’s life. Therefore, the Prophet’s statement can be taken to mean, in part, that eternal life, being God’s life, is understood only as one comes to know God and Christ. Knowing the Master ultimately seems to mean becoming like the Master.{{ref|ensign.feb.1978}}

==Conclusion==
The Book of Mormon does provide indications that the use of the words "endless" and "eternal" indicate the ''nature'' of the punishment rather than its ''duration'', thus contradicting the claims made by the critics. The Lord, through modern revelation, provided clarification on the meaning of the terms "endless" and "eternal" when used to describe punishment. Thus, Latter-day Saints understand "endless punishment" and "eternal punishment" to mean "God's punishment," since "endless" and "eternal" are two of God's names. Likewise, the term "eternal life" can be interpreted to mean "God's life" in the same manner.

==Endnotes==
#{{note|clark1}}{{JBMS-11-1-6}} 
#{{note|ensign.apr.1986}} {{Ensign | author=H. Donl Peterson|article=I Have a Question: What is the meaning of the Book of Mormon scriptures on eternal hell for the wicked?|date=April 1986|start=36|end=38}}
#{{note|pius1}}Pope Pius IX, ''Singulari Quadam'' (1854)
#{{note|quick1}}Oliver Chase Quick, ''Doctrines of the Creed — Their Basis in Scripture and Their Meaning to Day'', p. 260.
#{{note|wright1}}George Frederick Wright, ''An Inquiry Concerning the Relation of Death to Probation'', (Boston: Congregational Publishing Society, 1882), p. 22.
#{{note|wright2}}Rev. G. Frederick Wright, “The Practical Bearings of our belief concerning the Relation of Death to Probation,” ''Bibliotheca Sacra'' 40 (1883): 694-713, at page 696-7.
#{{note|ensign.feb.1978}}{{Ensign1 | author=Arthur R. Bassett | article=The Shepherd and His Other Sheep|date=Feb. 1978|start=53|}}
#{{note|eager1}}George B. Eager, "Are the Heathen Lost Without the Gospel?", ''The Homiletic Review'' 40 (Oct 1900): 352-5; 355.

==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===
*[[Search for the Truth DVD:What is Hell?]]

===FAIR web site===
*Barry R. Bickmore, [http://www.fairlds.org/Anti-Mormons/Tanners_on_the_Hereafter.html The Tanners on the Hereafter: A Case Study in "Studied Ignorance"]

===External links===

===Printed material===

Book of Mormon/Lamanites/Relationship to Polynesians

2008-11-30T06:34:19Z

PaulMcNabb: /* Endnotes */

{{draft}}
{{DNAPortal}}
==Criticism==
*Critics claim that the Church has expanded the definition of "Lamanite" to Polynesians.
*Modern day prophets have repeatedly declared that Polynesians are Lamanites.
*The patriarchal blessings of Polynesians often state that they are of the tribe of Manasseh (through Lehi).

===Source(s) of the criticism===
*{{CriticalWork:Southerton:Losing|pages=37–39, Chapter 4}}

==Response==
===Background===
Critics have correctly pointed out that many Latter-day prophets and apostles have stated that the inhabitants of the islands of the Pacific are considered to be Lamanites. In addition, they have also correctly noted that this belief, at least in part, stems from the story of Hagoth in the Book of Mormon, who built ships which eventually carried an undetermined number of people to geographical regions outside the scope of the Book of Mormon narrative. Critics insist, however, that modern evidence, including [[Book of Mormon and DNA evidence|DNA data]], precludes the islanders from being descendants of Book of Mormon people.

===The story of Hagoth===
The Book of Mormon talks of groups of people who set sail in ships and were never seen again.

:And it came to pass that Hagoth, he being an exceedingly curious man, therefore he went forth and built him an exceedingly large ship, on the borders of the land Bountiful, by the land Desolation, and launched it forth into the west sea, by the narrow neck which led into the land northward.
:And behold, there were many of the Nephites who did enter therein and did sail forth with much provisions, and also many women and children; and they took their course northward. And thus ended the thirty and seventh year.
:And in the thirty and eighth year, this man built other ships. And the first ship did also return, and many more people did enter into it; and they also took much provisions, and set out again to the land northward.
:And it came to pass that they were never heard of more. And we suppose that they were drowned in the depths of the sea. And it came to pass that one other ship also did sail forth; and whither she did go we know not. {{s||Alma|63|5-8}}

This story has traditionally been used to explain why the Pacific islanders are considered to be Lamanites.


===Statements by Church leaders===

Elder Spencer W. Kimball, while he was the Acting President of the Council of the Twelve, said in 1971,

: With pride I tell those who come to my office that a Lamanite is a descendant of one Lehi who left Jerusalem some 600 years before Christ and with his family crossed the mighty deep and landed in America. And Lehi and his family became the ancestors of all of the Indian and Mestizo tribes in North and South and Central America and in the islands of the sea, for in the middle of their history there were those who left America in ships of their making and went to the islands of the sea…they are in nearly all the islands of the sea from Hawaii south to southern New Zealand…Today we have many Lamanite leaders in the Church. For example, in Tonga, where 20 percent of all the people in the islands belong to the Church, we have three large stakes. Two of them are presided over wholly by Lamanites and the other almost wholly by them. There are three stakes in Samoa and another is to be organized in those small Samoan islands. Four more stakes with Lamanite leaders!{{ref|Kimball.Ensign.1971}}

The approach by the critics, therefore, is very simple: If the islanders can be proven to have no connection to the New World, then Polynesians cannot be considered to be Lamanites. The statements made by Elder Kimball and other Church leaders would therefore be incorrect, thus proving that these leaders are not inspired. Proving a negative, however, is extremely difficult to do. Many critics' arguments against the Book of Mormon rely upon proving that something does ''not'' exist. In the case of Polynesia, there is at least one well known anomaly tying Polynesia to the New World that is acknowledged by non-LDS scientists.

===The sweet potato===
An anomaly long puzzled over by botanists is the presence of the sweet potato in Polynesia. The Sweet Potato is native to New World, and it is believed to have originated in either the Central or South American lowlands.{{ref|Obrien1}} The subject of how and when the sweet potato traveled from the New World to Polynesia has long been the subject of debate among scientists. Dr. Roland B. Dixon, a cultural anthropologist who organized one of the world’s most comprehensive and functional anthropological libraries, noted three theories that have been proposed to explain the presence of this New World plant in the islands:{{ref|Dixon1}}
#The plant was introduced by the Spanish conquerors of South America during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.
#It was introduced in pre-Columbian times by Polynesians who visited South America and brought it back with them.
#It was introduced by New World travelers during exploratory voyages to the west.

An even more intriguing is the name of this plant: In Peru, the Quechua name for a particular type of sweet potato is “kumar.” In Polynesia, some of the names used are “kumala” and “kumara.” Dr. Dixon concluded in 1932 that,

:An exhaustive, impartial, and able analysis of the evidence demonstrates that the kumara was widely spread in Polynesia centuries before the Spaniards, first of European explorers, saw the Pacific.{{ref|Dixon2}}

Molecular biologist Dr. Simon Southerton, in his critical book [[Losing a Lost Tribe: Native Americans, DNA, and the Mormon Church|''Losing a Lost Tribe: Native Americans, DNA, and the Mormon Church'']], takes the position that the similarity in names must have been the result of European colonization.{{ref|Southerton.177}} The theory that the sweet potato's arrival was due to the Spaniards was proven to be incorrect, however, with the discovery of carbonized sweet potato remains in excavations at Mangaia, in the Cook Islands. The remains were dated to 1000 A.D., a full 500 years before the arrival of the Spaniards.{{ref|Hammond1}}{{ref|Kirch.2000}}{{ref|Green.2005}} Additional sweet potato remains which pre-date European contact have also been discovered in Hawaii, Easter Island and New Zealand, indicating that the plant was widely dispersed before the Europeans arrived.{{ref|Montenegro1}}

Dr. Dixon rejected the idea that South Americans could have traveled to Polynesia because they did not have the skill to build ships capable of making the voyage. More recently, however, scientists have noted that possibility that the plant may have arrived in the islands accidentally, either on a disabled craft or by means of seed capsules that drifted to the islands from the New World. It is even more interesting to note that during drift tests conducted to investigate this possibility, that the most probable drift route was found to be between Central America and the Marshall Islands.{{ref|Hammond2}}

The possibility of plants (and people), drifting to the islands from the New World certainly fits well with the story of Hagoth.

===Other possible connections between the Pacific islands and the New World===
The island of Rapa Nui (also known as Easter Island), there are stone walls which were built and without the aid of mortar. The stones fit so precisely together than there are no visible gaps. The workmanship of these stone walls very closely resembles that of similar walls found in Peru.{{ref|nova1}} Another connection between Polynesia and South America came to light in 2007 when the bones of a chicken native to Polynesia were found in an archaeological dig in El Arenal. The bones pre-date the arrival of the Spaniards by approximately 100 years.{{ref|livesci}}{{ref|latimes}} A variety of cotton in Hawaii has been genetically linked to the most common variety of cotton grown in Mexico.{{ref|sorenson1}}

==Conclusion==
So, what does this prove? The presence of a New World plant in pre-Columbian Polynesia does not ''prove'' anything with respect to the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon is to be believed based upon faith rather than circumstantial evidence. The data that ''is'' coming to light, however, continues to support the possibility of multiple pre-Columbian connections between Polynesia and the New World. More importantly, this data is eliminating "absence of evidence" as a critical argument against a Polynesian connection with the New World.

==Endnotes==

#{{note|Kimball.Ensign.1971}}{{Ensign1 | author=Spencer W. Kimball | article=Of Royal Blood|date=July 1971|start=7|}}
#{{note|Obrien1}}Patricia J. O’Brien, “The Sweet Potato: Its Origin and Dispersal,” ''American Anthropologist'', Vol. 74, No. 3 (Jun. 1972), pp. 342-365.
#{{note|Dixon1}}Roland B. Dixon, “The Problem of the Sweet Potato in Polynesia,” ''American Anthropologist'', Vol. 34, No. 1 (Jan. – Mar. 1932) pp. 40-66.
#{{note|Dixon2}}Dixon, pp. 40-66.
#{{note|Southerton.177}}Simon G. Southerton, ''Losing a Lost Tribe: Native Americans, DNA, and the Mormon Church'']], p. 177.
#{{note|Hammond1}}Norman Hammond, [http://sci.tech-archive.net/Archive/sci.archaeology/2008-03/msg00537.html "The lowly sweet potato may unlock America's past, How the root vegetable found its way across the Pacific"], Mar. 24, 2008.
#{{note|Kirch.2000}}P. Kirch, ''On the Road of The Winds: An Archaeological History of the Pacific Islands Before European Contact''. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2000.
#{{note|Green.2005}}R. C. Green, "Sweet Potato Transfers in Polynesian prehistory" in C. Ballard, P. Brown, R.M. Bourke, T. Harwood (eds.) ''The Sweet Potato in Oceania: A Reappraisal''. New South Wales, Australia : University of Sydney Press, 2005.
#{{note|Montenegro1}}Montenegro et al., [http://wikyonos.seos.uvic.ca/people/caavis/SPotato_V2.pdf "Modelling the pre-historic arrival of the sweet potato in Polynesia"], University of Victoria, School of Earth and Ocean Science.
#{{note|Hammond2}}Hammond.
#{{note|Nova1}}Liesl Clark, "First Inhabitants," [http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/easter/civilization/first.html ''Nova Online Adventure'']
#{{note|livesci}}[http://www.livescience.com/history/070604_polynesian_chicken.html "Chicken Bones Suggest Polynesians Found Americas Before Columbus"], ''LiveScience'', June 4, 2007.
#{{note|latimes}}[http://articles.latimes.com/2007/jun/05/science/sci-chickens5 "Study: Spaniards didn’t get to South America first"], ''Los Angeles Times'', June 5, 2007.
#{{note|sorenson1}}John L. Sorenson, [http://farms.byu.edu/publications/bookschapter.php?bookid=&chapid=671 "New Technology and Ancient Voyages"] from ''Pressing Forward with the Book of Mormon'',pp. 177-179

==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===
*[[Amerindians as Lamanites]]

===FAIR web site===
*David Stewart, M.D., [http://www.fairlds.org/Book_of_Mormon/DNA_and_the_Book_of_Mormon_2.html DNA and the Book of Mormon]

===External links===
*{{Ensign1 | author=Dr. Robert H. Daines | article=The Globe-Trotting Sweet Potato|date=March 1975|start=67|}}
*{{BYUS | author=Jerry K. Loveland | article=[http://byustudies.byu.edu/shop/pdfSRC/17.1Loveland.pdf Hagoth and the Polynesian Tradition]|vol=17|num=1|date=1976|start=1|end=17}}
*{{FR-17-1-5}} 
*{{JBMS-14-1-4}} 

===Printed material===

The Hurlbut affidavits

2008-11-30T06:33:01Z

PaulMcNabb: /* Individuals who claimed to have assisted Joseph Smith, Sr. in digging operations */

{{JosephSmithPortal}}

==Criticism==
Many of Joseph Smith’s friends and neighbors signed affidavits that accused him and his family of being lazy, indolent, undependable treasure-seekers.

===Source(s) of the criticism===
*{{CriticalWork:Abanes:Becoming Gods|pages=24}}
*{{CriticalWork:Anderson:New York Reputation|pages=}}
*{{CriticalWork:Brodie:No Man Knows|pages=17–18}}
*{{CriticalWork:Howe:Mormonism Unvailed|pages=}}
*Ronald V. Huggins, "[[From Captain Kidd's Treasure Ghost to the Angel Moroni: Changing Dramatis Personae in Early Mormonism|From Captain Kidd’s Treasure Ghost to the Angel Moroni: Changing Dramatis Personae in Early Mormonism]]," ''Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought'' 36:4 (2003)
*{{CriticalWork:Palmer:Insider|pages=157, 228}}
*{{CriticalWork:Tanner:Changing World|pages=78-80}}
*{{CriticalWork:Vogel:Making of a Prophet|pages=}}

==Response==
===Background===
Many critics cite a collection of affidavits from Joseph Smith’s neighbors which claim that the Smith family possessed a number of character flaws. These affidavits were collected by “Doctor” Philastus Hurlbut.{{ref|hurlbut1}} Hurlbut had been excommunicated from the Church on charges of "unvirtuous conduct with a young lady,"{{ref|winchester.5}} and for threatening the life of the Prophet. His collection of these statements was made at the request of an anti-Mormon committee in Kirtland, Ohio.{{ref|roberts.41a}} According to B.H. Roberts:

:It was simply a matter of "muck raking" on Hurlburt's part. Every idle story, every dark insinuation which at that time could be thought of and unearthed was pressed into service to gratify this man's personal desire for revenge, and to aid the enemies of the Prophet in their attempt to destroy his influence and overthrow the institution then in process of such remarkable development.{{ref|roberts.41b}}

Hurlbut was unable to publish the affidavits himself after his trial for making death threats against Joseph Smith, Jr. He sold this material to Eber D. Howe, who published it in his anti-Mormon book ''Mormonism Unvailed'' in 1834. In addition to the affidavits attacking the character of the Smith family, Hurlbut gathered statements from the family and neighbors of Solomon Spalding in order to "prove" that Spalding's unpublished manuscript was the source for the Book of Mormon. ''Mormonism Unvailed'' contained the first presentation of the [[Book of Mormon and Spaulding manuscript|Spalding theory]] of ''Book of Mormon'' origin. Some critics, such as [[Fawn McKay Brodie|Fawn Brodie]], are selective in their acceptance of Hurlbut's affidavits—They readily accept affidavits that attack the character of the Smith family, yet admit that some "judicious prompting" by Hurlbut may have been involved in those affidavits that were gathered to support the Spalding theory.{{ref|brodie.446-447}}

Howe's bias is evident throughout the book. He introduces the Smith family with the following:

:All who became intimate with them during this period, unite in representing the general character of old Joseph and wife, the parents of the pretended Prophet, as lazy, indolent, ignorant and superstitious—having a firm belief in ghosts and witches; the telling of fortunes; pretending to believe that the earth was filled with hidden treasures, buried there by Kid or the Spaniards.{{ref|howe.11}}

===Smith family character claims and reliability===
The following table summarizes the claims made in the Hurlbut affidavits regarding Joseph Smith, his family and his associates.

{| valign="top" border="1" style="width:100%; font-size:85%"
!width="20%"|Claimant
!width="50%"|Claims
!width="30%"|Comments
|-
|
====Parley Chase====
||
*Claimed that the members of the Smith family were "lazy, intemperate and worthless men, very much addicted to lying. In this they frequently boasted of their skill."
*Claimed that "[i]n regard to their Gold Bible speculation, they scarcely ever told two stories alike."
||Hugh Nibley notes: "Frequently"? A liar's "skill"...consists in not being recognized as a liar. Skillful liars don't boast about it. {{ref|nibley.105}}
|-
|
====Joseph Capron====
||
*Claimed that Joseph used his seer stone to locate "ghosts, infernal spirits, mountains of gold and silver, and many other invaluable treasures deposited in the earth."
|-
|
====Lemon Copley====
||
*Claimed that Joseph told him a story about seeing an old man who claimed to have a monkey in a box.
*Claimed that the Lord told Joseph that the man was Moroni with the plates, and that if he had "five coppers, he might have got his plates again."
||
*Note that Copley's testimony contradicts that of [[The Hurlbut affidavits#Peter Ingersoll|Peter Ingersoll]]. Ingersoll claimed that Joseph Smith made up the story of the plates on the spot in order to fool his family. Copely, on the other hand, mentions the name Moroni.
|-
|

====Alva Hale====
(Son of Isaac Hale)
||
*Claimed that he knew Joseph Smith, Jr. and Martin Harris "to be an impostor, and a liar."
|-
|

====Isaac Hale====
(Father-in-law of Joseph Smith, Jr.)
||
*Claimed that Joseph Smith, Jr's occupation was "seeing" by means of a "stone placed in his hat."
*Claimed that Joseph "pretended to discover minerals and treasure."
*Claimed that he was not allowed to look into the box containing the gold plates.
*Claimed that Joseph said that a "young child" would be the first to view the plates.
*Claimed that he told Joseph to remove the plates from his house if he couldn't be allowed to view them.
*Claimed that Joseph told Martin Harris to go into the woods to find the plates on his own.
*Claimed that Joseph translated the plates by looking in his hat while the plates were in the woods.
*Claimed that the ''Book of Mormon'' was a "silly fabrication."
|-
|

====Henry Harris====
||
*Claimed that the Smith family "labored very little."
*Claimed that the Smith family primarily "dug for money."
*Claimed that Joseph Smith, Jr. "pretended to tell fortunes."
*Claimed that Joseph was required to be married in order to obtain the plates.
|-
|
====Nathaniel Lewis====
(Brother-in-law to Issac Hale and a Methodist deacon)
||
*Claimed that Joseph Smith, Jr. asked his advice on whether or not he should translate the plates.
*Claimed that Joseph told him that God commanded him to translate the plates, but that he was "afraid of the people."
*Claimed that Joseph Smith, Jr. "frequently said to me that I should see the plates at the time appointed."
*Claimed that Joseph Smith, Jr. said that "he, himself was deceived."
*Claimed that Joseph Smith, Jr. was "an impostor, hypocrite and liar."
||
*Nibley notes that the claim made by Lewis that Joseph was "afraid of the people" contradicts the claims by other critics that the ''Book of Mormon'' was intended to be a "publicity stunt."{{ref|nibley.65}}
|-
|

====Joshua M'Kune====
||
*Claimed that Joseph Smith, Jr. and Martin Harris were "artful seducers."
*Claimed that Joseph Smith, Jr. said that "(Smith's) first-born child was to translate the characters, and hieroglyphics, upon the Plates."
|-
|
====Roswell Nichols====
||
*Claimed that the Smith family was known for "breach of contracts," and "non-payment of debts."
*Claimed that Joseph Smith, Sr. was "weak minded," and of "low character."
|-
|
====Barton Stafford====
||
*Claimed that Joseph Smith, Sr. was a "drunkard."
*Claimed that Joseph Smith, Jr. was "addicted to intemperance."
|-
|
====David Stafford====
||
*That Joseph Smith, Sr. was a "drunkard," a "liar," and a "gambler."
*That the "general employment" of the Smith family was "money digging" and "fortune telling."
*The Oliver Cowdery was a "worthless person" who was "not to be trusted."
|-
|
====Joshua Stafford====
||
*Claimed that the Smith family became "indolent" after "digging for hidden treasures."
*Claimed that the Smith family told stories of "ghosts, hob-goblins and caverns."
|-
|
====G. W. Stoddard====
||
*Claimed that Martin Harris was "industrious and enterprising" before he got involved with Mormonism.
*Claimed that Martin Harris' "moral and religious character" did "not entitle him to respect."
*Claimed that Martin Harris was known to "abuse his wife, by whipping her, kicking her out of bed and turning her out of doors."
|}
'''Commentary'''

B.H. Roberts contrasts the achievements of the Smith family with the accusations made against them:

:Against this large collection of evil report and false interpretation of the character of the Smiths while at Palmyra, prompted as it was by prejudice and collected by malice, the evidence of accomplished fact, and the subsequent lives of the family may be opposed. Take for example the achievements of the family during the few years of their residence in Palmyra. They arrived there penniless, as all admit, with nothing but their bare hands with which to help themselves. Yet in a few years they built two homes in the wilderness; they cleared sixty acres of heavy timber land, and converted it into a tillable farm. In addition to their farming and gardening, they had a sugar orchard of from twelve to fifteen hundred maple trees, from which they gathered the sap and converted it into syrup or sugar. To aid in making the annual payments upon their farm, as well as to help sustain the family until the farm could be made productive, they took an occasional day's work among the neighboring farmers or the Palmyra village folk, sometimes engaged to dig a well, or harvest a field of grain. It is conceded, in the main, that they did all this; and one marvels in the face of it that the charge of laziness and thriftlessness should be made. But the wonder grows when to all this is to be added the stories of the affidavits about the Smith's "money digging" enterprises. "They * * * spent much of their time in digging for money which they pretended was hid in the earth, and to this day large excavations may be seen in the earth not far from their residence, where they used to spend their time digging for hidden treasures." fn Truly if the half of what is told in the affidavits about these exploits, usually carried on at night, is to be believed, then it would be utterly impossible to believe the Smiths to be idle or habitually lazy.{{ref|roberts.40-41}}

===Individuals who claimed to have assisted Joseph Smith, Sr. in digging operations===
{| valign="top" border="1" style="width:100%; font-size:85%"
!width="20%"|Claimant
!width="50%"|Claims
!width="30%"|Comments
|-
|
====Willard Chase====
||
*Claimed that he discovered Joseph Smith's seer stone.
*Claimed that the seer stone rightfully belonged to Chase.
*Claimed that Joseph Smith, Sr. told him that Joseph Jr. was required to wear certain clothes and perform certain actions in order to obtain the plates.
*Claimed that Joseph Smith, Sr. told him that the angel Moroni appeared in the form of a toad.
|-
|

====Peter Ingersoll====
||
*Claimed that the Smith family's general employment was "digging for money."
*Claimed that Joseph Smith, Sr. taught him to use a divining rod.
*Claimed that Joseph Smith, Sr. and Alvin Smith used a stone in a hat to see things.
*Claimed that Joseph Smith, Sr. said that there had been a book found in a hollow tree in Canada that described the "first settlement of this country before it was discovered by Columbus."
*Claimed that Joseph Smith, Jr. admitted to his father-in-law that he only pretended to be able to see things in the stone.
*Claimed that Joseph Smith, Jr. fooled his family into thinking that a frock full of sand was the "Gold Bible."
*Claimed that Joseph told his family that nobody could see the "Gold Bible" and live.
*Claimed that Joseph made up the story of the gold plates on the spot, after which he is supposed to have said, "I have got the damned fools fixed, and will carry out the fun."
*Claimed that Jospeh told him that "he had no such book, and believed there never was any such book."
||
*On the threat that no one could see the "gold bible" and live, see: [[Viewing gold plates would result in death]]
*Ingersoll is discredited on his claim that Joseph made the story of the "gold bible" up on the spot as a way to have "fun" with his family. Joseph was telling various people about his Moroni visits well before recovering the plates (see for example various Knight family recollections). Note also that the name "Moroni" appears in the claim made by [[The Hurlbut affidavits#Lemon Copley|Lemon Copley]].
*It is very difficult to believe that Joseph would have privately confided to Ingersoll that the plates didn't exist, when he told everyone else that they did.
|-
|

====William Stafford====
||
*Claimed that the family of Joseph Smith, Sr. devoted a "great part of their time" to "digging for money."
*Claimed that he was told that Joseph Smith, Jr. could see "large caves" in "nearly all the hills in this part of New York."
*Claimed that Joseph could see "spirits" guarding great treasures.
*Claimed that Joseph Smith, Sr. told him that treasure could "sink" into the ground.
*Claimed that Joseph Smith, Sr. took one of his sheep on the pretense of using it to search for money by cutting its throat.
*Claimed that Joseph promised to show him the gold plates.
||
*Stafford's claim that Joseph promised to show him the gold plates directly contradicts Peter Ingersoll's claim that Joseph said that [[Viewing gold plates would result in death|nobody could see the gold plates and live]].
|-
|}
'''Commentary'''
*See: [[Joseph Smith and money digging]]

===Statement of Charles Anthon regarding the characters copied from the gold plates===
{| valign="top" border="1" style="width:100%; font-size:85%"
!width="20%"|Claimant
!width="50%"|Claims
!width="30%"|Comments
|-
|
====Charles Anthon====
||
*Claimed that he did not pronounce the characters shown to him by Martin Harris to be "reformed Egyptian."
*Claimed that no translation of the characters had been shown to him.
*Claimed that he told Martin Harris that he was the subject of a hoax.
*Claimed that he declined to write his opinion down.
*Claimed that the characters resembled something copied from the "Mexican calendar."
|-
|}

===Martin Harris said that Mormonism was false and that he could "make money out of it?"===
{| valign="top" border="1" style="width:100%; font-size:85%"
!width="20%"|Claimant
!width="50%"|Claims
!width="30%"|Comments
|-
|
====Abigail Harris====
||
*Claimed that Martin Harris said regarding Mormonism: "'''What if it is a lie'''; if you will let me alone '''I will make money out of it!'''"
||
*Abigail embellishes her version of what she heard by implying that Martin Harris "admitted" that Mormonism was a lie.
|-
|
====Lucy Harris====
(Wife of Martin Harris)
||
*Claimed that Martin Harris said the Mormonism was false, and that "if you would let me alone, '''I could make money by it.'''"
*Claimed that Martin Harris "has whipped, kicked, and turned me out of the house."
*Claimed that Martin Harris was having an affair with a neighbor's wife.
||
*Despite the fact that Lucy Harris makes no mention of the lost 116 pages of manuscript from the ''Book of Mormon'', Fawn Brodie in her book [[No Man Knows My History: The Life of Joseph Smith]] actually concludes that Harris beat his wife in order to get her to divulge what she had done with the lost 116 pages of manuscript.
|-
|}
'''Commentary'''
* Lucy and Abigail Harris are the only two individuals who claimed that Martin Harris was hoping to make money from Mormonism. It is interesting to note the similarity between the testimony for both women. It is more interesting however, to note how Abigail Harris has added the phrase "What if it is a lie," while Martin's wife, Lucy, did not. If Martin actually believed that Mormonism was a lie, why would his wife Lucy not have mentioned this? {{ref|nibley.115}}

===Joseph Smith claimed that he was "as good as Jesus Christ?"===
{| valign="top" border="1" style="width:100%; font-size:85%"
!width="20%"|Claimant
!width="50%"|Claims
!width="30%"|Comments
|-
|
====Levi Lewis====
||
*Claimed that Joseph Smith, Jr. and Martin Harris said that "adultery was no crime."
*Claimed that he "knows Smith to be a liar."
*Claimed that he heard Joseph Smith say that he "was as '''good as Jesus Christ'''."
*Claimed that Joseph Smith, Jr. told him "[w]ith regard to the plates, Smith said God had deceived him."
|-
|
====Sophia Lewis====
||
*Claimed that Joseph Smith, Jr. said that he "was as '''good as Jesus Christ'''."
*Claimed that Joseph Smith, Jr. said that "the Book of Plates could not be opened under penalty of death by any other person but his (Smith's) first-born, which was to be a male."
||
*On the threat that no one could see the gold plates and live, see: [[Viewing gold plates would result in death]]
|-
|
====Hezekiah M'Kune====
||
*Claimed that Joseph Smith said "he was '''nearly equal to Jesus Christ'''."
|-
|}
'''Commentary'''
*Hezekiah M'Kune, Levi Lewis and Sophia Lewis went together to make their depositions before the justice. Their testimonies bear a remarkable similiarity and contain the unique claim that Joseph claimed to be "as good as Jesus Christ." This claim is not related by any other individuals who knew the Prophet, suggesting that these three individuals planned and coordinated their story before giving their depositions. {{ref|nibley.128}}

===Spalding manuscript claims and reliability===
Hurlbut's affidavits regarding the Spalding manuscript consist of interviews with family and associates of Solomon Spalding.

{| valign="top" border="1" style="width:100%; font-size:85%"
!width="20%"|Claimant
!width="80%"|Claims
|-
|
====Artemas Cunningham====
||
*Claimed to have '''"partially examined" the "Mormon Bible."'''
*Claimed that Spalding's manuscript was called "Manuscript Found."
*Claimed "to remember the name of '''Nephi'''" as the "principal hero."
|-
|
====Nahum Howard====
|
*Claimed to have "'''lately read the Book of Mormon'''."
*Claimed that it was the same as Spalding wrote, '''"except the religious part."''''
|-
|
====Henry Lake====
||
*Claimed to have recently '''"commenced reading [The Book of Mormon] aloud."'''
*Claimed that Spalding's work frequently used the words "it came to pass."

|-
|

====John Miller====
||
*Claimed to have '''"recently examined the Book of Mormon."'''
*Claimed that the Book of Mormon was '''"mixed up with scripture and other religious matter, which I did not meet with in the "Manuscript Found."'''
*Claimed that '''"Nephi, Lehi, Moroni"''' were the "principal names" in Spalding's book.
|-
|
====Oliver Smith====
||
*Claimed that "'''Nephi and Lehi''' were by [Spalding] represented as leading characters."
*Claimed that Spalding included '''"no religious matter"''' in his book.
*Claimed that "I obtained the book [of Mormon], and on reading it, found much of it the same as Spalding had written."
|-
|
====John Spalding====
(Brother of Solomon Spalding)
||
*Claimed to have "'''recently read the Book of Mormon'''."
*Claimed that Spalding's book was entitled ''The Manuscript Found''.
*Claimed that the book attempted to show that the American Indians are the descendents of the Jews.
*Claimed that the leaders of the group were called '''"Nephi" and "Lehi."'''
*Claimed that the book described two nations called the "Nephites" and the "Lamanites."
*Claimed that the people described in Spalding's book buried their dead in large mounds.
*Claimed that many sentences in Spalding's book began with "it came to pass."
|-
|
====Martha Spalding====
(wife of Solomon Spalding)
||
*Claimed that she had "'''read the Book of Mormon'''."
*Claimed that the Book of Mormon was based upon Spalding's story.
*Claimed that "the names of '''Nephi and Lehi''' are yet fresh in my memory, as being the principal heroes of his tale."
*Claimed that Spaldings' characters separated into two nations, "one of which was called Lamanites and the other Nephites."
*Claimed that Spalding's tale told of the dead "being buried in large heaps was the cause of the numerous mounds in the country."
*Claimed that Spalding's manuscript used the words "it came to pass."
|-
|
====Aaron Wright====
||
*Claimed that the Book of Mormon following the Spalding story, '''"excepting the religious matter."'''
*Claimed that "the names more especially are the same without any alteration."
|}
'''Commentary'''
*Most of the Spalding related affidavits make very similar claims, such as the repeated statements that "Nephi" and "Lehi" figured prominently in Spalding's story and that the person making the claim had "recently" read the ''Book of Mormon'' and recognized it as being similar to Spalding's work. The recovered Spalding manuscript, however, bears no resemblance to any of these claims. For this reason, critics who support the Spalding theory have assumed the existence of a ''second'' Spalding manuscript, despite absolutely no evidence to support this.

==Conclusion==
The Hurlbut affidavits were collected by a man who not only had a grudge to settle with the Church, but who had actually been brought before a judge for issuing a death threat against Joseph Smith, Jr. It is also important to note that none of these statements regarding Joseph Smith, Jr. was a firsthand account from the Prophet himself, but instead represent second or third-hand accounts. It is interesting that Fawn Brodie readily dismisses the affidavits supporting the Spalding theory, suggesting the Hurlbut "prompted" those making statements, yet accepts without question the affidavits attesting to the bad character of Joseph Smith and his family. There are many statements from Joseph's contemporaries attesting to his good character—These people did not sign sworn affidavits, but their accounts are recorded in their journals and histories.

==Endnotes==

#{{note|hurlbut1}}"Doctor" was not a title—It was Hurlbut's actual given name.
#{{note|winchester.5}}Benjamin Winchester, ''The origin of the Spalding story, concerning the Manuscript Found; with a short biography of Dr. P. Hulbert, the originator of the same; and some testimony adduced, showing it to be a sheer fabrication, so far as in connection with the Book of Mormon is concerned.'' (Philadelphia: Brown, Bicking & Guilbert, Printers, 1834), p. 5.
#{{note|roberts.41a}}{{CHC1 | vol=1|start=41}}
#{{note|roberts.41b}}{{CHC1 | vol=1|start=41}}
#{{note|brodie.446-447}}Fawn M. Brodie, [[No Man Knows My History: The Life of Joseph Smith|''No Man Knows My History: The Life of Joseph Smith'']] (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1945), 446–447.
#{{note|howe.11}}Eber D. Howe, ''Mormonism Unvailed'' (Painesville, OH: Telegraph Press, 1834), p. 11.
#{{note|nibley.105}}{{Nibley11_1|start=105}}
#{{note|nibley.105}}{{Nibley11_1|start=65}}
#{{note|roberts.40-41}}{{CHC | vol=1|start=40|end=41}}
#{{note|nibley.128}}{{Nibley11_1|start=115}}
#{{note|nibley.128}}{{Nibley11_1|start=128}}

==Further reading==
===FAIR wiki articles===
{{MagicWiki}}
{{JSCharacterWiki}}

===FAIR web site===
{{MagicFAIR}}

===Videos===
{{Video:Brown:2006:Revised or Unaltered}}

===External links===
*{{Dialogue|author=Richard Van Wagoner and Steven Walker|article=Joseph Smith: 'The Gift of Seeing|vol=15|num=2|date=Summer 1982|start=49|end=68}} {{link|url=http://content.lib.utah.edu/cdm4/document.php?CISOROOT=/dialogue&CISOPTR=16574&REC=16}}{{NB}}
{{MagicLinks}}

===Printed material===
{{MagicPrint}}

Mormonism and the nature of God/Nicene creed

2008-11-30T06:31:59Z

PaulMcNabb: /* What were early Christian beliefs on the nature of God? */

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

===Source(s) of the Criticism===
*{{CriticalWork:Abanes:Becoming Gods|pages=115, 379 n.47-48}}
*Francis J. Beckwith and Stephen E. Parrish, ''The Mormon Concept of God: A Philosophical Analysis'' (Lewiston, N.Y.: Mellen, 1991).
*{{CriticalWork:Decker Hunt:The God Makers|pages=11}}
*Bill McKeever and Eric Johnson, [[Mormonism 101|''Mormonism 101'']] (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books), 53–54.
*Ron Rhodes, "Christ," in ''The Counterfeit Gospel of Mormonism'' (Eugene, Ore.: Harvest House, 1998,), 99–140.
* {{50Questions}}
*James White, ''Is the Mormon My Brother?'' (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House Publishing, 1997), 18, 43.
*{{CriticalWork:White:Letters|pages=}}

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Said David Noel Freedman:

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

New ideas and concepts were required.

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

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

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

A Jesuit [Catholic] scholar says this:

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

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

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

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

And:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

One author wrote of it:

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

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

:The basic reason for this choice is to be found in John 10:30: “The Father and I are one” (''hen''). Note that Jesus is not saying, “The Father and I are numerically one” (''heis''), but uses a term meaning “we are together” (Greek ''hen'', as used again in v.38: “The Father is in me and I am in the Father”). The union of the Father and Son does not blot out the difference and individuality of each. Union rather supposes differentiation. Through love and through reciprocal communion they are one single thing, the one God-love.{{ref|boff1}}

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

===What about 1 John 5:7–8?===

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

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

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

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

Historian Paul Johnson notes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As one current thinker about the Trinity writes:

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

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

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

===A move to change?===

Some Christian theologians have recognized the above difficulties with the Nicene formulation of the trinity, and are advocating a removal of the Greek philosophical ideals that have unnecessarily clouded the issue:

:If we search for a concept of unity corresponding to the biblical testimony of the triune God, the God who unites others with himself, then we must dispense with both the concept of the one substance and the concept of the identical subject. All that remains is: the unitedness, the at-oneness of the three Persons with one another, or: the unitedness, the at-oneness of the triune God.{{ref|Moltmann1}}

==Conclusion==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

#{{note|brown1}} Raymond E. Brown, ''The Gospel According to John I–XII'' (Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Co. Inc.), 403, 407.
#{{note|boff1}} Leonardo Boff, ''Trinity and Society'', trans. Paul Burns (Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis, 1988), 5.

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

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

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

#{{note|Moltmann1}} Jürgen Moltmann, ''The Trinity and the Kingdom of God'', trans. Margaret Kohl (London: SCM, 1981), 150.

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

==Further reading==

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

===FAIR wiki articles===

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

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

===FAIR web site===

{{GodFAIR}}

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

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

Criticism of Mormonism/Books/Mormon America: The Power and the Promise

2008-11-30T06:31:14Z

PaulMcNabb: /* The "Mormon Jesus" */

{{draft}}

{{AuthorsDisclaimer}}

==About this work==

Authors: Richard N. Ostling and Joan K. Ostling

:''Should non-Mormons write a book about Mormonism? The coauthors, are, admittedly, conventional Protestants...the outsiders will find some fascinating information and want to learn even more. And the insiders will see themselves portrayed fairly while learning some things they would not have known othwerise.''
:—Preface, ''Mormon America: The Power and the Promise''

:''Mormon America is very much like two books in one. The first depicts individual Latter-day Saints "as a model minority, a hardworking people with more education than the American average, deeply committed to church and family" (p. xxiv)...Yet in the second part, when the Ostlings begin to discuss the church's doctrines, its history, and its leaders, they paint a landscape that, to a knowledgeable Latter-day Saint, is selective with a bias toward the sensational.
:—Raymond Takashi Swenson, ''Faith without Caricature?'', 2001

:''[T]he Ostlings do not want to seem openly or stridently hostile toward the Saints. They are, instead, condescending in ways that are analogous to the way virtually every community of believers gets treated by journalists, including evangelicals and their allies. But at times the Ostlings drop the guise of balanced, objective reporters.
:—Louis Midgley, ''Faulty Topography'', 2002

==Claims made in this work==
*[[Mormon America: The Power and the Promise/Index|Index to claims made in ''Mormon America: The Power and the Promise'']].

==Quote mining, selective quotation and distortion==
{{QuoteDisclaimer}}

===Council of Fifty behind the destruction of the ''Nauvoo Expositor''?===
{| valign="top" border="1" style="width:100%; font-size:85%"
!width="5%"|Reference
!width="35%"|Author's claim...
!width="35%"|The rest of the story...
!width="25%"|[[Use of sources]]
|-
|p. 16
|Smith knew that someone from the '''Council of Fifty''', despite the secrecy oaths, had betrayed him by giving information to Foster and Law, According to Quinn, "He could not allow the ''Expositor'' to publish the secret international negotiations masterminded by Mormonism's earthly king." But Joseph, as mayor of Nauvoo, declared action was essential because the ''Expositor'' faction would "destroy the peace of the city" and foment a "mob spirit." '''With the backing of his Council''', Smith ordered that the new press be smashed and all possible copies of the press run destroyed. {{ea}}||The way that the paragraph is constructed, it is clear that the authors wish the reader to believe that the Council of Fifty was backing Joseph in the destruction of the ''Nauvoo Expositor''.
||D. Michael Quinn
|}
'''Commentary'''
* It was the Nauvoo ''city council'' that ordered the destruction of the ''Nauvoo Expositor'', ''not'' the Council of Fifty. Note how the authors have capitalized the word "Council," which, when read with the preceeding reference to the "Council of Fifty," makes it appear as if the "secret" Council of Fifty was behind the destruction of the Expositor. The correct information is buried in an unreferenced endnote on page 402, which states "Nauvoo city council activities related to the ''Expositor''" were taken from D. Michael Quinn's ''The Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power''. One wonders why the authors chose not to clarify this information in the main body of the text. The endnote shows that the authors knew that this was the city council. Instead, the author's decided to throw in Quinn's own ''speculation'' and then constructed the paragraph in a way which made the matter appear much more sinister.
{{parabreak}}

===A description of Central American ruins in ''View of the Hebrews''?===
{| valign="top" border="1" style="width:100%; font-size:85%"
!width="5%"|Reference
!width="35%"|Author's claim...
!width="35%"|The rest of the story...
!width="25%"|[[Use of sources]]
|-
|29||One book Joseph Smith likely knew was Ethan Smith's ''View of the Hebrews'', published in Vermont in 1825 and containing considerable material on the subject, as well as a description of ancient Central American Indian ruins.||Joseph first learned of Central American ruins in 1841 when John L. Stephens, ''Incidents of Travel in Central America, Chiapas, and Yucatan'' was published, over 16 years after Ethan Smith's book was published.
|}
'''Commentary'''
*The authors were not very careful in their research. Ethan Smith's book describes artifacts (not cities) found in ''North America'', not Central America.
{{parabreak}}

===Joseph was "hoping one last time" to use his seer stone to produce treasure in 1836?===
{| valign="top" border="1" style="width:100%; font-size:85%"
!width="5%"|Reference
!width="35%"|Author's claim...
!width="35%"|The rest of the story...
!width="25%"|[[Use of sources]]
|-
|31||Smith left his financially troubled church for Salem, Massachussetts, at summer's end in 1836, '''hoping one last time that the use of his seer stone might produce treasure that he had been told lay under a house''' (D&C 111). The seer stone failed again, and his money-digging was no more successful than before. {{ea}}||D&C makes no mention of the use of a seer stone. None of the published accounts of this story mention the use of a seer stone.||{{s||DC|111|}}
|}
'''Commentary'''
*The authors outdo themselves this time by showing their willingness to synthesize and fabricate new elements for this story. Note that they provide D&C 111 as a reference, which describes the [[Joseph Smith's "treasure hunting" trip to Salem|Salem "treasure hunting" trip]]. When one reads {{s||DC|111|}}, it is plain to see that this section does not mention the use of a seer stone. By 1836, Joseph had not used a seer stone for years, having given his stone to Oliver Cowdery soon after translation of the Book of Mormon was completed.
*See also [[Joseph Smith and seer stones]]
{{parabreak}}

===The nature of Helen Mar Kimball's marriage?===
{| valign="top" border="1" style="width:100%; font-size:85%"
!width="5%"|Reference
!width="35%"|Author's claim...
!width="35%"|The rest of the story...
!width="25%"|[[Use of sources]]
|-
|61||[Joseph's] youngest bride, '''in some ways typical''', was fourteen-year-old Helen Mar Kimball. {{ea}}||The most conservative estimates indicate that Joseph entered into plural marriages with 29–33 women, 7 of whom were under the age of 18. The youngest was Helen Mar Kimball, daughter of LDS apostle Heber C. Kimball, who was 14. The rest were 16 (two) or 17 (three). One wife (Maria Winchester) about which virtually nothing is known, was either 14 or 15.||
*Todd Compton, [[In Sacred Loneliness|''In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith'']], p. 486-534
|-
|62||[Helen's] own writings and other evidence indicate that she felt rebellious at times, and that it was possible she had not grasped before the ceremony that '''the marriage in time would eventually have a sexual component'''. {{ea}}||
*The prophet's marriage to [Helen] seems to have been largely dynastic—a union arranged by Joseph and Heber to seal the Kimball family to a seer, church president, and presiding patriarchal figure at the dispensation of the fullness of times.
*So '''apparently''' Helen had expected her marriage to Joseph to be for eternity only, then discovered that it included time also.
*[Helen] was '''apparently''' coming to realize that her secret marriage to Joseph entailed time as well as eternity.
||
*Todd Compton, [[In Sacred Loneliness|''In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith'']], p. 487, 500, 502. {{ea}}
|}
'''Commentary'''
*The authors speculate that the marriage to Helen Mar Kimball was "in some ways typical," although they do not clarify this statement.
*The authors take speculative statements from their source (note Compton's use of the word "apparently" in each case) and extrapolate them even further by adding the term "sexual component." Note that the source never mentions a "sexual component," and that the authors interpret this data in ways that the source never intended. Todd Compton said the following when Jerald and Sandra Tanner attempted to use his material to "prove" that sexual relations were involved:
:''The Tanners made great mileage out of Joseph Smith's marriage to his youngest wife, Helen Mar Kimball. However, they failed to mention that I wrote that there is absolutely no evidence that there was any sexuality in the marriage, and I suggest that, following later practice in Utah, there may have been no sexuality. (p. 638) All the evidence points to this marriage as a primarily dynastic marriage.''{{ref|compton1}}
*See also [[Joseph Smith and polygamy/Marriages to young women]]
{{parabreak}}

===The "Mormon Jesus"===
{| valign="top" border="1" style="width:100%; font-size:85%"
!width="5%"|Reference
!width="35%"|Author's claim...
!width="35%"|The rest of the story...
!width="25%"|[[Use of sources]]
|-
|320||The same process of apostasy was repeated among the believers in the New World who were visited by '''the Mormon Jesus'''.||Consider this excerpt from the 1982 anti-Mormon film ''The God Makers'':

"Mormon apostle Orson Pratt taught that after Jesus Christ grew to manhood, he took at least three wives: Mary, Martha and Mary Magdeline. Through these wives the '''Mormon Jesus''', through whom Joseph Smith claimed direct descent, supposedly fathered a number of children before he was crucified. According to the Book of Mormon, after his resurrection, Jesus came to the Americas to preach to the Indians, who the Mormons believe are really Israelites. Thus, '''the Jesus of Mormonism''' established his church in the Americas as he had in Palestine."
||Source not provided by the authors.
|}
'''Commentary'''
*The term "Mormon Jesus," as used by the authors here, came from ''somewhere''. A search of the endnotes for Chapter 19 did not turn up any references to ''The God Makers''...yet it was this film, well known to Evangelical Christians, that promoted the term "the Mormon Jesus." This pejorative term is used by evangelicals to distinguish the "Mormon Jesus" from the "true Jesus" in order to support the claim that Latter-day Saints are not "Christians." Its use by the authors in the main text of their narrative is simply insulting to Latter-day Saints.
{{parabreak}}

===Mormonism operates more like a small cult?===
{| valign="top" border="1" style="width:100%; font-size:85%"
!width="5%"|Reference
!width="35%"|Author's claim...
!width="35%"|The rest of the story...
!width="25%"|[[Use of sources]]
|-
|354||The files are only one aspect of a meticulous system of internal discipline through which contemporary '''Mormonism operates more like a small cult''' than a major denomination.||Church disciplinary procedures linked to the word "cult?"||Authors' opinion
|}
'''Commentary'''
*Apparently the authors cannot resist the opportunity to use the word "cult" in association with the church.
{{parabreak}}

===Evidence of magical activities "too well documented for Mormons to deny?"===

{| valign="top" border="1" style="width:100%; font-size:85%"
!width="5%"|Reference
!width="35%"|Author's claim...
!width="35%"|The rest of the story...
!width="25%"|[[Use of sources]]
|-
|403||'''Evidence of Smith family magic activities too well documented for Mormons to deny''': Richard L. Bushman, "Treasure-seeking Then and Now," ''Sunstone'', II, no. 5 (1987): 5.||Richard L. Bushman, of course, is a believing and active Latter-day Saint scholar.||Richard L. Bushman, "Treasure-seeking Then and Now," ''Sunstone'', II, no. 5 (1987): 5
|}
'''Commentary'''
*The authors' mask of alleged impartiality and objectiveness slips as they flatly imply in the endnotes that the Church would attempt to hide any evidence of magical activity on the part of the Smith family unless forced to acknowledge it. They then have the gall to support their claim by using the published work of one of the most well-known, active ''LDS scholars''. Attempting to promote their bias in the endnotes is apparently acceptable journalistic practice.
{{parabreak}}

==Endnotes==
#{{note|compton1}}Todd M. Compton, Response to Tanners, post to LDS Bookshelf mailing list, no date. It should be mentioned that many reviewers of Compton's work do not agree with all of his conclusions, even though he has collected much useful data; see the reviews of ''In Sacred Loneliness,'' linked below.

==Reviews of this work==
*{{FR-14-1-10}} 
*{{FR-13-2-9}} 

==Further reading==
{{SpecificAuthorsAndWorks}}

Criticism of Mormonism/Books/One Nation Under Gods

2008-11-30T06:30:31Z

PaulMcNabb: /* Quote mining, selective quotation and distortion */

{{draft}}

{{AuthorsDisclaimer}}

==About this work==

Author: Richard Abanes

:''[T]o be honest, your FAIR analysis of the hardbound is actually hurting you in some very interesting ways -- and you don't even know it. Suffice it to say, I have been enjoying the many times I've had the pleasure of point out to lots of Mormons (many of them now former Mormons) where FAIR has not been completely honest, and where FAIR has shown itself to be terrifically nit-picky and petty. I thank you.''
:—The author, commenting on [http://www.fairlds.org/apol/onug/ FAIR's analysis of this work]. ([http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php?showtopic=39390&st=180 Post to MADB], Nov. 21, 2008)



==Quote mining, selective quotation and distortion==

* ''See extensive examples on FAIR website: [http://www.fairlds.org/apol/onug/ Abanes distortions]''

{| valign="top" border="1" style="width:100%; font-size:85%"
!Quote used...!!The rest of the story...
|-
| style="width:50%"| Abanes quotes Brigham Young as saying "We shall pull the wool over the eyes of the American people and make them swallow Mormonism, polygamy and all."||
There is no evidence in Abanes' cited source that Brigham said this.
|-
|valign="top"|
* Richard Abanes, ''One Nation Under Gods: A History of the Mormon Church'' (Thunder's Mouth Press, 2003), 281; citing "The Manifesto," ''Millennial Star'' 52 (24 Nov. 1890): 744.
||
*There is no mention of this quotation anywhere in the cited article. See scan of original at: "The Manifesto," ''Millennial Star'' 52 (24 Nov. 1890): 744. {{link|url=http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/u?/MStar,33220 here}}
|-
|}
'''Commentary'''
* Abanes seems to have relied on a secondary source without verifying its claim. There is no evidence in the ''Millennial Star'' that Brigham made the statement. Abanes haste to condemn the Mormons led him to repeat a false claim.
* See: [[Brigham Young pulling the wool over America's eyes|Brigham Young—pulling the wool over Americans' eyes?]]

{{parabreak}}
{| valign="top" border="1" style="width:100%; font-size:85%"
!Quote used...!!The rest of the story...
|-
| style="width:50%"|
*"The fact that plural marriage brought great sorrow to many of the women involved can hardly be denied. Heber C. Kimball once stated: 'There is a great deal of quarelling in the houses, and contending for power and authority; and the second wife is against the first wife, perhaps, in some instances' (Heber C. Kimball, January 11, 1857, JOD, vol. 4,178)",
*Richard Abanes, ''One Nation Under Gods'', page 582.
||
*"The fact that plural marriage brought great sorrow to many of the women involved can hardly be denied. Heber C. Kimball once remarked: 'There is a great deal of quarrelling in the houses, and contending for power and authority; and the second wife is against the first wife, perhaps, in some instances' (Journal of Discourses, vol. 4, p.178)."
*Jerald and Sandra Tanner, [[The Changing World of Mormonism|''The Changing World of Mormonism'']], page 226
|}
'''Commentary'''
*Why bother to create your own footnotes when you can simply copy someone else's word for word without attribution? Enough said.
*For more information about this quote from Heber C. Kimball, see: [[Did early Church leaders speak of plural marriage difficulties?]]
{{parabreak}}

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

Criticism of Mormonism/Video/Search for the Truth DVD/Eternal Life

2008-11-30T06:28:43Z

PaulMcNabb:

{{DVDHeadingBox|Eternal Life}}

{| style="border-spacing:8px;margin:0px -8px"
| class="MainPageBG" style="width:85%;border:1px solid #cedff2;background-color:#f5faff;vertical-align:top"|
{| width="100%" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top;background-color:#f5faff"
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "With the concept of God being so drastically different between the Bible and Joseph Smith's teachings one must wonder how Joseph Smith could claim that the Book of Mormon was another Testament of Jesus Christ." - Patrick Powell (Host)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The claim that the Bible and Joseph Smith disagree is false, as shown [[Search for the Truth DVD:Who Is God%3F|here]]. Joseph Smith disagrees with the non-biblical creeds and resulting ''interpretations'' of the Bible favored by Mr. Powell.

The Book of Mormon is another testament of Christ because it clearly teaches redemption through a personal covenant relationship with God, through the Lord Jesus Christ.

In addition, the self proclaimed purpose of the Book of Mormon is to establish the truthfulness of the Bible by substantiating its teachings ({{s|1|Nephi|13|39-40}}). In this sense, it becomes a second witness of Christ by supporting the teachings of Christ and his pivotal role in the salvation of mankind, as found in the Bible.

'''To read more:'''
*[[Plain and Precious Book of Mormon doctrines#Doctrines relating to the Savior and his mission|Book of Mormon doctrines about Christ and His mission]]
*[[Plain_and_Precious_Book_of_Mormon_doctrines#Faith.2C_Repentance.2C_Baptism.2C_the_gift_of_the_Holy_Ghost_and_Enduring_to_the_End|Book of Mormon doctrines on:]]
**Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ
**Repentance
**Baptism of water
**Baptism of fire (the Holy Ghost)
**Enduring to the end
*[[Plain and Precious Book of Mormon doctrines#Prayer|Book of Mormon doctrine on prayer]]
*[[Plain and Precious Book of Mormon doctrines#The purpose of life|Book of Mormon doctrine on the purpose of life]]
*[[Plain and Precious Book of Mormon doctrines#What the devil doesn.27t want us to know|Book of Mormon doctrine on how to fight Satan]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "You just don't pay lip service to Jesus; you enter into Him. You become a part of Him. You absorb. You identify completely with His suffering on the cross; His resurrection from the dead; His claims to be the Son of God and therefore qualified to pay the price we could never pay; and once we believe in Him in that deep sense of commitment which can be instantaneous—in fact it has to be—at that moment we have eternal life." - Dr. John Whitcomb (theology professor, Old Testament scholar)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Despite the video's implication, Latter-day Saints wholeheartedly teach this doctrine. The Book of Mormon, which the critics claim cannot be a testament of Jesus Christ, contains an account of a group of people who are transformed by faith in Christ:

:And they had viewed themselves in their own carnal state, even less than the dust of the earth. And they all cried aloud with one voice, saying: O have mercy, and apply the atoning blood of Christ that we may receive forgiveness of our sins, and our hearts may be purified; for we believe in Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who created heaven and earth, and all things; who shall come down among the children of men.
:And it came to pass that after they had spoken these words the Spirit of the Lord came upon them, and they were filled with joy, having received a remission of their sins, and having peace of conscience, because of the exceeding faith which they had in Jesus Christ who should come, according to the words which king Benjamin had spoken unto them. ({{s||Mosiah|4|2-3}})

The Book of Mormon also teaches:

:Yea, come unto Christ, and be perfected in him, and deny yourselves of all ungodliness; and if ye shall deny yourselves of all ungodliness, and love God with all your might, mind and strength, then is his grace sufficient for you, that by his grace ye may be perfect in Christ; and if by the grace of God ye are perfect in Christ, ye can in nowise deny the power of God.
:And again, if ye by the grace of God are perfect in Christ, and deny not his power, then are ye sanctified in Christ by the grace of God, through the shedding of the blood of Christ, which is in the covenant of the Father unto the remission of your sins, that ye become holy, without spot. ({{s||Moroni|10|32-33}})

Latter-day Saints do not wish to simply pay "lip service" to Jesus, as Dr. Whitcomb says. Therefore, they seek to obey when Jesus commands them to do something. To say we believe while not trying to obey (however imperfectly) would indeed be to give lip service. As Jesus Himself taught, "If ye love me, keep my commandments" ({{s||John|14|15}}).

And, after presenting His Sermon on the Mount, Jesus admonishes us:

:Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:
:And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock.
:And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand:
:And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it. ({{s||Matthew|7|24-27}}).

Is Jesus lying, or does He expect us to obey to the extent we are able?

'''To read more'''
*[[Born again translation|Being "born again": early Christian perspectives]]
* "Are We Saved by Grace Alone?" {{fairlink|url=http://www.fairlds.org/Bible/Are_We_Saved_by_Grace_Alone.html}}
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "In Christianity eternal life is a gift. It's the most radical understanding of how one goes to heaven, is resurrected, has eternal life, in the religious realm—by grace or saved through faith—it is the gift of God. Why is it a gift? Because Jesus Christ did something that we couldn't do for ourselves. He died on the cross satisfying God's sense of justice against sin; paid the price for our sins; was raised eternally through the resurrection with a glorified body. When we put our faith and trust in Him your pain of sins and believing in Him we receive salvation as a gift." - Dr. Phil Roberts (President, Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Latter-day Saints also preach this same doctrine. The Book of Mormon teaches:

*We can't do it ourselves:
:And men are instructed sufficiently that they know good from evil. And the law is given unto men. And by the law no flesh is justified; or, by the law men are cut off. Yea, by the temporal law they were cut off; and also, by the spiritual law they perish from that which is good, and become miserable forever. ({{s|2|Nephi|2|5}})

*We are saved by grace because of Christ's sacrifice for our sins:

:Wherefore, redemption cometh in and through the Holy Messiah; for he is full of grace and truth.
:Behold, he offereth himself a sacrifice for sin, to answer the ends of the law, unto all those who have a broken heart and a contrite spirit; and unto none else can the ends of the law be answered. ({{s|2|Nephi|2|6-7}})

*Christ died on the cross to satisfy the demands of justice:

:Yea, even so he [the Messiah, Christ] shall be led, crucified, and slain, the flesh becoming subject even unto death, the will of the Son being swallowed up in the will of the Father.
:And thus God breaketh the bands of death, having gained the victory over death; giving the Son power to make intercession for the children of men—
:Having ascended into heaven, having the bowels of mercy; being filled with compassion towards the children of men; standing betwixt them and justice; having broken the bands of death, taken upon himself their iniquity and their transgressions, having redeemed them, and satisfied the demands of justice. ({{s||Mosiah|15|7-9}})

*Eternal life and salvation is a "gift from God":

:...lay up for yourselves a treasure in heaven, yea, which is eternal, and which fadeth not away; yea, that ye may have that precious gift of eternal life, which we have reason to suppose hath been given to our fathers. ({{s||Helaman|5|8}})

*Christ was raised from the dead with a glorified body:

:Behold, they will crucify him; and after he is laid in a sepulchre for the space of three days he shall rise from the dead, with healing in his wings; and all those who shall believe on his name shall be saved in the kingdom of God. ({{s|2|Nephi|25|13}})

It should be clear that these critics do not understand LDS doctrine, or are trying to make it appear as if the Latter-day Saints do not believe these fundamental Christian concepts.

The speakers distort or are ignorant of LDS scripture and the faith of the Latter-day Saints. They act as if such doctrines would be novel to us, but in fact they are the core doctrines of our faith.

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: After mentioning the LDS doctrine of the three degrees of glory, the video adds: "In Romans 6:23 it talks about although "wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life." - Jon McCartney (Pastor, First Baptist Church of Tooele, Utah)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Once again, the Latter-day Saints share this doctrine. The Bible and Book of Mormon teach it:

:For behold, there is a wo pronounced upon him who listeth to obey that [evil] spirit; for if he listeth to obey him, and remaineth and dieth in his sins, the same drinketh damnation to his own soul; for he receiveth for his wages an everlasting punishment, having transgressed the law of God contrary to his own knowledge. ({{s||Mosiah|2|33}})

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "It is only by trusting Him that we come to be able to enjoy the glory of heaven. ‘I am the way, the truth and life and no one, not one person, comes to the Father but through me.'" - Jon McCartney (Pastor, First Baptist Church of Tooele, Utah) </h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The Latter-day Saints believe this scripture, and quote it frequently. And, this doctrine is again taught in the Book of Mormon, which the DVD insists isn't a "Christian" testament:

*Christ is the only way to salvation:

:And moreover, I say unto you, that there shall be no other name given nor any other way nor means whereby salvation can come unto the children of men, only in and through the name of Christ, the Lord Omnipotent. ({{s||Mosiah|3|17}})

:And if it so be that [men] repent and come unto the Father in the name of Jesus, they shall be received into the kingdom of God. ({{s||Ether|5|5}})

*Trust in God necessary for salvation:

: I would that ye should remember, that as much as ye shall put your trust in God even so much ye shall be delivered out of your trials, and your troubles, and your afflictions, and ye shall be lifted up at the last day. ({{s||Alma|38|5}})

Latter-day Saints would ask, however, if they are to ''trust'' Jesus, why they should not trust Him enough to do what He says?

This is discussed further in the next claim.

|-

! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "According to the Bible, repenting of our sins and faith in Jesus Christ is the only way to gain eternal life. In John, Jesus was asked 'What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?' Jesus answered and said to them, 'This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent.' (John 6:28,29)"</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Latter-day Saints proclaim that faith in Christ and repentance are absolutely essential for Christ's atonement to be effective in our lives.

But, they also insist that beliving in Jesus includes believing what He says, and obeying Him because we love Him.

"According to the Bible," Jesus also says:

*"He that believeth ''and is baptized'' shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned."{{s||Mark|16|16}} {{ea}}
*"Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven."({{s||Matthew|7|21}})
*"But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved." ({{s||Matthew|24|13}})
*"And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, ''to give every man according as his work'' shall be."({{s||Revelation|22|12}}) {{ea}}
*"Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.... Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.... Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels.... Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.... And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal. ({{s||Matthew|25|31-46}}) {{ea}}

The Bible also says:
*And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. ({{s|1|John|2|3-4}})
*But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves. ({{s||James|1|22}})
*What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.... ({{s||Romans|6|15}})
*...if we sin willfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins.... ({{s||Hebrews|10|26}})
*For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous. ({{s|1|John|5|3}})
*Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. ({{s||Galatians|6|7}})
*...all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, And shall come forth; ''they that have done good'', unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation. ({{s||John|5|28-29}}) {{ea}}
*For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them. ({{s||Ephesians|2|10}})
*This is a faithful saying, and these things I will that thou affirm constantly, that they which have believed in God might be careful to maintain good works. These things are good and profitable unto men. ({{s||Titus|3|8}})
*That ye might walk worthy of the Lord unto all pleasing, being fruitful in every good work, and increasing in the knowledge of God;({{s||Colossians|1|10}})
*Nothing saves us without Christ. But, "He that saith, I know [Christ], and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him." ({{s|1|John|2|3-4}})

'''To read more:'''
*[[Neglect grace|Does the Church neglect the doctrine of grace?]]
|-

! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "In the Bible it is clear that our salvation rests in the hands of Jesus Christ alone. Why? Because from the beginning God's word tells us that the penalty for all sin is death—both physical death and spiritual separation from God." "For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord." (Romans 6:23) (on screen)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Yet again, these doctrines are all embraced by the Latter-day Saints. The Book of Mormon teaches:

*All mankind suffers spiritual and physical death

:for all mankind, by the fall of Adam being cut off from the presence of the Lord, are considered as dead, both as to things temporal [i.e., physical] and to things spiritual. ({{s||Helaman|14|16}})

*All sin and are condemned

:And by the law no flesh is justified; or, by the law men are cut off. Yea, by the temporal law they were cut off; and also, by the spiritual law they perish from that which is good, and become miserable forever. ({{s|2|Nephi|2|5}})

*No one can say anything of themselves

:And now I ask, can ye say aught of yourselves? I answer you, Nay. Ye cannot say that ye are even as much as the dust of the earth; yet ye were created of the dust of the earth.... ({{s||Mosiah|2|25}})

*Christ alone can save us
:Wherefore, beloved brethren, be reconciled unto him through the atonement of Christ, his Only Begotten Son, and ye may obtain a resurrection, according to the power of the resurrection which is in Christ, and be presented as the first-fruits of Christ unto God, having faith, and obtained a good hope of glory in him.... ({{s||Jacob|4|11}})

The DVD producers are either ignorant or deceitful about LDS beliefs concerning Christ and His atonement.

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: To pay [the] penalty [for sin] a person must: 

:[1] Be sinless 
:[2] Be infinite to pay the infinite penalty for mankind's sin 
:[3] Die as a substitute by shedding of blood to pay sin's penalty 
:[4] Rise from the dead to defeat sin and death 
</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

It is almost as if the DVD producers are quoting the Book of Mormon.

Yet again, all these doctrines are taught and believed by the Latter-day Saints.

'''[1] Sinless'''
*I would that ye should understand that God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people. ({{s||Mosiah|15|1}})
*Wherefore, redemption cometh in and through the Holy Messiah; for he is full of grace and truth. ({{s|2|Nephi|2|6}})

'''[2] Be infinite to pay an infinite penalty'''
*...therefore there can be nothing which is short of an infinite atonement which will suffice for the sins of the world. ({{s||Alma|34|12}})
*...there should be a great and last sacrifice; yea, not a sacrifice of man...for it shall not be a human sacrifice; but it must be an infinite and eternal sacrifice. Now there is not any man that can sacrifice his own blood which will atone for the sins of another. ({{s||Alma|34|10-11}})

'''[3] Die as a substitute by shedding of blood'''
*Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, who wrought out this perfect atonement through the shedding of his own blood. ({{s||DC|76|69}})
*[This] great and last sacrifice will be the Son of God, yea, infinite and eternal. And thus he shall bring salvation to all those who shall believe on his name; this being the intent of this last sacrifice, to bring about the bowels of mercy, which overpowereth justice, and bringeth about means unto men that they may have faith unto repentance. And thus mercy can satisfy the demands of justice, and encircles them in the arms of safety, while he that exercises no faith unto repentance is exposed to the whole law of the demands of justice; therefore only unto him that has faith unto repentance is brought about the great and eternal plan of redemption. ({{s||Alma|34|14-16}})
*And he will take upon him death, that he may loose the bands of death which bind his people({{s||Alma|7|12}})

'''[4] Rise from the dead to defeat sin and death'''
*Behold, they will crucify him; and after he is laid in a sepulchre for the space of three days he shall rise from the dead, with healing in his wings; and all those who shall believe on his name shall be saved in the kingdom of God. Wherefore, my soul delighteth to prophesy concerning him, for I have seen his day, and my heart doth magnify his holy name. ({{s|2|Nephi|25|13}})
*death and hell must deliver up their dead, and hell must deliver up its captive spirits, and the grave must deliver up its captive bodies, and the bodies and the spirits of men will be restored one to the other; and it is by the power of the resurrection of the Holy One of Israel. ({{s|2|Nephi|9|12}})

These are basic, fundamental doctrines accepted without reservation by all faithful Latter-day Saints.

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "No other person could do what Jesus did; therefore only faith in Jesus' death on the cross and resurrection can save a sinner."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

This is precisely what the Book of Mormon teaches:

*Wherefore, how great the importance to make these things known unto the inhabitants of the earth, that they may know that there is no flesh that can dwell in the presence of God, save it be through the merits, and mercy, and grace of the Holy Messiah, who layeth down his life according to the flesh, and taketh it again by the power of the Spirit, that he may bring to pass the resurrection of the dead, being the first that should rise. ({{s|2|Nephi|2|8}})
*remember, after ye are reconciled unto God, that it is only in and through the grace of God that ye are saved. ({{s|2|Nephi|10|24}})
*there is no other way or means whereby man can be saved, only in and through Christ. Behold, he is the life and the light of the world. Behold, he is the word of truth and righteousness. ({{s||Alma|38|9}})
*ought ye not to tremble and repent of your sins, and remember that only in and through Christ ye can be saved?({{s||Mosiah|16|13}})

Speakers who know so little of the fundamental doctrines of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints should not be trusted to inform others about the Church.

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Can we know that we have eternal life? Scripture states, "These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life, and that you may continue to believe in the name of the Son of God." (1 John 5:13)
</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Once again, a Latter-day Saint can only give a hearty "Amen!" By now, it should be no surprise that the Book of Mormon teaches these doctrines:

*he [Christ] shall rise from the dead, with healing in his wings; and all those who shall believe on his name shall be saved in the kingdom of God. ({{s|2|Nephi|25|13}})
*...as many as will not harden their hearts shall be saved in the kingdom of God. ({{s||Jacob|6|4}})

The Book of Mormon teaches all these doctrines which the critics insist are so important. Why, then, are they so hostile toward the faith of the Latter-day Saints? Could it be that they do not understand that which they attack?

|-

! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "In order to gain access into the celestial heaven Joseph Smith's revelation requires keeping the Ten Commandments as well as all the commandments found throughout the three sacred Mormon books; be baptized into the Mormon Church; tithe; get married in the Temple; obey the Word of Wisdom; be baptized for the dead; magnify the Church callings; and the list goes on."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The LDS position is here distorted very badly.

The atonement of Christ, operative in our individual lives, is required for each of us to enter the "celestial heaven" (as demonstrated extensively above). Yet, Christ sets the terms whereby the atonement may be received. LDS believe that all mankind will be saved in a kingdom of glory because of the universal atonement of the Savior. "For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive" ({{s|1|Corinthians|15|21-22}}). This is without action on our part, but as a result of a loving Savior's atoning sacrifice and God the Father's plan of salvation.

We see, at last, the complaint which the critics have against the Latter-day Saints. The critics insist that no action of mankind's, aside from fervent, correct belief in Christ and the action of personally accepting Christ as their savior, is required for salvation.

Yet, Latter-day Saints believe that the atonement of Christ brings salvation without action on our part, without even the requirements that other faiths add to the process. But, they find it hypocritical and nonsensical to talk about a fervent faith that does not lead to fervent efforts to do one's best to honor Christ's commandments, seek His will, obey His words, and imitate His sinless life. If we love, honor, and trust someone, why would we not try to be like them to the extent possible? How we apply these lessons has a great deal to do with how the atonement will be applied in our lives beyond the life in a heaven that comes to all men.

Of course we will not succeed perfectly in this undertaking—but, the sincerity of our faith compels us to offer our best efforts—not because we think they will save us (they will not) but because we love Christ, and desire to obey Him. As Jesus asked rhetorically, "And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?" ({{s||Luke|6|46}})

The Latter-day Saints desire to make Jesus not just Lord of their lips, but Lord of their lives.
|-





! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">The critics insist that ''their'' view of salvation's requirements is the only biblically legitimate one.</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The critics act as if ''their'' conception of salvation is the only possible one, and the only possible Biblical interpretation. But, this is clearly false, since many Christians have held other views.

One Evangelical Christian author wrote of his sudden discovery that his previous beliefs about salvation were very different from those held by the early Christians:

:''If there's any single doctrine that we would expect to find the faithful associates of the apostles teaching, it's the doctrine of salvation by faith alone. After all, that is ''the'' cornerstone doctrine of the Reformation. In fact, we frequently say that persons who don't hold to this doctrine aren't really Christians.'' [It's almost as if Mr. Bercot has seen the DVD!]
:{{parabreak}}
:''Our problem is that Augustine, Luther, and other Western theologians have convinced us that there's an irreconcilable conflict between salvation based on grace and salvation conditioned on works or obedience. They have used a fallacious form of argumentation known as the "false dilemma," by asserting that there are only two possibilities regarding salvation: it's either (1) a gift from God or (2) it's something we earn by our works.''

:''The early Christians ''[and the Latter-day Saints!]'' would have replied that a gift is no less a gift simply because it's conditioned on obedience.... The early Christians believed that salvation is a gift from God but that God gives His gift to whomever He chooses. And ''He chooses to give it to those who love and obey him''.''
::—{{Heretics|start=57, 61|end=62}} {{eo}}

The Latter-day Saints are pleased to be in the company of the earliest Christians. And, the LDS cannot be excluded as Christians because they have not embraced the ''modified'' doctrines adopted later, and now taught by ''Search for the Truth''.

'''To read more:'''
*[[Early Christian views on salvation]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "There is no religion in the world that believes this except the religion of the Bible because every religion in the world says we just have to do something to contribute, we have to earn our way, we have to somehow please God with ourselves and our attitudes in our words and deeds. Impossible." - Dr. John Whitcomb (theology professor, Old Testament scholar)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Once again, the video presumes that ''their'' view of the Bible is the only legitimate one.

The early Christians were certainly both Christians and believers in the Biblical texts. Evangelical author David Bercot responded to the charge that the Early Christians didn't properly "understand" the Bible the way 20th century Christians do by pointing out that Clement of Alexandria quoted the New Testament 2,400 times and Tertullian 7,000 times. Bercot concludes:

:''So please don't accuse the early Christians ''[and, we would add, LDS Christians]'' of not reading their Bibles. These Christians were well aware of what Paul had written concerning salvation and grace. After all, Paul personally taught men like Clement of Rome. However, the early Christians didn't put Paul's letters to the Romans and the Galatians on a pedestal above the teachings of Jesus and the other apostles. They read Paul's words about grace in conjunction with such other scriptures as''...{{s||Matthew|7|21}}...{{s||Matthew|24|13}}...{{s||John|5|28-29}}...{{s||Revelation|22|12}}...{{s|1|Timothy|4|16}}...
::—{{Heretics|start=63|end=64}}

Bercot then addresses a matter which happens to be the video's next claim....

|-

! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "In fact, the Bible refutes the ordinances in Joseph Smith's Articles of Faith by stating, 'For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast.' ([http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Corinthians%2011:16-19;&version=49; Ephesians 2:8,9 NASB])"</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Bercot continues:

:''So, the real issue isn't a matter of ''believing'' the Scriptures, but one of ''interpreting'' the scriptures. The Bible says that "by yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast" ({{s||Ephesians|2|8-9}}). And yet the Bible also says, "You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only" ({{s||James|2|24}}). Our [i.e. evangelical] doctrine of salvation accepts that first statement but essentially nullifies the second. The early Christian doctrine of salvation gives equal weight to both."''
::—{{Heretics|start=63|end=64}} {{eo}}

The Latter-day Saints likewise honor ''all'' facets of salvation taught in scripture, not just some of them.

The Bible does not "refute" the idea of ordinances for salvation. When the apostles preached to a crowd, and the people were pricked in their hearts, they cried out, "Men and brethren, what shall we do?" ({{s||Acts|2|37}}).

Peter did ''not'' reply: "simply have faith in Jesus, and don't worry about any ordinances." He said:

:Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. ({{s||Acts|2|38}})

Peter's answer is exactly what the fourth Article of Faith calls for after faith in Jesus Christ: repentance, baptism, and the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Why is Joseph Smith condemned for following Peter's teachings?

'''To read more:'''
*[[Early Christian views on salvation]]
*[[Born again translation|Born of water: essential baptism in early Christianity]]

|-

! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Joseph Smith said, 'I have more to boast of than ever any man had. I am the only man that has ever been able to keep a whole church together since the days of Adam.... Neither Paul, John, Peter, nor Jesus ever did it. I boast that no man ever did such work as I. The followers of Jesus ran away from Him; but the Latter-day Saints never ran away from me yet.'" (History of the Church, vol. 6, pg. 408, 409)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

To contrast against the immediately preceding statement about "lest anyone should boast," the producers of the video include a purported statement of Joseph Smith's, wherein he does indeed boast. There is no explicit reason given for including this contrasting statement, other than to perhaps imply that Joseph was some sort of egomaniacal leader or someone who was stepping outside the bounds of propriety, and therefore not to be trusted. There are a couple of problems with such a comparison, however.

'''Joseph not the author'''

First, this statement is written as if Joseph was the author of it, but he was not. Scribes assembled this account from a "synposis" following Joseph's death. Trying to get insight into Joseph's character and intent from a statement put into his mouth after he was dead is poor history.

'''Quoted out of context'''

Second, the quote is taken out of context. In the original context, Joseph was facing intense persecution by many people, including some he had previously considered to be his friends. This statement was supposedly made about a month before he was killed. He made it after reading 2 Corinithians, chaper 11 to the congregation. Note the following statement by Paul, in this scripture:

:Again I say, let no one think me foolish; but if you do, receive me even as foolish, that I also may boast a little. That which I am speaking, I am not speaking in as the Lord would, but as in foolishness, in this confidence of boasting. Since many boast according to the flesh, I will boast also. For you, being so wise, bear the foolish gladly. (2 Corinthians 11:16-19, NASB)

Paul then launches into a literary tirade where he claims many things to make himself look the fool, to contrast himself with those who the Corinthians were listening to for their words of salvation, instead of to him. His words were meant to compare and contrast what the Saints at Corinth were doing against what he was offering.

Do the producers of the video dismiss the words of Paul and deny his calling as an Apostle because he used such a literary approach that included boasting? No, they do not. Yet, they dismiss Joseph Smith when it is clear by his own statements, in context, that he engaged in the exact same literary approach. Consider the words of Joseph right after reading this chapter of Paul's to the congregation:

:''My object is to let you know that I am right here on the spot where I intend to stay. I, like Paul, have been in perils, and oftener than anyone in this generation. As Paul boasted, I have suffered more than Paul did, I should be like a fish out of water, if I were out of persecutions. Perhaps my brethren think it requires all this to keep me humble. The Lord has constituted me curiously that I glory in persecution. I am not nearly so humble as if I were not persecuted. If oppression will make a wise man mad, much more a fool. If they want a beardless boy to whip all the world, I will get on the top of a mountain and crow like a rooster: I shall always beat them. When facts are proved, truth and innocence will prevail at last. My enemies are no philosophers: they think that when they have my spoke under, they will keep me down; but for the fools, I will hold on and fly over them.''
:;—{{HoC1|vol=6|start=408}}

After giving the above explanation, Joseph ''then'' makes the statements that the video accounts to him, in the same way that Paul made outrageous "boasts" to contrast his position with the position of those who the Corinthians were starting to listen to. Paul starts the next chapter of 2 Corinthians with the statement "boasting is necessary, though it is not profitable." So, it would appear that Paul recognizes the necessity of boasting at times (though it may do little good, being unprofitable), yet the producers of the video do not allow Joseph to follow Paul's advice and, of necessity, boast at times.

Perhaps the producers are unaware of Paul's advice? Or perhaps they apply a double standard where Paul is allowed such literary and rhetorical license, but Joseph is not? Again, the producers never reveal their intent in including Joseph's Paul-like statements in their video.

'''To read more:'''
*[[Did Joseph Smith 'boast' of keeping the Church intact]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Joseph Smith's Doctrine & Covenants teaches that Joseph himself holds the keys to the kingdom of heaven (on screen) 'Verily I say unto you, the keys of this kingdom shall never be taken from you, while thou art in the world, neither in the world to come.... '({{s||DC|90|3}}) (on screen ends) and if Joseph Smith holds the keys to heaven then how can Jesus claim, 'All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth'? ({{s||Matthew|28|18}})"</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Jesus told Peter, the chief apostle:

:And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. ({{s||Matthew|16|19}})

Peter was told that he would hold the "keys of the kingdom of heaven." The power of these keys was to continue into the hereafter, since Peter's actions on earth would have validity in the world to come.

Jesus does not seem to think that giving Peter keys in the 16th chapter of Matthew affects His ability to hold "all authority" in the 28th chapter. Should we believe His understanding, or the critics?

If the president of a company gives responsibility for some part of his corporation, this does not mean that the president has lost authority—he has merely given an underling power to make some decisions on his behalf. Without the president, the underling has no power.

Are the critics offended that Peter was given keys?

'''To read more:'''
*[[Joseph Smith's status in LDS belief]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "God's word tells us that 'there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus.... ' ({{s|1|Timothy|2|5}}) In stark contrast, Brigham Young stated, '...that no man or woman in this dispensation will ever enter into the celestial kingdom of God without the consent of Joseph Smith.' (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 7 p 289)"</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Latter-day Saints embrace the doctrine taught in 1 Timothy. The Book of Mormon says likewise that

:...[men] are free to choose liberty and eternal life, through the great Mediator of all men, or to choose captivity and death.... ({{s|2|Nephi|2|27}})

'''Ignoring the Bible'''

At the Last Supper, Jesus himself taught His apostles:

:Ye [the apostles] are they which have continued with me in my temptations. And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me; that ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. ({{s||Luke|22|28-30}}; see also {{s||Matthew|19|28}}.)

Since the Latter-day Saints accept the witness that Joseph was called as an apostle and prophet (see [http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/21/1#1 D&C 21:1]) with the same authority as that given to Peter, James, John, and others, they do not think it strange that he will likewise play a role in judgment.

The witness of a prophet will always be brought against those who did not accept his witness of Christ (see {{s||Matthew|10|40}}; {{s||John|5|45-47}}). Could first century Christians accept Christ while rejecting the witness of Peter or Paul?

'''Another incomplete quote'''

Not content to ignore a clear Biblical teaching, the DVD producers also failed to include the entirety of Brigham Young's quotation. Following the portion cited, Brigham said:

:''...I will now tell you something that ought to comfort every man and woman on the face of the earth. Joseph Smith, junior, will again be on this earth dictating plans and calling forth his brethren to be baptized for the very characters who wish this was not so, in order to bring them into a kingdom to enjoy...he will never cease his operations, under the directions of the Son of God, until the last ones of the children of men are saved that can be, from Adam till now.... It is his mission to see that all the children of men in this last dispensation are saved, that can be, through the redemption.''
::—{{JoD7_1|author=Brigham Young|title=Intelligence, etc.|date=9 October 1859|start=289|end=289}}>

Clearly, Joseph's role is to function under the "direction...of the Son of God," and the primary goal is the salvation of all who will accept any degree of Christ and Joseph's witness of Him. Joseph's role is not to condemn, but to do everything possible to encourage all to come unto Christ and be saved.

Joseph's participation in the judgment (at the command and sufferance of Jesus) is no more or less than the role assigned to the Lord's apostles at the Last Supper.

No mortal's role in the judgment supercedes the role given to Jesus, as the Book of Mormon bears witness:

:...the keeper of the gate is the Holy One of Israel; and he employeth no servant there; and there is none other way save it be by the gate; for he cannot be deceived, for the Lord God is his name. ({{s|2|Nephi|9|41}}.)

Those who condemn Joseph on these grounds must also condemn Peter and the rest of the Twelve.

'''To read more:'''
*[[Joseph Smith's status in LDS belief]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "But we cannot believe both the Bible and the writings of Joseph Smith when the Bible tells us there is only one God and Joseph Smith tells us there are many gods and we must become gods ourselves." - Pamela Robertson</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|
The non-Biblical creeds and the ''interpretation'' of the Bible chosen by Ms. Robertson are the only problems.

Millions of Christians have not accepted the post-Biblical Trinitarian creeds, and so have believed in more than one divine being.

Millions of others have had hope in the doctrine of ''theosis'': humans being made like God.

Many of these Christians were among the earliest followers of Christ. Non-LDS scholar Ernst W. Benz penned a line that responds well to Ms. Robertson's superficial grasp of the issues:

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

It would seem the Latter-day Saints are closer to the Christianity of Jesus and His Apostles than Ms. Robertson may want to admit.

'''To read more:'''
*[[Search for the Truth DVD:Who Is God%3F|''Search for the Truth'' reply: Who is God]]
*[[Deification of man|Early Christians on deification]]
*[[Deification of man#Modern Christian exegesis|Modern non-LDS Christians on deification]]
*[[Godhead and the Trinity]]
* "Do We Have the Potential to Become Like God?" {{fairlink|url=http://www.fairlds.org/Bible/Do_We_Have_the_Potential_to_become_Like_God.html}}
*D. Charles Pyle, "Early Christian Doctrine on Deification" {{fairlink|url=http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/1999_Early_Christian_Doctrine_of_Deification.html}}
*{{FR-17-1-10}}
|-
|}


{{DVDRightColumn}}
|}
{{DoYouHaveQuestions}}

Joseph Smith's status in Latter-day Saint belief

2008-11-30T06:25:12Z

PaulMcNabb: /* Source(s) of the Criticism */

{{JosephSmithPortal}}
==Criticism==
Critics charge that since Joseph claimed (or it was claimed in his behalf) the right to "approve whether or not someone gets into heaven," this arrogates to a mortal a right properly reserved for God and Jesus Christ.

===Source(s) of the Criticism===
*{{CriticalWork:Abanes:Becoming Gods|pages=26; 262, 440 n. 46}}
* {{50Questions}}
* [[Mormonism Research Ministry]]: ''mormonwiki.org''
* [[The God Makers|''The God Makers'']], and its short animated [[The God Makers/Cartoon|cartoon]]. (film, 1982)
*{{CriticalWork:Tanner:Changing World|pages=27, 448-450}}

==Response==
The criticism originates with statements made by Brigham Young and Orson Hyde that are recorded in the ''Journal of Discourses''. Statements made by these early church leaders are removed from their context in order to make it appear that a belief in Joseph Smith rather than Jesus Christ is the key to salvation.

When read in context, Brigham Young's statement and intent become clear:

:Joseph Smith holds the keys of this last dispensation, and is now engaged behind the vail in the great work of the last days...no man or woman in this dispensation will ever enter into the celestial kingdom of God without the consent of Joseph Smith.... I will now tell you something that ought to comfort every man and woman on the face of the earth. Joseph Smith, junior, will again be on this earth dictating plans and calling forth his brethren to be baptized for the very characters who wish this was not so, in order to bring them into a kingdom to enjoy...he will never cease his operations, under the directions of the Son of God, until the last ones of the children of men are saved that can be, from Adam till now.... It is his mission to see that all the children of men in this last dispensation are saved, that can be, through the redemption.{{ref|by1}}

Clearly, Joseph's role is to function under the "direction...of the Son of God," and the primary goal is the salvation of all who will accept any degree of Christ and Joseph's witness of Him.

Similarly, critics extract the second sentence of the following quote from Brigham Young, while ignoring the sentence preceeding it (emphasis added):

:'''I have taught for thirty years, and still teach, that he that believeth in his heart and confesseth with his mouth that Jesus is the Christ and that Joseph Smith is his Prophet to this generation, is of God;''' and he that confesseth not that Jesus has come in the flesh and sent Joseph Smith with the fulness of the Gospel to this generation, is not of God, but is antichrist.{{ref|by2}}

It is not a novel idea to have mortal prophets involved in the post-mortal judgment. At the Last Supper, Jesus himself taught that:

:Ye [the apostles] are they which have continued with me in my temptations. And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me; that ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
:([http://scriptures.lds.org/luke/22/28#30 Luke 22:28-30]; see also [http://scriptures.lds.org/matt/19/28#28 Matthew 19:28].)

A similar promise to participate in the judgment of those among whom they were called to serve was given to the twelve Nephite Disciples (see [http://scriptures.lds.org/1_ne/12/9#10 1 Nephi 12:9-10]). This principle is also reiterated in modern revelation (see [http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/29/12#12 D&C 29:12]).

Since the Latter-day Saints accept the witness that Joseph was called as an apostle and prophet (see [http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/21/1#1 D&C 21:1]) with the same authority as that given to Peter, James, John, and others, they do not think it strange that he will likewise play a role in judgment. The witness of a prophet will always be brought against those who did not accept his witness of Christ (see [http://scriptures.lds.org/matt/10/40#40 Matthew 10:40]; [http://scriptures.lds.org/john/5/45#47 John 5:45-47]).

==Conclusion==
Joseph's participation in the judgment (at the command and sufferance of Jesus) is no more or less than the role assigned to the Lord's apostles at the Last Supper.

No mortal's role in the judgment supercedes the role given to Jesus, as the Book of Mormon bears witness:

:...the keeper of the gate is the Holy One of Israel; and he employeth no servant there; and there is none other way save it be by the gate; for he cannot be deceived, for the Lord God is his name.({{s|2|Nephi|9|41}}.)

Those who condemn Joseph on these grounds must also condemn Peter and the rest of the Twelve.

==Endnotes==
#{{note|by1}} {{JoD7_1|author=Brigham Young|title=Intelligence, etc.|date=9 October 1859|start=289|end=289}}
#{{note|by1}} {{JoD9_1|author=Brigham Young|title=The Kingdom of God|date=13 July 1862|start=132|end=132}}

==Further reading==

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

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

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

===Printed material===
{{JosephSmithPrint}}

Jesus Christ/Savior of other worlds

2008-11-30T06:23:52Z

PaulMcNabb: /* Question */

{{question}}

==Question==
It would appear that there is one savior — Jesus — and that his sacrifice was the ultimate sacrifice for all of the worlds created and populated by the Father. Some critics have used the idea of each world having its own Savior against us. Is there anything written or published on either concept?

==Answer==
Very little has been revealed on this subject. The closest we have to an authoritative statement is an inference from Doctrine and Covenants 76:

:For we saw him [Jesus Christ], even on the right hand of God; and we heard [a] voice bearing record that he is the Only Begotten of the Father — that by him, and through him, and of him, the worlds are and were created, and the inhabitants thereof are begotten sons and daughters unto God. ([http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/76/23-24#23 verses 23–24].)

The generally accepted interpretation of this verse is that if Jesus is the creator of many worlds, and the inhabitants of these worlds are children of the Father (both by birth and by covenant), then Jesus must be their Savior. This is probably the understanding of the majority of Latter-day Saints.

Example: The Americas and Jerusalem could have been considered to be two worlds back
in history. The people of Lehi knew when Christ came to the earth in a far away
land(or world).

This interpretation is strengthened by a poetic version of section 76 (probably written by WW Phelps, but with input from Joseph) in which the vision is restated:

:And I give a great voice bearing record from heav'n,
:He's the Savior and only begotten of God;
:By him, of him, and through him, the worlds were all made,
:Even all that career in the heavens so broad.

:Whose inhabitants, too, from the first to the last.
:''Are sav'd by the very same Saviour of ours;''
:And, of course, are begotten God's daughters and sons
:By the very same truths and the very same powers.{{ref|tands1}}

Joseph Fielding Smith said "Perhaps this is the reason Jesus Christ was sent here instead of some other world, for in some other world they would not have crucified Him, and His presence was needed here because of the extreme wickedness of the inhabitants of this earth" (The Signs of the Times, pg. 5)

Brigham Young gave a sermon in General Conference on 8 October 1854 in which he espoused a different view:

:Let me open the eyes of your understanding. There has never been a time when the creations of worlds commenced. They are from eternity to eternity in their creations and redemption. After they are organized they experience the good and the evil, the light and the dark, the bitter and the sweet as you and I do. There never was a time when there were not worlds in existence as this world is, and they pass through similar changes in abiding their creation preparatory to exaltation. Worlds have always been in progress, and eternally will be.

:Every world has had an Adam and an Eve, named so simply because the first man is always called Adam and the first woman, Eve. And the oldest son has always had the privilege of being ordained, appointed and called to be the heir of the family if he does not rebel against the Father, and he is the Savior of the family. Every world that has been created has been created upon the same principle. They may vary in their varieties, yet the eternity is one: it is one eternal round.{{ref|bya1}}

This statement is probably where our critics are getting the idea we believe in a different savior for each world. However, Brigham's statement doesn't settle the question. In the early Utah period, there was a great deal of exploration from the pulpit of the limits of LDS belief, but these sermons were not considered final or authoritative.

==Endnotes==
#{{note|tands1}}{{TS1|author=Joseph Smith|vol=4|num=6|date=1 February 1843|start=83, stanzas 19-20; emphasis added}} {{link1|url=http://www.centerplace.org/history/ts/v4n06.htm}}. Michael Hicks argued that Joseph was not the author of the poetic paraphrase in "Joseph Smith, W. W. Phelps, and the Poetic Paraphrase of 'The Vision'," ''Journal of Mormon History'' 20/2 (1994): 63–84.
#{{note|bya1}}Brigham Young, "For This Is Life Eternal," ''Brigham Young Addresses,'' edited by Elden Watson, 2:230; {{link|ulr=http://www.koz2.org/PT_BYAVol2.txt}}

==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===
*[[General authorities' statements as scripture]]
*[[Journal of Discourses]]
{{JesusWiki}}

Mormonism and politics/California Proposition 8

2008-11-30T06:22:47Z

PaulMcNabb: /* Post-election questions and myths */

{{Heading1|Latter-day Saints and California Proposition 8}}

:''We hope that now and in the future all parties involved in this issue will be well informed and act in a spirit of mutual respect and civility toward those with a different position. No one on any side of the question should be vilified, intimidated, harassed or subject to erroneous information...''

:''Before it accepted the invitation to join broad-based coalitions for the amendment, the Church knew that some of its members would choose not to support its position. Voting choices by Latter-day Saints, like all other people, are influenced by their own unique experiences and circumstances. As we move forward from the election, Church members need to be understanding and accepting of each other and work together for a better society.''

:—''The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints'', Nov. 5, 2008

=Overview=
The passage of California Proposition 8 during the November 2008 election has generated a number of criticisms of the Church regarding a variety of issues including the separation of church and state, the Church's position relative to people who experience same-sex attraction, accusations of bigotry by members, and the rights of a non-profit organization to participate in the democratic process on matters not associated with elections of candidates. The proposition added a single line to the state constitution defining marriage as being between "a man and a woman." There are 29 states which currently have such a definition of marriage in their constitution. {{ref|pew1}} This article provides information about the Church's involvement with the passage of the Proposition and its aftermath. There have been more than 40 states that have put in place protections of marriage as being between a man and a woman. {{ref|ldspr1}} See [http://www.heritage.org/research/family/marriage50/ Heritage.org] and [http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=3450 TraditionalValues.org] for details on legislations and constitutional amendments protecting traditional marriage.

The campaign to support Proposition 8 placed members of the Church outside their comfort zone. Many vigorously supported the measure, while others felt conflicted between their desire to follow the Prophet's counsel and their desire not to become involved in an effort that might alienate them from friends and family members. Church critics—most notably ex-Mormons—took advantage of the effort to promote their agenda by leveraging Prop 8 to enhance their attacks on the Church, even going so far as to attempt to publicly identify and humiliate members who had donated to the campaign. The subsequent passage of the Proposition brought new challenges for members, as protests were organized, blacklists created, and even terrorist tactics employed, with the result being public humiliation and loss of business or employment for several Church members who chose to follow the Prophet's recommendation. (See: [http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories/first-presidency-urges-respect-civility-in-public-discourse First Presidency Urges Respect, Civility in Public Discourse]). A good summary of post-election events by Seminary teacher Kevin Hamilton may be found in Orson Scott Card's article: [http://mormontimes.com/mormon_voices/orson_scott_card/?id=5002 Heroes and victims in Prop. 8 struggle] (Nov. 13, 2008)

This article documents the events leading up to and resulting from the effort to pass California Proposition 8 as they relate to Latter-day Saints. We recognize that there was a broad coalition of supporters, of which Latter-day Saints were only a small part. However, given the disproportionate negative reaction to the Church after the passage of the proposition, it is prudent to clarify misperceptions and answer commonly asked question about Church members' involvement in this issue.

'''Further information'''
*LDS Newsroom, [http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories/measured-voices-provide-reason-support-amidst-proposition-8-reaction Measured Voices Provide Reason, Support Amidst Proposition 8 Reaction] (Nov. 21, 2008)
*[http://mormontimes.com/people_news/church_news/?id=5115 LDS Church issues new Prop. 8 overview] (Nov. 21, 2008)

=The text of Proposition 8=
The following text is from the California Voter Guide for 2008:

:This initiative measure is submitted to the people in accordance with the provisions of Article II, Section 8, of the California Constitution. This initiative measure expressly amends the California Constitution by adding a section thereto; therefore, new provisions proposed to be added are printed in italic type to indicate that they are new.
:SECTION 1. Title
:This measure shall be known and may be cited as the “California Marriage Protection Act.”
:SECTION 2. Section 7.5 is added to Article I of the California Constitution, to read:
:''SEC. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.'' {{ref|calvoterguide}}

California Attorney General Jerry Brown modified the title of the measure to read "Eliminates right of same-sex couples to marry" before it appeared on the ballot.

=The Family: A Proclamation to the World=
In an October broadcast from Salt Lake City to Church Members in California, Elder's Ballard and Cook of the Quorum of the 12 Apostles emphasized the Church's principled stand regarding Proposition 8 by referencing among other things a document titled "The Family: A Proclamation to the World"{{ref|proclamation}}.

It reads in part:

:''We, the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, solemnly proclaim that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator's plan for the eternal destiny of His children.''

It also declares:

:''All human beings - male and female - are created in the image of God. Each is a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents, and, as such, each has a divine nature and destiny. Gender is an essential characteristic of individual pre-mortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.''

=Church involvement in the "Yes on 8" effort=
{{Heading2|How did the Church become involved in the Proposition 8 campaign?}}

The California Supreme Court, in the case of ''[http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/archive/S147999.PDF In Re Marriage Cases],'' on May 15, 2008, overturned a 2000 California law that established marriage as between a man and a woman. At the time, certain members of the California electorate had already been seeking an amendment to the California constitution that could not be overturned by judicial review.{{ref|sosd1}}

A ballot proposition was prepared by California residents opposed to gay marriage and disturbed by what they viewed as judicial activism. The measure needed 694,354 signatures to be placed on the ballot but 1,120,801 signatures were submitted. The measure, known as Proposition 8, was certified and placed on the ballot on June 2, 2008. The LDS church was not involved in placing Proposition 8 on the ballot.{{ref|state1}}

After Proposition 8 was placed on the ballot, the Church was approached in June 2008 in a letter sent by San Francisco Catholic Archbishop George Niederauer. This letter initiated the formation of a coalition of religions with the common goal of promoting passage of the proposition. {{ref|sfchron1}} The coalition included Catholics, Evangelicals, Protestants, Orthodox Jews, Muslims, and Latter-day Saints.

'''For more information:'''
*[[Church involvement in politics]]

{{Heading2|How were members informed?}}

Ecclesiastical leaders in California were sent a letter in the third week of June 2008, with instructions to read the letter to their congregations on June 29, 2008. (Only leaders in California received the letter.) The following is the text of the letter:

:'''Preserving Traditional Marriage and Strengthening Families'''

:''In March 2000 California voters overwhelmingly approved a state law providing that “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” The California Supreme Court recently reversed this vote of the people. On November 4, 2008, Californians will vote on a proposed amendment to the California state constitution that will now restore the March 2000 definition of marriage approved by the voters.''

:''The Church’s teachings and position on this moral issue are unequivocal. Marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God, and the formation of families is central to the Creator’s plan for His children. Children are entitled to be born within this bond of marriage.''

:''A broad-based coalition of churches and other organizations placed the proposed amendment on the ballot. The Church will participate with this coalition in seeking its passage. Local Church leaders will provide information about how you may become involved in this important cause.''

:''We ask that you do all you can to support the proposed constitutional amendment by donating of your means and time to assure that marriage in California is legally defined as being between a man and a woman. Our best efforts are required to preserve the sacred institution of marriage.'' {{ref|ldsnews1}}

{{Heading2|Were Church members told how to vote and commanded to work for passage of Proposition 8?}}

Church members were ''not'' told how to vote on Proposition 8. As stated in the letter, members were asked to “do all you can to support” the passage of Proposition 8. There was no commandment for members to work on the campaign. Support was organized at a local level and volunteers' experiences varied according to area, need and campaign leaders. Members were asked to support Proposition 8 ("We ask that you do all you can to support the proposed constitutional amendment..."), but not commanded. While prophets may ask people to do some things, the actual “doing” is left to the individual and their agency. It is ''their'' choice to determine whether to do what the prophet asks and how much to actually do. Church leaders are aware that members within the church come from different backgrounds, have different life experiences, and different ideologies. To make an ultimatum on this issue would unnecessarily alienate people.

'''For more information:'''
*[[Authoritarianism and Church leaders]]

{{Heading2|How did Church members respond to the request to become involved?}}


In the letter from the First Presidency, there was no indication of how members were expected to fulfill the request to lend support to their requests. Members were told that "Local Church leaders will provide information about how you may become involved in this important cause," but were also left to decide for themselves how they might support Proposition 8. Support developed in several ways that typically accompany political campaigns. Members support for passage of the proposition included:

*Monetary donations
*Going door-to-door to poll voters
*Phoning voters to remind them to vote
*Sign-waving on street corners
*Hanging voting reminders on doors

There is nothing unusual in the methods that were used to support passage of the amendment. Members of the LDS Church proved instrumental in the efforts to pass Proposition 8 because members were already part of a "network" of individuals that could be utilized to educate, encourage, and mobilize others within their communities. This network succeeded, as well as it did, because the members were used to working together on projects that involved contacting people and asking for their support for various Church activities. According to David Campbell (professor of political science at the University of Notre Dame), Latter-day Saints "only get mobilized when a match is lit, and that doesn't happen very often." {{ref|sltrib.11-21}} Additionally, they were personally committed to the concept of traditional marriage, and were willing to make a special personal effort to help the proposition pass. This personal commitment was crucial to the outpouring of support for, and eventual passage of Proposition 8.

=The "No on 8" response=
The "No on 8" group campaign did not emphasize that California already has domestic partnership laws in place which grant same-sex couples the civil rights associated with marriage. (See [http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=fam&group=00001-01000&file=297-297.5 California FAMILY.CODE SECTION 297-297.5]) Instead, Proposition 8 was portrayed as ''removing'' marriage rights. The passage of Proposition 8 did not remove already existing rights for same-sex couples, except for the use of the word "marriage" to describe such unions. The same rights, privileges and protections that were in place before the election remained in place after the election. However, religious organizations perceived a very real threat to their rights if Proposition 8 did not pass. The right to be licensed to perform adoptions was in jeopardy in California, as demonstrated by the North Coast Women's Care Medical Group Inc. case decided on 1 April 2008 by the California Supreme Court. This decision held that those who are licensed by the State cannot treat homosexuals differently than heterosexuals. It is easy to see how such a holding will result in LDS Social Services being denied licensing to perform adoptions if it won't perform adoptions for homosexual couples. Thus, religious groups perceived no gain and no loss to same-sex couples from passing Proposition 8, but anticipated a large possible downside to religious organizations and their essential services if it did not pass.

{{Heading2|Attempts to identify and "dig up dirt" on LDS donors before the election}}
:''There are no websites dedicated to “outing” Catholics who supported Proposition 8, even though Catholic voters heavily outnumber Mormons.''
:—Editorial, [http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YTU5MjZmMDIyMDU3NjRiMjBlNjcxYTlmOGQ2ODA5NjA Legislating Immorality], ''National Review Online'' (Nov. 24, 2008)

*Nadine Hansen, a lawyer residing in Cedar City, Utah, created a web site called "Mormonsfor8.com" prior to the election. Hansen urges visitors to her site to "help by helping us identify Mormon donors." Hansen apparently felt that singling out the LDS donors was necessary, since religious affiliation of the donors is ''not recorded by the state''. When questioned about the purpose of this site, Hansen responded, "Any group that gets involved in the political arena has to be treated like a political action committee...You can't get involved in politics and say, 'Treat me as a church.'" {{ref|sfgate.10-27}} Hansen gave a [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HcL9R94MGMk speech at the 2008 Sunstone Symposium] on Proposition 8 prior to the election.

*Dante Atkins, an elected delegate to the state Democratic convention, initiated a campaign to identify and scrutinize the lives of the LDS donors. Atkins' blog in the ''Daily Kos'' linked to Hansen's web site and called for "No on 8" supporters to dig up dirt on LDS donors. Atkins asked readers to "use OpenSecrets to see if these donors have contributed to...shall we say...less than honorable causes, or if any one of these big donors has done something otherwise egregious." {{ref|beliefnet1}}

{{Heading2|The infamous "Mormon missionary home invasion" commercial}}
On October 31, 2008, an organization calling itself the "Campaign Courage Issues Committee" released an ad on YouTube depicting two "Mormon missionaries" entering the home of a lesbian couple. The "missionaries" proclaimed that they were there to "take away your rights." The "missionaries" proceeded to ransack their home, including their underwear drawer, until they located their marriage license. They then tore up the license and left the home, claiming that it was "too easy," and wondering what rights they could take away next.

*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q28UwAyzUkE "Home Invasion": Vote NO on Prop 8] (YouTube Video)

The ad was actually aired on several television stations on election day.

{{Heading2|Accusations that "Yes on 8" ads were promoting lies}}
===The ads===
The advertising messages created for the "Yes on 8" campaign were based on case law and real-life situations. However, a rebuttal to an anonymously written "Yes on 8" document called "“Six Consequences . . . if Proposition 8 Fails” was written by LDS lawyer Morris Thurston. {{ref|thurston1}} This document was used by "No on 8" supporters to show that even LDS realized that lies were being promoted. Thurston's points were contested by another LDS attorney, Blake Ostler. {{ref|ostler1}} Upon discovering that the "No on 8" campaign was making use of his comments, Thurston issued a press release which pointed out that "A press release dated October 19 from a public relations firm representing 'No on 8' is inaccurate and misleading," and that he was "erroneously cited as having 'debunked' new California Prop 8 ads." (See [http://www.bizjournals.com/washington/prnewswire/press_releases/national/California/2008/10/21/LATU558 LDS Lawyer's Commentary Mischaracterized in 'No on 8' Press Release])

Ads and mailers produced by "Yes on 8" showed children's books promoting same-sex marriage that have been sent home with young students. One young girl tells her mother that she learned in school that "I learned how a prince can marry a prince, and I can marry a princess!"

*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PgjcgqFYP4 Yes on 8 TV Ad: It's Already Happened]
*[http://hedgehogcentral.blogspot.com/2008/10/proposition-8-and-californias.html Proposition 8 and California's Schoolchildren: A Primer on Falsehoods]

===Claims by the "No on 8" campaign===
The following claims were made by "No on 8" supporters regarding the "Yes on 8" campaign: {{ref|edge1}}
*"Unless marriage rights were rescinded, schoolchildren would be forced to learn about gay marriage in the classroom starting as early as kindergarten."
*Proposition 8 supporters "fraudulently indicated to voters that Barack Obama was in favor of Proposition 8."

===Issues incorporated into the "Yes on 8" ads during the campaign===
The following incidents occurred during the course of the campaign and influenced the "Yes on 8" advertising:

*A group of school children were taken on a field trip to their gay teacher's wedding in San Francisco. {{ref|sfgate.10-11}} The "Yes on 8" supporters incorporated a photo of this headline into subsequent mailers. The "No on 8" campaign stated that "an outing of second graders to the wedding of their lesbian teacher made headlines and proved to be a ready-made example for the Yes on 8 campaign’s claims." {{ref|edge2}}

*A teacher at the Faith Ringgold School of Arts and Science, a public school that is part of the Hayward Unified School District, "passed out cards produced by the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network to her class of kindergartners." The children were asked to sign these cards, which pledged them to "not use anti-LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) language or slurs; intervene, when I feel I can, in situations where others are using anti-LGBT language or harassing other students and actively support safer schools efforts." {{ref|faith1}} After this incident, the "Yes on 8" campaign produced a new video about the [http://californiacrusader.wordpress.com/2008/10/31/faith-ringgold-school-kindergarten-pledge-card/ Faith Ringgold Kindergarten School Pledge Card].

=Where did the money come from?=

Opponents of Proposition 8 have criticized the Church for donations to the "Yes on 8" campaign. Records filed with the State of California indicate that the Church did not make any contributions with the exception of an "in kind" contribution (non monetary) for travel expenses for a single general authority. All other LDS-related money was contributed by Church members individually, not by the Church.

The amounts contributed to both sides were very high. It is reasonable for critics to question why their greater contributions to defeat Proposition 8 didn't carry the vote as they expected, but to imply that the participation of Latter-day Saint citizens—most of whom were California residents—was improper is inappropriate. Such an accusation is an exercise in empowering a straw man of their own creation.

<table border="1" align="center">
<tr>
<td> </td>
<td align="center">'''In-State Donations'''</td>
<td align="center">'''Out-of-State Donations'''</td>
<td align="center">'''Total Donations'''</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>'''For Proposition 8'''</td>
<td align="center">$25,388,955</td>
<td align="center">$10,733,582</td>
<td align="center">$36,122,538</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>'''Against Proposition 8'''</td>
<td align="center">$26,464,589</td>
<td align="center">$11,968,285</td>
<td align="center">$38,432,873</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>'''Totals'''</td>
<td align="center">$51,853,544</td>
<td align="center">$22,701,867</td>
<td align="center">$74,555,411</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="4" align="center">Source: [http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-moneymap,0,2198220.htmlstory Tracking the money], ''Los Angeles Times''</td>
</tr>
</table>

Note that out-of-state contributions to the "No" side were over $1.2 million higher than the out-of-state contributions to the "Yes" side and that out-of-state contributions to the "No" side constituted a higher percentage of the overall "No" funding than out-of-state contributions did for the "Yes" side.

There have been various estimates of monies donated to the "Yes on 8" campaign by LDS Church members, ranging from $14 to $20 million. No firm figures are available because the State of California does not request or record the religion of donors.

Estimates of LDS-related monies also do not include donations the "No on 8" campaign received as a result of LDS Church involvement in the campaign. For instance, Bruce Bastian, a onetime Mormon, has publicly stated that he donated $1 million to the "No on 8" campaign in response to LDS involvement as an effort to "level the financial playing field."{{ref|bast1}}

=The vote=

The LDS, while instrumental in helping with the passage of Proposition 8, were not solely responsible for the margin by which the proposition passed in the general electorate; the number of LDS voters was simply too small to account for the margin. Encouragement from LDS volunteers may have been key in turning out the "Yes on 8" vote, but to say that LDS involvement was solely responsible for such turnout seems rather myopic.

LDS may encourage their neighbors to vote "Yes on 8," but the neighbor still has to actually cast the vote. Anecdotal reports from FAIR members who live in California indicate that LDS volunteers worked closely with non-LDS volunteers to promote the proposition and turn out the vote.

{{Heading2|Voter demographics}}

*Latter-day Saints constitute less than 2% of the population of California. There are approximately 800,000 LDS out of a total population of approximately 34 million.
*Not all LDS voted in favor of Proposition 8. Active Latter-day Saints likely voted near the affirmative ratio (84-16) that their peer group that attends church at least weekly did. {{ref|cnnprop8exit}} Religion, in general, was a large factor. Self-identifying Catholics and Protestants both went around 65-35 for the amendment, with white evangelicals going 81-19.
*LDS voters represented less than 5% of the "Yes" vote. At most the Latter-day Saint vote only accounts for 58% of the victory margin using the current count on CNN. {{ref|cnnprop8count}} In other words, the Latter-day Saint vote was not enough by itself to make a difference in the final Prop 8 election results.
*The large African-American turnout (10%) for Barack Obama appears to have facilitated the passage of the proposition.{{ref|ladailynews1}} Scaling exit poll numbers, the net African-American vote (70-30) accounts for 92% of the victory margin.
*The net Latino (18%) vote at 53-47 contributed to 25% of the victory margin.
*The generation gap also played a factor. Senior citizens (15%) supported the measure at 61-39 while voters under 30 (20%) opposed it 39-61.

While Mormons played a significant role in mobilizing like-minded voters, these trends show that public perception has assigned a disproportionate amount of credit for passing Proposition 8.

=Post-election questions and myths=
{{Main|Latter-day Saints and California Proposition 8/Questions and myths}}

A number of questions have arisen, and some new myths have been propagated, since the passage of the proposition. The following links provide further detail:

*[[/Questions and myths#Questions|Questions]]
**[[/Questions and myths#Were Church members who were opposed to Proposition 8 disciplined?|Were Church members who were opposed to Proposition 8 disciplined?]]
**[[/Questions and myths#Did the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints contribute money to the "Yes on 8" campaign?|Did the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints contribute money to the "Yes on 8" campaign?]]
**[[/Questions and myths#Did the Church violate its tax-exempt status by participating in the "Yes on 8" campaign?|Did the Church violate its tax-exempt status by participating in the "Yes on 8" campaign?]]
**[[/Questions and myths#But what about the companies that the Church owns?|But what about the companies that the Church owns?]]
**[[/Questions and myths#Were the contributions made by Church members tax deductible?|Were the contributions made by Church members tax deductible?]]
**[[/Questions and myths#Were Church members told how much to contribute to the effort?|Were Church members told how much to contribute to the effort?]]
**[[/Questions and myths#Did the Church invest more money in Proposition 8 than in all of its combined humanitarian efforts?|Did the Church invest more money in Proposition 8 than in all of its combined humanitarian efforts?]]
**[[/Questions and myths#Wouldn't the money that Church members contributed to the cause have been better spent on humanitarian needs?|Wouldn't the money that Church members contributed to the cause have been better spent on humanitarian needs?]]
**[[/Questions and myths#How does the Church reconcile its opposition to same-sex marriage when it once supported plural marriage|How does the Church reconcile its opposition to same-sex marriage when it once supported plural marriage?]]
*[[/Questions and myths#Myths|Myths]]
**[[/Questions and myths#MYTH: Large numbers of people are resigning from the Church because of its support of Prop 8|Large numbers of people are resigning from the Church because of its support of Prop 8]]
**[[/Questions and myths#MYTH: Mormons were motivated to do this merely as a vehicle to be considered more mainstream Christian|Mormons were motivated to do this merely as a vehicle to be considered more mainstream Christian]]
**[[/Questions and myths#MYTH: The church sent thousands of missionaries door to door in CA handing out fliers|The church sent thousands of missionaries door to door in CA handing out fliers]]
**[[/Questions and myths#MYTH: The Church sent large numbers of out-of-state people in to assist with the "Yes-on-8" campaign|The Church sent large numbers of out-of-state people in to assist with the "Yes-on-8" campaign]]

=Post-election events=
{{Main|Latter-day Saints and California Proposition 8/Post-Election Events}}
[[Image:Ukiah.vandalism.1B.png|right]]
:''In the days after the election, tens of thousands of people, gay and straight, took to the streets of cities and towns throughout the country in spontaneously organized protest. But the mood at these gatherings, by all accounts, was seldom angry; it was cheerful, determined, and hopeful.''
:—Hendrik Hertzberg, [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27887428/ (Proposition) Eight is enough], ''The New Yorker'' (Nov. 24, 2008)
{{parabreak}}
:''The outbreak of attacks on the Mormon church since the passage of Proposition 8 has been chilling: envelopes full of suspicious white powder were sent to church headquarters in Salt Lake City; protesters showed up en masse to intimidate Mormon small-business owners who supported the measure; a website was created to identify and shame members of the church who backed it; activists are targeting the relatives of prominent Mormons who gave money to pass it, as well as other Mormons who are only tangentially associated with the cause; some have even called for a boycott of the entire state of Utah.''
:—Editorial, [http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YTU5MjZmMDIyMDU3NjRiMjBlNjcxYTlmOGQ2ODA5NjA Legislating Immorality], ''National Review Online'' (Nov. 24, 2008)
{{parabreak}}
:''The Mormon church has had to rely on our tolerance in the past, to be able to express their beliefs...This is a huge mistake for them. It looks like they've forgotten some lessons.''
:—San Francisco supervisor Bevan Dufty, at a protest in front of the Oakland Temple
{{parabreak}}
:''Members of the Mormon church have experienced significant intolerance ranging from expulsion from Illinois in the dead of winter to an extermination order by the Governor of Missouri. It has seen its members raped and murdered as the result of state sponsored intolerance, acts you seem to condone by implication. Are these the lessons you refer to, and are you proposing to apply those lessons again? Are you suggesting that Mormon’s need your permission to participate in the political process or to practice our beliefs, and what remedy do you propose for failed compliance?''
:—FAIR's response to Supervisor Dufty, which remains unanswered.
{{parabreak}}
There were a large number of post-election events targeted toward Latter-day Saints, and some targeted towards others. Click on any of the following items to see complete details:

*[[/Post-Election Events#Threats from "No on 8" supporters|Threats from "No on 8" supporters]]
*[[/Post-Election Events#Church response|Church response]]
*[[/Post-Election Events#Negative reactions|Negative reactions]]
**[[/Post-Election Events#Accusations of hatred and bigotry|Accusations of hatred and bigotry]]
**[[/Post-Election Events#Protests at LDS places of worship|Protests at LDS places of worship]]
**[[/Post-Election Events#Protests at other Christian places of worship|Protests at other Christian places of worship]]
**[[/Post-Election Events#Vandalism of LDS Chapels by "No on 8" supporters|Vandalism of LDS Chapels by "No on 8" supporters]]
**[[/Post-Election Events#Harassment|Harassment]]
**[[/Post-Election Events#Mormons have "forgotten some lessons"?|Mormons have "forgotten some lessons"?]]
**[[/Post-Election Events#Terrorist tactics|Terrorist tactics]]
**[[/Post-Election Events#Hacking of Church related web site|Hacking of Church related web site]]
**[[/Post-Election Events#Threats to revoke the Church's tax-exempt status|Threats to revoke the Church's tax-exempt status]]
**[[/Post-Election Events#Blacklists|Blacklists]]
**[[/Post-Election Events#Intimidation and forced resignation of donors by identifying their religious affiliation as LDS|Intimidation and forced resignation of donors by identifying their religious affiliation as LDS]]
**[[/Post-Election Events#Forced resignation of gays or lesbians for their opposition to Prop 8|Forced resignation of gays or lesbians for their opposition to Prop 8]]
**[[/Post-Election Events#Absence of support from political leaders|Absence of support from political leaders]]
*[[/Post-Election Events#Positive effects|Positive effects]]
**[[/Post-Election Events#Expressions of support from other Christians|Expressions of support from other Christians]]
**[[/Post-Election Events#Condemnation of criminal activity by those who opposed Proposition 8|Condemnation of criminal activity by those who opposed Proposition 8]]

=Endnotes=
{{ExplicitLanguage}}
#{{note|pew1}}[http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=370 States With Voter-Approved Constitutional Bans on Same-Sex Marriage, 1998-2008 ], ''The Pew Forum'' (Nov. 13, 2008)
#{{note|ldspr1}}[http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories/first-presidency-urges-respect-civility-in-public-discourse First Presidency Urges Respect, Civility in Public Discourse] (Nov. 14, 2008)
#{{note|calvoterguide}}[http://www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov/text-proposed-laws/text-of-proposed-laws.pdf California Voter Guide]
#{{note|proclamation}}[http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=e1fa5f74db46c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=5fd30f9856c20110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&hideNav=1 The Family: A Proclamation to the World]

#{{note|sosd1}}Bill Ainsworth, "[http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/state/20071112-9999-1n12gayright.html Groups Joust Over Gay Rights in California]," ''San Diego Union Tribune'' (Nov. 12, 2007).
#{{note|state1}}Folmar, Kate (June 2, 2008). [http://www.sos.ca.gov/admin/press-releases/2008/DB08-068.pdf Secretary of State Debra Bowen Certifies Eighth Measure for November 4, 2008, General Election] (PDF). ''California Secretary of State.''
#{{note|sfchron1}}Matthai Kuruvila, [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/10/MNU1140AQQ.DTL "Catholics, Mormons allied to pass Prop. 8"], ''San Francisco Chronicle'' (Nov. 10, 2008)

#{{note|ldsnews1}}[http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/california-and-same-sex-marriage California and Same-Sex Marriage], LDS Newsroom
#{{note|sltrib.11-21}}Peggy Fletcher Stack, [http://www.sltrib.com/News/ci_11044660?source=rss Prop 8 involvement a P.R. fiasco for LDS Church], ''Salt Lake Tribune'' (Nov. 21, 2008)

#{{note|sfgate.10-27}}Matthai Kuruvila, [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/10/26/BAP113OIRD.DTL&tsp=1 Mormons face flak for backing Prop. 8], ''San Francisco Chronicle'' (Oct. 27, 2008)
#{{note|beliefnet1}}[http://blog.beliefnet.com/news/2008/10/for-mormons-californias-prop-8.php For Mormons, California's Prop 8 Battle Turns Personal], ''beliefnet'' (Oct. 4, 2008)
#{{note|thurston1}}Morris Thurston, [http://www.hrc.org/documents/Responses_to_Six_Consequences_if_Prop_8_Fails.pdf A Commentary on the Document “Six Consequences . . . if Proposition 8 Fails”]
#{{note|ostler1}}Blake Ostler, [http://www.newcoolthang.com/index.php/2008/10/prop-8-comment-they-would-not-print/569/ Prop 8 comment (that is now a Prop 8 post)] (Oct. 20, 2008)
#{{note|edge1}}Kilian Melloy, [http://www.edgeboston.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=&sc2=news&sc3=&id=83977 ’No on 8’ Heads Justify Their Losing Campaign], ''Edge'' (Nov. 27, 2008)
#{{note|sfgate.10-11}}Jill Tucker, [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/10/10/MNFG13F1VG.DTL Class surprises lesbian teacher on wedding day], ''San Francisco Chronicle'' (Oct. 11, 2008)
#{{note|edge2}}Kilian Melloy, [http://www.edgeboston.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=&sc2=news&sc3=&id=83977 ’No on 8’ Heads Justify Their Losing Campaign], ''Edge'' (Nov. 27, 2008)
#{{note|faith1}}Michelle Maskaly , [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,445865,00.html School Clams Up on 'Gay' Pledge Cards Given to Kindergartners], ''Fox News'' (Nov. 1, 2008)
#{{note|bast1}}John Wildermuth, "[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/16/BAJG144PTB.DTL&type=politics Wealthy gay men backed anti-Prop. 8 effort]," ''San Francisco Chronicle'' (Nov. 16, 2008).

#{{note|cnnprop8exit}}CNN exit poll, [http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#val=CAI01p1 California Proposition 8: Ban on Gay Marriage, 2,240 Respondents] (last accessed Nov. 17, 2008)
#{{note|cnnprop8count}}CNN Election Center 2008, [http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/individual/#CAI01 California Proposition 8: Ban on Gay Marriage, Full Results] (last accessed Nov. 17, 2008)
#{{note|ladailynews1}}Tony Castro, [http://www.dailynews.com/ci_10910908 Black, Latino voters helped Prop. 8 pass], ''LA Daily News'' (Nov. 5, 2008)

=Further reading=

==FAIR wiki articles==
{{PoliticsWiki}}


==Videos==
'''Yes on 8 ads'''
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l61Pd5_jHQw Yes on 8 TV Ad: Truth]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7352ZVMKBQM Yes on 8 TV Ad: Everything To Do With Schools]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PgjcgqFYP4 Yes on 8 TV Ad: It's Already Happened]

'''No on 8 ads'''
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vB0lZ8XbmJM advanced Conversation - No On Prop 8]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=opx-v_OhFnQ Parents]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7LdC1RxvZg Senator Feinstein: No on Prop 8]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CIL7PUl24hE Prop 8 has nothing to do with schools], Jack O. Connell, California Superintendant of Schools
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RSCop9BtgdU&feature=related California Clergy Urge You to Vote No on Prop 8]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q28UwAyzUkE "Home Invasion": Vote NO on Prop 8]

'''Press conferences'''
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dU8uuPhQog0 Prop 8 Proponents Speak Out Against Attacks] (Press conference held Nov. 14, 2008)

==External links==
'''Proposition 8 related'''
*Paul Bishop, [http://www.ldsmag.com/ideas/081110hate.html In the Face of Hatred], ''Meridian Magazine'', November 12, 2008.
'''Church involvement in politics'''
*{{Ensign1|author=Gordon B. Hinckley|article=Why We Do Some of the Things We Do|date=November 1999|start=52}}{{link|url=http://www.lds.org/portal/site/LDSOrg/menuitem.b12f9d18fae655bb69095bd3e44916a0/?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=ff1b6a4430c0c010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1}}
*{{BYUS | author=Hugh Nibley | article=[http://byustudies.byu.edu/shop/pdfsrc/15.1Nibley.pdf Beyond Politics]|vol=15|num=1|date=1974|start=1|end=21}}

{{Suggestions}}

Mormonism and politics/California Proposition 8/Questions and myths

2008-11-30T05:29:49Z

PaulMcNabb: /* Questions */

{{Heading1|California Proposition 8: Questions and Myths}}

=Questions=

{{Heading2|Were Church members who were opposed to Proposition 8 disciplined?}}
The Church did not ask members how they would vote on the proposition. California ballots are cast by [http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=elec&group=02001-03000&file=2300 "secret ballot"] in a manner that they can vote free from intimidation. As such, votes cast by Church members remain private unless they themselves chose to disclose this information. The Church does not apply discipline based upon a member’s voting record and has a long standing respect for the separation of civic responsibility and church participation.

The Church may apply discipline based upon other behavior by individual members. Such discipline, if any, is left to local leaders (bishops and stake presidents) who are more intimately acquainted with the behavior that may be in question. it is conceivable that strong feelings on the Church's position compelled certain members to individually take public stands against the Church or its leadership. Depending on the nature of behavior of the individual, some persons may have received admonition or other actions relative to their membership that would be considered "disciplinary" in nature. However, such actions would only be in reaction to the behavior of the individual and not in reaction to their personal feelings or their voting record. Elder L. Whitney Clayton was asked if "Latter-day Saints who publicly opposed Prop. 8 would be subject to some kind of church discipline," to which he responded, "those judgments are left up to local bishops and stake presidents and the particular circumstances involved." {{ref|deseretnews.clayton1}}

{{Heading2|Did the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints contribute money to the "Yes on 8" campaign?}}
The Church as an institution made no direct monetary contributions to the "Yes on 8" campaign. All monetary donations came from individual Church members, who decided if and how much they would contribute.

The Church did, however, make two in-kind donations with the equivalent values of [http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_10842051 $2,078.97] (October 25, 2008) and $2,864.21 (November 1, 2008). The term "in-kind" represents donations that are made to the Church in some form other than cash (For example, the payment of tithing using stock constitutes a in-kind donation). In this case, the in-kind donations were to cover out-of-pocket expenses such as airfare and lodging that were incurred by several Church leaders who travelled to California in support of the proposition. The Church declared these donations, as required by law, and they are part of the public record.

{{Heading2|Did the Church violate its tax-exempt status by participating in the "Yes on 8" campaign?}}
[[Image:22million.jpg|right|200px]]
From the Internal Revenue Service:
:''Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office…Political campaign intervention includes any and all activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office.''

The church did not participate in or intervene in any of the political campaigns for any of the candidates running in the 2008 election. The IRS does, however, permit a Church to take positions on issues:

:''Under federal tax law, section 501(c)(3) organizations may take positions on public policy issues, including issues that divide candidates in an election for public office.'' {{ref|irs1}}

According to Barry Lynn, executive director of "Americans United for the Separation of Church and State" (and who, for the record, was "outraged by the Prop. 8 victory"):

:"They almost certainly have not violated their tax exemption...While the tax code has a zero tolerance for endorsements of candidates, the tax code gives wide latitude for churches to engage in discussions of policy matters and moral questions, including when posed as initiatives." {{ref|sfgate.11-28}}

Nonprofit 501c(3) organizations are prohibited from spending more than 20 percent of their budgets on political activities. "The 20 percent threshold means that the Catholic or Mormon churches, whose organizations span the globe, would have had to spend hundreds of millions of dollars—if not billions—to violate their tax-exempt status." {{ref|sfgate.11-28.2}}

{{Heading2|But what about the companies that the Church owns?}}
Some companies that are owned by the Church, such as Bonneville Communications, are in business to make profit. These businesses pay their taxes just like any other business: They are not part of the tax-exempt portion of the Church.

There is no evidence that any Church owned for-profit companies made contributions to the Yes on 8 campaign or any supporting organization.

{{Heading2|Were the contributions made by Church members tax deductible?}}
California members who chose to donate to the Prop 8 campaign were explicitly told that their donations would not be tax deductible. None of the funds donated to the campaign are allowed as deductions.

{{Heading2|Were Church members told how much to contribute to the effort?}}
Church headquarters did not pass down individual contribution goals to members. In some cases local Church leaders may have asked members to contribute a specific amount. Some goals were suggested to the general membership by their Stake President, such as “one dollar per day.” Some Stakes provided wards with goals that they were expected to meet.

{{Heading2|Did the Church invest more money in Proposition 8 than in all of its combined humanitarian efforts?}}
The question is not relevant, since the Church as an ''organization'' did not donate any money to “Yes on 8.”

Members contribute to humanitarian efforts sponsored by the church based on their specific abilities. For example, [http://providentliving.org/content/display/0,11666,7416-1-4005-1,00.html fast offerings] are donations to a fund for assisting local and other members who are financially struggling. These funds represent a generous offering of the value of 2 meals abstained from on the first Sunday of each month. The combination of personal sacrifice (fasting) and financial sacrifice make such contributions particularly meaningful for both the donor and the recipient.

The Church also manages a significant humanitarian effort known as "[http://www.lds.org/ldsfoundation/welfare/welcome/0,7133,1325-1-9,00.html LDS Humanitarian Services]". This organization provides relief and assistance for disasters and other urgent humanitarian needs. The amount contributed by the Church to humanitarian causes far outweighs anything that individual members contributed toward the effort to pass Prop 8. According to a [http://providentliving.org/welfare/pdf/2006WelfareFactSheet.pdf 2007 report] from the Presiding Bishopric of the Church, external humanitarian efforts exceeded $1 billion in cash and material contributions from 1985 until 2007. This does not include contributions of many millions more as part of the Church Welfare program.

Other humanitarian efforts include:
* [http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=f318118dd536c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=46398d00422fe010VgnVCM100000176f620a____&hideNav=1 Perpetual Education Fund]
* [http://providentliving.org/channel/0,11677,2022-1,00.html Deseret Industries]
* [http://providentliving.org/channel/0,11677,1703-1,00.html Employment Services]

Many Latter-day Saints make significant contributions to humanitarian efforts outside of LDS sponsored channels. For example, in 2007, high profile Latter-day Saints [http://specials.slate.com/slate60/2007/ John and Karen Huntsman] donated more than $672 million for charitable causes not associated with the LDS Church. [http://www.bc.edu/research/cwp/meta-elements/ssi/vol11.html Utah] in general was ranked #2 of all 50 states in charitable contributions in 2007.

{{Heading2|Wouldn't the money that Church members contributed to the cause have been better spent on humanitarian needs?}}
Church members have always been encouraged to contribute to humanitarian causes. Since all contributions came from individual members, those that donated made the choice to support the “Yes on 8” campaign.

It should be noted that the Latter-day saints believe that family is central to the plan of God for the eternal destiny of His children and has been instituted by divine design for the betterment of society. The First Presidency and Quorum of the 12 Apostles warned "that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets" (see the [http://www.lds.org/library/display/0,4945,161-1-11-1,00.html Proclamation)]. For these reasons, many Latter-day Saints and their leaders believe that Proposition 8, whose original title was "The California Marriage Protection Act" was a cause of great significance and worthy of their most noble efforts.

*Bishop H. David Burton, [http://lds.org/conference/talk/display/0,5232,23-1-851-18,00.html And Who Is My Neighbor?], April 2008 General Conference.

{{Heading2|How does the Church reconcile its opposition to same-sex marriage when it once supported plural marriage?}}
[[Image:6wives1husband.jpg|right|200px|6 wives vs. 1 husband?]]
The same type of question was asked when, after supporting polygamy for years, the Church ceased its practice. The Church no longer practices polygamy, and should not be confused with splinter groups who continue the practice. Prop 8 protesters, however, do like to raise the issue of polygamy, and make no distinction between the LDS Church and splinter groups.

It is important to realize that 19th century Mormons who practiced plural marriage did not seek federal recognition of their marriages. They would have been pleased to simply be left alone, instead of being subject to spy networks, home invasion by federal marshals, loss of the right to vote simply for being members of the Church even if they were not polygamists, jail time, and threats of military occupation by the Congress.

Homosexuals in California with access to domestic partnership laws have far more legal protection and benefits for their cohabitation relationships than 19th century Mormons ever had. Homosexuals who choose to simply cohabitate are likewise unmolested by the state, unlike LDS polygamists of the 19th century.

LDS opposition to the use of the term "marriage" for same-sex unions derives, however, from a belief that homosexual behavior is wrong, contrary to the commandments of God, and something which believers should not support. Homosexuals are free to make their own choices about behavior, but Church members cannot in good conscience encourage that behavior by lending their voice to efforts which socially sanction it.

=Myths=
Critics of the Church have taken advantage of the Proposition 8 backlash to promote their agenda. The following section addresses some of these claims.
{{Heading2|MYTH: Large numbers of people are resigning from the Church because of its support of Prop 8}}
No evidence has been offered for this expansive claim. Throughout the history of the Church, some left the Church over new doctrines in Kirtland or Nauvoo, over strife in Missouri, over the initiation of polygamy, over the move West, over the repeal of polygamy, over the [[Blacks and the priesthood|priesthood ban]], over the repeal of the priesthood ban, over the Church's position on the ERA, and now over Proposition 8. The Church continues to survive and thrive.

Those that do seem to receive media attention for leaving the Church over this issue typically appear to be inactive members who left the Church "in spirit" long ago, but used this as an occasion to formalize their exit:

*'''Massachusetts'''. A "37-year-old" member "who had been inactive in the church since he left Utah at age 20, but who formally asked the church to remove his name from its rolls because of its support of Proposition 8." {{ref|boston.globe.1}}
*'''Massachusetts'''. A gay 32-year-old Boston resident who "also resigned after years as an inactive Mormon." {{ref|boston.globe.2}}

According to Church spokesman Michael Otterson, "All the reports we have received indicate that the vast majority of members solidly support the church position. A few may not, and that's their choice. But you could never describe it as a movement. You can only describe it as a ripple." {{ref|boston.com3}}

{{Heading2|MYTH: Mormons were motivated to do this merely as a vehicle to be considered more mainstream Christian}}
Latter-day Saints object when others attempt to [[Latter-day Saints aren't Christians|classify us as non-Christian]], however, this does not mean that Latter-day Saints are attempting to become "mainstream" Christians. We appreciate being invited to participate in the coalition by our Christian brothers, and did so willingly because we share many of the same family values, even if our theologies differ. Likewise, we welcomed the opportunity to cooperate with Muslims, Jews, and others who share our values and concerns for society.

{{Heading2|MYTH: The church sent thousands of missionaries door to door in CA handing out fliers}}
NO missionaries were asked to participate in the distribution of flyers. Missionaries do not participate in political activities while on their mission.

{{Heading2|MYTH: The Church sent large numbers of out-of-state people in to assist with the "Yes-on-8" campaign}}
Support from the campaign was generated from within congregations in California under direction of the Protect Marriage coalition.{{ref|protectmarriage}} There were no "busloads" of out-of-state people brought in.

=Endnotes=

#{{note|deseretnews.clayton1}}Carrie A. Moore, [http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,705260852,00.html?pg=1 LDS official lauds work for California's Prop. 8], ''Deseret News'' (Nov. 16, 2008)

#{{note|irs1}}[http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=154712,00.html Election Year Activities and the Prohibition on Political Campaign Intervention for Section 501(c)(3) Organizations], Internal Revenue Service
#{{note|sfgate.11-28}}Matthai Kuruvila, [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/27/BAB214BA4E.DTL Tax-exempt benefit disputed in Prop. 8 campaign], ''SFGate'' (Nov. 28, 2008)
#{{note|sfgate.11-28.2}}Matthai Kuruvila, [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/27/BAB214BA4E.DTL Tax-exempt benefit disputed in Prop. 8 campaign], ''SFGate'' (Nov. 28, 2008)

#{{note|boston.globe.1}}Michael Paulson, [http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2008/11/24/gay_marriage_debate_roils_unites_mormons/?page=2 Gay-marriage debate roils, unites Mormons], ''Boston Globe'' (Nov. 24, 2008)
#{{note|boston.globe.2}}Michael Paulson, [http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2008/11/24/gay_marriage_debate_roils_unites_mormons/?page=2 Gay-marriage debate roils, unites Mormons], ''Boston Globe'' (Nov. 24, 2008)
#{{note|boston.globe.3}}Michael Paulson, [http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2008/11/24/gay_marriage_debate_roils_unites_mormons/?page=2 Gay-marriage debate roils, unites Mormons], ''Boston Globe'' (Nov. 24, 2008)
#{{note|protectmarriage}}[http://www.protectmarriage.com/ Protectmarriage.com].

Mormonism and politics/California Proposition 8

2008-11-30T05:27:14Z

PaulMcNabb: /* Where did the money come from? */

{{Heading1|Latter-day Saints and California Proposition 8}}

:''We hope that now and in the future all parties involved in this issue will be well informed and act in a spirit of mutual respect and civility toward those with a different position. No one on any side of the question should be vilified, intimidated, harassed or subject to erroneous information...''

:''Before it accepted the invitation to join broad-based coalitions for the amendment, the Church knew that some of its members would choose not to support its position. Voting choices by Latter-day Saints, like all other people, are influenced by their own unique experiences and circumstances. As we move forward from the election, Church members need to be understanding and accepting of each other and work together for a better society.''

:—''The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints'', Nov. 5, 2008

=Overview=
The passage of California Proposition 8 during the November 2008 election has generated a number of criticisms of the Church regarding a variety of issues including the separation of church and state, the Church's position relative to people who experience same-sex attraction, accusations of bigotry by members, and the rights of a non-profit organization to participate in the democratic process on matters not associated with elections of candidates. The proposition added a single line to the state constitution defining marriage as being between "a man and a woman." There are 29 states which currently have such a definition of marriage in their constitution. {{ref|pew1}} This article provides information about the Church's involvement with the passage of the Proposition and its aftermath. There have been more than 40 states that have put in place protections of marriage as being between a man and a woman. {{ref|ldspr1}} See [http://www.heritage.org/research/family/marriage50/ Heritage.org] and [http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=3450 TraditionalValues.org] for details on legislations and constitutional amendments protecting traditional marriage.

The campaign to support Proposition 8 placed members of the Church outside their comfort zone. Many vigorously supported the measure, while others felt conflicted between their desire to follow the Prophet's counsel and their desire not to become involved in an effort that might alienate them from friends and family members. Church critics—most notably ex-Mormons—took advantage of the effort to promote their agenda by leveraging Prop 8 to enhance their attacks on the Church, even going so far as to attempt to publicly identify and humiliate members who had donated to the campaign. The subsequent passage of the Proposition brought new challenges for members, as protests were organized, blacklists created, and even terrorist tactics employed, with the result being public humiliation and loss of business or employment for several Church members who chose to follow the Prophet's recommendation. (See: [http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories/first-presidency-urges-respect-civility-in-public-discourse First Presidency Urges Respect, Civility in Public Discourse]). A good summary of post-election events by Seminary teacher Kevin Hamilton may be found in Orson Scott Card's article: [http://mormontimes.com/mormon_voices/orson_scott_card/?id=5002 Heroes and victims in Prop. 8 struggle] (Nov. 13, 2008)

This article documents the events leading up to and resulting from the effort to pass California Proposition 8 as they relate to Latter-day Saints. We recognize that there was a broad coalition of supporters, of which Latter-day Saints were only a small part. However, given the disproportionate negative reaction to the Church after the passage of the proposition, it is prudent to clarify misperceptions and answer commonly asked question about Church members' involvement in this issue.

'''Further information'''
*LDS Newsroom, [http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories/measured-voices-provide-reason-support-amidst-proposition-8-reaction Measured Voices Provide Reason, Support Amidst Proposition 8 Reaction] (Nov. 21, 2008)
*[http://mormontimes.com/people_news/church_news/?id=5115 LDS Church issues new Prop. 8 overview] (Nov. 21, 2008)

=The text of Proposition 8=
The following text is from the California Voter Guide for 2008:

:This initiative measure is submitted to the people in accordance with the provisions of Article II, Section 8, of the California Constitution. This initiative measure expressly amends the California Constitution by adding a section thereto; therefore, new provisions proposed to be added are printed in italic type to indicate that they are new.
:SECTION 1. Title
:This measure shall be known and may be cited as the “California Marriage Protection Act.”
:SECTION 2. Section 7.5 is added to Article I of the California Constitution, to read:
:''SEC. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.'' {{ref|calvoterguide}}

California Attorney General Jerry Brown modified the title of the measure to read "Eliminates right of same-sex couples to marry" before it appeared on the ballot.

=The Family: A Proclamation to the World=
In an October broadcast from Salt Lake City to Church Members in California, Elder's Ballard and Cook of the Quorum of the 12 Apostles emphasized the Church's principled stand regarding Proposition 8 by referencing among other things a document titled "The Family: A Proclamation to the World"{{ref|proclamation}}.

It reads in part:

:''We, the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, solemnly proclaim that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator's plan for the eternal destiny of His children.''

It also declares:

:''All human beings - male and female - are created in the image of God. Each is a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents, and, as such, each has a divine nature and destiny. Gender is an essential characteristic of individual pre-mortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.''

=Church involvement in the "Yes on 8" effort=
{{Heading2|How did the Church become involved in the Proposition 8 campaign?}}

The California Supreme Court, in the case of ''[http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/archive/S147999.PDF In Re Marriage Cases],'' on May 15, 2008, overturned a 2000 California law that established marriage as between a man and a woman. At the time, certain members of the California electorate had already been seeking an amendment to the California constitution that could not be overturned by judicial review.{{ref|sosd1}}

A ballot proposition was prepared by California residents opposed to gay marriage and disturbed by what they viewed as judicial activism. The measure needed 694,354 signatures to be placed on the ballot but 1,120,801 signatures were submitted. The measure, known as Proposition 8, was certified and placed on the ballot on June 2, 2008. The LDS church was not involved in placing Proposition 8 on the ballot.{{ref|state1}}

After Proposition 8 was placed on the ballot, the Church was approached in June 2008 in a letter sent by San Francisco Catholic Archbishop George Niederauer. This letter initiated the formation of a coalition of religions with the common goal of promoting passage of the proposition. {{ref|sfchron1}} The coalition included Catholics, Evangelicals, Protestants, Orthodox Jews, Muslims, and Latter-day Saints.

'''For more information:'''
*[[Church involvement in politics]]

{{Heading2|How were members informed?}}

Ecclesiastical leaders in California were sent a letter in the third week of June 2008, with instructions to read the letter to their congregations on June 29, 2008. (Only leaders in California received the letter.) The following is the text of the letter:

:'''Preserving Traditional Marriage and Strengthening Families'''

:''In March 2000 California voters overwhelmingly approved a state law providing that “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” The California Supreme Court recently reversed this vote of the people. On November 4, 2008, Californians will vote on a proposed amendment to the California state constitution that will now restore the March 2000 definition of marriage approved by the voters.''

:''The Church’s teachings and position on this moral issue are unequivocal. Marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God, and the formation of families is central to the Creator’s plan for His children. Children are entitled to be born within this bond of marriage.''

:''A broad-based coalition of churches and other organizations placed the proposed amendment on the ballot. The Church will participate with this coalition in seeking its passage. Local Church leaders will provide information about how you may become involved in this important cause.''

:''We ask that you do all you can to support the proposed constitutional amendment by donating of your means and time to assure that marriage in California is legally defined as being between a man and a woman. Our best efforts are required to preserve the sacred institution of marriage.'' {{ref|ldsnews1}}

{{Heading2|Were Church members told how to vote and commanded to work for passage of Proposition 8?}}

Church members were ''not'' told how to vote on Proposition 8. As stated in the letter, members were asked to “do all you can to support” the passage of Proposition 8. There was no commandment for members to work on the campaign. Support was organized at a local level and volunteers' experiences varied according to area, need and campaign leaders. Members were asked to support Proposition 8 ("We ask that you do all you can to support the proposed constitutional amendment..."), but not commanded. While prophets may ask people to do some things, the actual “doing” is left to the individual and their agency. It is ''their'' choice to determine whether to do what the prophet asks and how much to actually do. Church leaders are aware that members within the church come from different backgrounds, have different life experiences, and different ideologies. To make an ultimatum on this issue would unnecessarily alienate people.

'''For more information:'''
*[[Authoritarianism and Church leaders]]

{{Heading2|How did Church members respond to the request to become involved?}}


In the letter from the First Presidency, there was no indication of how members were expected to fulfill the request to lend support to their requests. Members were told that "Local Church leaders will provide information about how you may become involved in this important cause," but were also left to decide for themselves how they might support Proposition 8. Support developed in several ways that typically accompany political campaigns. Members support for passage of the proposition included:

*Monetary donations
*Going door-to-door to poll voters
*Phoning voters to remind them to vote
*Sign-waving on street corners
*Hanging voting reminders on doors

There is nothing unusual in the methods that were used to support passage of the amendment. Members of the LDS Church proved instrumental in the efforts to pass Proposition 8 because members were already part of a "network" of individuals that could be utilized to educate, encourage, and mobilize others within their communities. This network succeeded, as well as it did, because the members were used to working together on projects that involved contacting people and asking for their support for various Church activities. According to David Campbell (professor of political science at the University of Notre Dame), Latter-day Saints "only get mobilized when a match is lit, and that doesn't happen very often." {{ref|sltrib.11-21}} Additionally, they were personally committed to the concept of traditional marriage, and were willing to make a special personal effort to help the proposition pass. This personal commitment was crucial to the outpouring of support for, and eventual passage of Proposition 8.

=The "No on 8" response=
The "No on 8" group campaign did not emphasize that California already has domestic partnership laws in place which grant same-sex couples the civil rights associated with marriage. (See [http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=fam&group=00001-01000&file=297-297.5 California FAMILY.CODE SECTION 297-297.5]) Instead, Proposition 8 was portrayed as ''removing'' marriage rights. The passage of Proposition 8 did not remove already existing rights for same-sex couples, except for the use of the word "marriage" to describe such unions. The same rights, privileges and protections that were in place before the election remained in place after the election. However, religious organizations perceived a very real threat to their rights if Proposition 8 did not pass. The right to be licensed to perform adoptions was in jeopardy in California, as demonstrated by the North Coast Women's Care Medical Group Inc. case decided on 1 April 2008 by the California Supreme Court. This decision held that those who are licensed by the State cannot treat homosexuals differently than heterosexuals. It is easy to see how such a holding will result in LDS Social Services being denied licensing to perform adoptions if it won't perform adoptions for homosexual couples. Thus, religious groups perceived no gain and no loss to same-sex couples from passing Proposition 8, but anticipated a large possible downside to religious organizations and their essential services if it did not pass.

{{Heading2|Attempts to identify and "dig up dirt" on LDS donors before the election}}
:''There are no websites dedicated to “outing” Catholics who supported Proposition 8, even though Catholic voters heavily outnumber Mormons.''
:—Editorial, [http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YTU5MjZmMDIyMDU3NjRiMjBlNjcxYTlmOGQ2ODA5NjA Legislating Immorality], ''National Review Online'' (Nov. 24, 2008)

*Nadine Hansen, a lawyer residing in Cedar City, Utah, created a web site called "Mormonsfor8.com" prior to the election. Hansen urges visitors to her site to "help by helping us identify Mormon donors." Hansen apparently felt that singling out the LDS donors was necessary, since religious affiliation of the donors is ''not recorded by the state''. When questioned about the purpose of this site, Hansen responded, "Any group that gets involved in the political arena has to be treated like a political action committee...You can't get involved in politics and say, 'Treat me as a church.'" {{ref|sfgate.10-27}} Hansen gave a [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HcL9R94MGMk speech at the 2008 Sunstone Symposium] on Proposition 8 prior to the election.

*Dante Atkins, an elected delegate to the state Democratic convention, initiated a campaign to identify and scrutinize the lives of the LDS donors. Atkins' blog in the ''Daily Kos'' linked to Hansen's web site and called for "No on 8" supporters to dig up dirt on LDS donors. Atkins asked readers to "use OpenSecrets to see if these donors have contributed to...shall we say...less than honorable causes, or if any one of these big donors has done something otherwise egregious." {{ref|beliefnet1}}

{{Heading2|The infamous "Mormon missionary home invasion" commercial}}
On October 31, 2008, an organization calling itself the "Campaign Courage Issues Committee" released an ad on YouTube depicting two "Mormon missionaries" entering the home of a lesbian couple. The "missionaries" proclaimed that they were there to "take away your rights." The "missionaries" proceeded to ransack their home, including their underwear drawer, until they located their marriage license. They then tore up the license and left the home, claiming that it was "too easy," and wondering what rights they could take away next.

*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q28UwAyzUkE "Home Invasion": Vote NO on Prop 8] (YouTube Video)

The ad was actually aired on several television stations on election day.

{{Heading2|Accusations that "Yes on 8" ads were promoting lies}}
===The ads===
The advertising messages created for the "Yes on 8" campaign were based on case law and real-life situations. However, a rebuttal to an anonymously written "Yes on 8" document called "“Six Consequences . . . if Proposition 8 Fails” was written by LDS lawyer Morris Thurston. {{ref|thurston1}} This document was used by "No on 8" supporters to show that even LDS realized that lies were being promoted. Thurston's points were contested by another LDS attorney, Blake Ostler. {{ref|ostler1}} Upon discovering that the "No on 8" campaign was making use of his comments, Thurston issued a press release which pointed out that "A press release dated October 19 from a public relations firm representing 'No on 8' is inaccurate and misleading," and that he was "erroneously cited as having 'debunked' new California Prop 8 ads." (See [http://www.bizjournals.com/washington/prnewswire/press_releases/national/California/2008/10/21/LATU558 LDS Lawyer's Commentary Mischaracterized in 'No on 8' Press Release])

Ads and mailers produced by "Yes on 8" showed children's books promoting same-sex marriage that have been sent home with young students. One young girl tells her mother that she learned in school that "I learned how a prince can marry a prince, and I can marry a princess!"

*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PgjcgqFYP4 Yes on 8 TV Ad: It's Already Happened]
*[http://hedgehogcentral.blogspot.com/2008/10/proposition-8-and-californias.html Proposition 8 and California's Schoolchildren: A Primer on Falsehoods]

===Claims by the "No on 8" campaign===
The following claims were made by "No on 8" supporters regarding the "Yes on 8" campaign: {{ref|edge1}}
*"Unless marriage rights were rescinded, schoolchildren would be forced to learn about gay marriage in the classroom starting as early as kindergarten."
*Proposition 8 supporters "fraudulently indicated to voters that Barack Obama was in favor of Proposition 8."

===Issues incorporated into the "Yes on 8" ads during the campaign===
The following incidents occurred during the course of the campaign and influenced the "Yes on 8" advertising:

*A group of school children were taken on a field trip to their gay teacher's wedding in San Francisco. {{ref|sfgate.10-11}} The "Yes on 8" supporters incorporated a photo of this headline into subsequent mailers. The "No on 8" campaign stated that "an outing of second graders to the wedding of their lesbian teacher made headlines and proved to be a ready-made example for the Yes on 8 campaign’s claims." {{ref|edge2}}

*A teacher at the Faith Ringgold School of Arts and Science, a public school that is part of the Hayward Unified School District, "passed out cards produced by the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network to her class of kindergartners." The children were asked to sign these cards, which pledged them to "not use anti-LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) language or slurs; intervene, when I feel I can, in situations where others are using anti-LGBT language or harassing other students and actively support safer schools efforts." {{ref|faith1}} After this incident, the "Yes on 8" campaign produced a new video about the [http://californiacrusader.wordpress.com/2008/10/31/faith-ringgold-school-kindergarten-pledge-card/ Faith Ringgold Kindergarten School Pledge Card].

=Where did the money come from?=

Opponents of Proposition 8 have criticized the Church for donations to the "Yes on 8" campaign. Records filed with the State of California indicate that the Church did not make any contributions with the exception of an "in kind" contribution (non monetary) for travel expenses for a single general authority. All other LDS-related money was contributed by Church members individually, not by the Church.

The amounts contributed to both sides were very high. It is reasonable for critics to question why their greater contributions to defeat Proposition 8 didn't carry the vote as they expected, but to imply that the participation of Latter-day Saint citizens—most of whom were California residents—was improper is inappropriate. Such an accusation is an exercise in empowering a straw man of their own creation.

<table border="1" align="center">
<tr>
<td> </td>
<td align="center">'''In-State Donations'''</td>
<td align="center">'''Out-of-State Donations'''</td>
<td align="center">'''Total Donations'''</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>'''For Proposition 8'''</td>
<td align="center">$25,388,955</td>
<td align="center">$10,733,582</td>
<td align="center">$36,122,538</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>'''Against Proposition 8'''</td>
<td align="center">$26,464,589</td>
<td align="center">$11,968,285</td>
<td align="center">$38,432,873</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>'''Totals'''</td>
<td align="center">$51,853,544</td>
<td align="center">$22,701,867</td>
<td align="center">$74,555,411</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="4" align="center">Source: [http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-moneymap,0,2198220.htmlstory Tracking the money], ''Los Angeles Times''</td>
</tr>
</table>

Note that out-of-state contributions to the "No" side were over $1.2 million higher than the out-of-state contributions to the "Yes" side and that out-of-state contributions to the "No" side constituted a higher percentage of the overall "No" funding than out-of-state contributions did for the "Yes" side.

There have been various estimates of monies donated to the "Yes on 8" campaign by LDS Church members, ranging from $14 to $20 million. No firm figures are available because the State of California does not request or record the religion of donors.

Estimates of LDS-related monies also do not include donations the "No on 8" campaign received as a result of LDS Church involvement in the campaign. For instance, Bruce Bastian, a onetime Mormon, has publicly stated that he donated $1 million to the "No on 8" campaign in response to LDS involvement as an effort to "level the financial playing field."{{ref|bast1}}

=The vote=

The LDS, while instrumental in helping with the passage of Proposition 8, were not solely responsible for the margin by which the proposition passed in the general electorate; the number of LDS voters was simply too small to account for the margin. Encouragement from LDS volunteers may have been key in turning out the "Yes on 8" vote, but to say that LDS involvement was solely responsible for such turnout seems rather myopic.

LDS may encourage their neighbors to vote "Yes on 8," but the neighbor still has to actually cast the vote. Anecdotal reports from FAIR members who live in California indicate that LDS volunteers worked closely with non-LDS volunteers to promote the proposition and turn out the vote.

{{Heading2|Voter demographics}}

*Latter-day Saints constitute less than 2% of the population of California. There are approximately 800,000 LDS out of a total population of approximately 34 million.
*Not all LDS voted in favor of Proposition 8. Active Latter-day Saints likely voted near the affirmative ratio (84-16) that their peer group that attends church at least weekly did. {{ref|cnnprop8exit}} Religion, in general, was a large factor. Self-identifying Catholics and Protestants both went around 65-35 for the amendment, with white evangelicals going 81-19.
*LDS voters represented less than 5% of the "Yes" vote. At most the Latter-day Saint vote only accounts for 58% of the victory margin using the current count on CNN. {{ref|cnnprop8count}} In other words, the Latter-day Saint vote was not enough by itself to make a difference in the final Prop 8 election results.
*The large African-American turnout (10%) for Barack Obama appears to have facilitated the passage of the proposition.{{ref|ladailynews1}} Scaling exit poll numbers, the net African-American vote (70-30) accounts for 92% of the victory margin.
*The net Latino (18%) vote at 53-47 contributed to 25% of the victory margin.
*The generation gap also played a factor. Senior citizens (15%) supported the measure at 61-39 while voters under 30 (20%) opposed it 39-61.

While Mormons played a significant role in mobilizing like-minded voters, these trends show that public perception has assigned a disproportionate amount of credit for passing Proposition 8.

=Post-election questions and myths=
{{Main|Latter-day Saints and California Proposition 8/Questions and myths}}

A number of questions have arisen, and some new myths have been propagated, since the passage of the proposition. The following links provide further detail:

*[[/Questions and myths#Questions|Questions]]
**[[/Questions and myths#Were Church members who were opposed to Proposition 8 disciplined?|Were Church members who were opposed to Proposition 8 disciplined?]]
**[[/Questions and myths#Did the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints contribute money to the "Yes on 8" campaign?|Did the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints contribute money to the "Yes on 8" campaign?]]
**[[/Questions and myths#Did the Church violate it's tax-exempt status by participating in the "Yes on 8" campaign?|Did the Church violate it's tax-exempt status by participating in the "Yes on 8" campaign?]]
**[[/Questions and myths#But what about the companies that the Church owns?|But what about the companies that the Church owns?]]
**[[/Questions and myths#Were the contributions made by Church members tax deductible?|Were the contributions made by Church members tax deductible?]]
**[[/Questions and myths#Were Church members told how much to contribute to the effort?|Were Church members told how much to contribute to the effort?]]
**[[/Questions and myths#Did the Church invest more money in Proposition 8 than in all of its combined humanitarian efforts?|Did the Church invest more money in Proposition 8 than in all of its combined humanitarian efforts?]]
**[[/Questions and myths#Wouldn't the money that Church members contributed to the cause have been better spent on humanitarian needs?|Wouldn't the money that Church members contributed to the cause have been better spent on humanitarian needs?]]
**[[/Questions and myths#How does the Church reconcile its opposition to same-sex marriage when it once supported plural marriage|How does the Church reconcile its opposition to same-sex marriage when it once supported plural marriage?]]
*[[/Questions and myths#Myths|Myths]]
**[[/Questions and myths#MYTH: Large numbers of people are resigning from the Church because of its support of Prop 8|Large numbers of people are resigning from the Church because of its support of Prop 8]]
**[[/Questions and myths#MYTH: Mormons were motivated to do this merely as a vehicle to be considered more mainstream Christian|Mormons were motivated to do this merely as a vehicle to be considered more mainstream Christian]]
**[[/Questions and myths#MYTH: The church sent thousands of missionaries door to door in CA handing out fliers|The church sent thousands of missionaries door to door in CA handing out fliers]]
**[[/Questions and myths#MYTH: The Church sent large numbers of out-of-state people in to assist with the "Yes-on-8" campaign|The Church sent large numbers of out-of-state people in to assist with the "Yes-on-8" campaign]]

=Post-election events=
{{Main|Latter-day Saints and California Proposition 8/Post-Election Events}}
[[Image:Ukiah.vandalism.1B.png|right]]
:''In the days after the election, tens of thousands of people, gay and straight, took to the streets of cities and towns throughout the country in spontaneously organized protest. But the mood at these gatherings, by all accounts, was seldom angry; it was cheerful, determined, and hopeful.''
:—Hendrik Hertzberg, [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27887428/ (Proposition) Eight is enough], ''The New Yorker'' (Nov. 24, 2008)
{{parabreak}}
:''The outbreak of attacks on the Mormon church since the passage of Proposition 8 has been chilling: envelopes full of suspicious white powder were sent to church headquarters in Salt Lake City; protesters showed up en masse to intimidate Mormon small-business owners who supported the measure; a website was created to identify and shame members of the church who backed it; activists are targeting the relatives of prominent Mormons who gave money to pass it, as well as other Mormons who are only tangentially associated with the cause; some have even called for a boycott of the entire state of Utah.''
:—Editorial, [http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YTU5MjZmMDIyMDU3NjRiMjBlNjcxYTlmOGQ2ODA5NjA Legislating Immorality], ''National Review Online'' (Nov. 24, 2008)
{{parabreak}}
:''The Mormon church has had to rely on our tolerance in the past, to be able to express their beliefs...This is a huge mistake for them. It looks like they've forgotten some lessons.''
:—San Francisco supervisor Bevan Dufty, at a protest in front of the Oakland Temple
{{parabreak}}
:''Members of the Mormon church have experienced significant intolerance ranging from expulsion from Illinois in the dead of winter to an extermination order by the Governor of Missouri. It has seen its members raped and murdered as the result of state sponsored intolerance, acts you seem to condone by implication. Are these the lessons you refer to, and are you proposing to apply those lessons again? Are you suggesting that Mormon’s need your permission to participate in the political process or to practice our beliefs, and what remedy do you propose for failed compliance?''
:—FAIR's response to Supervisor Dufty, which remains unanswered.
{{parabreak}}
There were a large number of post-election events targeted toward Latter-day Saints, and some targeted towards others. Click on any of the following items to see complete details:

*[[/Post-Election Events#Threats from "No on 8" supporters|Threats from "No on 8" supporters]]
*[[/Post-Election Events#Church response|Church response]]
*[[/Post-Election Events#Negative reactions|Negative reactions]]
**[[/Post-Election Events#Accusations of hatred and bigotry|Accusations of hatred and bigotry]]
**[[/Post-Election Events#Protests at LDS places of worship|Protests at LDS places of worship]]
**[[/Post-Election Events#Protests at other Christian places of worship|Protests at other Christian places of worship]]
**[[/Post-Election Events#Vandalism of LDS Chapels by "No on 8" supporters|Vandalism of LDS Chapels by "No on 8" supporters]]
**[[/Post-Election Events#Harassment|Harassment]]
**[[/Post-Election Events#Mormons have "forgotten some lessons"?|Mormons have "forgotten some lessons"?]]
**[[/Post-Election Events#Terrorist tactics|Terrorist tactics]]
**[[/Post-Election Events#Hacking of Church related web site|Hacking of Church related web site]]
**[[/Post-Election Events#Threats to revoke the Church's tax-exempt status|Threats to revoke the Church's tax-exempt status]]
**[[/Post-Election Events#Blacklists|Blacklists]]
**[[/Post-Election Events#Intimidation and forced resignation of donors by identifying their religious affiliation as LDS|Intimidation and forced resignation of donors by identifying their religious affiliation as LDS]]
**[[/Post-Election Events#Forced resignation of gays or lesbians for their opposition to Prop 8|Forced resignation of gays or lesbians for their opposition to Prop 8]]
**[[/Post-Election Events#Absence of support from political leaders|Absence of support from political leaders]]
*[[/Post-Election Events#Positive effects|Positive effects]]
**[[/Post-Election Events#Expressions of support from other Christians|Expressions of support from other Christians]]
**[[/Post-Election Events#Condemnation of criminal activity by those who opposed Proposition 8|Condemnation of criminal activity by those who opposed Proposition 8]]

=Endnotes=
{{ExplicitLanguage}}
#{{note|pew1}}[http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=370 States With Voter-Approved Constitutional Bans on Same-Sex Marriage, 1998-2008 ], ''The Pew Forum'' (Nov. 13, 2008)
#{{note|ldspr1}}[http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories/first-presidency-urges-respect-civility-in-public-discourse First Presidency Urges Respect, Civility in Public Discourse] (Nov. 14, 2008)
#{{note|calvoterguide}}[http://www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov/text-proposed-laws/text-of-proposed-laws.pdf California Voter Guide]
#{{note|proclamation}}[http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=e1fa5f74db46c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=5fd30f9856c20110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&hideNav=1 The Family: A Proclamation to the World]

#{{note|sosd1}}Bill Ainsworth, "[http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/state/20071112-9999-1n12gayright.html Groups Joust Over Gay Rights in California]," ''San Diego Union Tribune'' (Nov. 12, 2007).
#{{note|state1}}Folmar, Kate (June 2, 2008). [http://www.sos.ca.gov/admin/press-releases/2008/DB08-068.pdf Secretary of State Debra Bowen Certifies Eighth Measure for November 4, 2008, General Election] (PDF). ''California Secretary of State.''
#{{note|sfchron1}}Matthai Kuruvila, [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/10/MNU1140AQQ.DTL "Catholics, Mormons allied to pass Prop. 8"], ''San Francisco Chronicle'' (Nov. 10, 2008)

#{{note|ldsnews1}}[http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/california-and-same-sex-marriage California and Same-Sex Marriage], LDS Newsroom
#{{note|sltrib.11-21}}Peggy Fletcher Stack, [http://www.sltrib.com/News/ci_11044660?source=rss Prop 8 involvement a P.R. fiasco for LDS Church], ''Salt Lake Tribune'' (Nov. 21, 2008)

#{{note|sfgate.10-27}}Matthai Kuruvila, [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/10/26/BAP113OIRD.DTL&tsp=1 Mormons face flak for backing Prop. 8], ''San Francisco Chronicle'' (Oct. 27, 2008)
#{{note|beliefnet1}}[http://blog.beliefnet.com/news/2008/10/for-mormons-californias-prop-8.php For Mormons, California's Prop 8 Battle Turns Personal], ''beliefnet'' (Oct. 4, 2008)
#{{note|thurston1}}Morris Thurston, [http://www.hrc.org/documents/Responses_to_Six_Consequences_if_Prop_8_Fails.pdf A Commentary on the Document “Six Consequences . . . if Proposition 8 Fails”]
#{{note|ostler1}}Blake Ostler, [http://www.newcoolthang.com/index.php/2008/10/prop-8-comment-they-would-not-print/569/ Prop 8 comment (that is now a Prop 8 post)] (Oct. 20, 2008)
#{{note|edge1}}Kilian Melloy, [http://www.edgeboston.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=&sc2=news&sc3=&id=83977 ’No on 8’ Heads Justify Their Losing Campaign], ''Edge'' (Nov. 27, 2008)
#{{note|sfgate.10-11}}Jill Tucker, [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/10/10/MNFG13F1VG.DTL Class surprises lesbian teacher on wedding day], ''San Francisco Chronicle'' (Oct. 11, 2008)
#{{note|edge2}}Kilian Melloy, [http://www.edgeboston.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=&sc2=news&sc3=&id=83977 ’No on 8’ Heads Justify Their Losing Campaign], ''Edge'' (Nov. 27, 2008)
#{{note|faith1}}Michelle Maskaly , [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,445865,00.html School Clams Up on 'Gay' Pledge Cards Given to Kindergartners], ''Fox News'' (Nov. 1, 2008)
#{{note|bast1}}John Wildermuth, "[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/16/BAJG144PTB.DTL&type=politics Wealthy gay men backed anti-Prop. 8 effort]," ''San Francisco Chronicle'' (Nov. 16, 2008).

#{{note|cnnprop8exit}}CNN exit poll, [http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#val=CAI01p1 California Proposition 8: Ban on Gay Marriage, 2,240 Respondents] (last accessed Nov. 17, 2008)
#{{note|cnnprop8count}}CNN Election Center 2008, [http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/individual/#CAI01 California Proposition 8: Ban on Gay Marriage, Full Results] (last accessed Nov. 17, 2008)
#{{note|ladailynews1}}Tony Castro, [http://www.dailynews.com/ci_10910908 Black, Latino voters helped Prop. 8 pass], ''LA Daily News'' (Nov. 5, 2008)

=Further reading=

==FAIR wiki articles==
{{PoliticsWiki}}


==Videos==
'''Yes on 8 ads'''
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l61Pd5_jHQw Yes on 8 TV Ad: Truth]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7352ZVMKBQM Yes on 8 TV Ad: Everything To Do With Schools]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PgjcgqFYP4 Yes on 8 TV Ad: It's Already Happened]

'''No on 8 ads'''
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vB0lZ8XbmJM advanced Conversation - No On Prop 8]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=opx-v_OhFnQ Parents]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7LdC1RxvZg Senator Feinstein: No on Prop 8]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CIL7PUl24hE Prop 8 has nothing to do with schools], Jack O. Connell, California Superintendant of Schools
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RSCop9BtgdU&feature=related California Clergy Urge You to Vote No on Prop 8]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q28UwAyzUkE "Home Invasion": Vote NO on Prop 8]

'''Press conferences'''
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dU8uuPhQog0 Prop 8 Proponents Speak Out Against Attacks] (Press conference held Nov. 14, 2008)

==External links==
'''Proposition 8 related'''
*Paul Bishop, [http://www.ldsmag.com/ideas/081110hate.html In the Face of Hatred], ''Meridian Magazine'', November 12, 2008.
'''Church involvement in politics'''
*{{Ensign1|author=Gordon B. Hinckley|article=Why We Do Some of the Things We Do|date=November 1999|start=52}}{{link|url=http://www.lds.org/portal/site/LDSOrg/menuitem.b12f9d18fae655bb69095bd3e44916a0/?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=ff1b6a4430c0c010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1}}
*{{BYUS | author=Hugh Nibley | article=[http://byustudies.byu.edu/shop/pdfsrc/15.1Nibley.pdf Beyond Politics]|vol=15|num=1|date=1974|start=1|end=21}}

{{Suggestions}}

Book of Mormon/Demographics

2008-10-27T11:31:51Z

PaulMcNabb: /* Fate of Original Colonists */

{{BoMPortal}}
==Criticism==

*Critics charge that the initial Lehite colony is too small to produce the population sizes indicated.
*Critics claim that Lehi's group was sent to a land which was kept from the knowledge of other nations, therefore, according to the Book of Mormon, there could not have been "others" present.

===Source(s) of the Criticism===
*{{CriticalWork:Abanes:Becoming Gods|pages=72, 366 n.130}}
*{{QuestionsMormonsShouldAsk}}
* John C. Kunich, "Multiply Exceedingly: Book of Mormon Population Sizes," in ''New Approaches to the Book of Mormon'', edited by Brent Lee Metcalfe (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1993), 231–67. See also ''Sunstone'' 14 (June 1990): 27–44.
*{{CriticalWork:Southerton:Losing|pages=xiv}}

==Response==
A superficial reading of the Book of Mormon leads some to conclude that the named members of Lehi's group were the only members of Nephite/Lamanite society.

However, the Book of Mormon contains many mentions of "others" that made up part of both societies; indeed, many Book of Mormon passages make little sense unless we understand this.

===Fate of Original Colonists===

In 2 Nephi 5, Nephi and his group finally make a break with Laman, Lemuel, and the sons of Ishmael:

<blockquote>5 And it came to pass that the Lord did warn me, that I, Nephi, should depart from them and flee into the wilderness, ''and all those who would go with me''. 6 Wherefore, it came to pass that I, Nephi, did take my family, and also Zoram and his family, and Sam, mine elder brother and his family, and Jacob and Joseph, my younger brethren, and also my sisters, and all those who would go with me. And all those who would go with me were those who believed in the warnings and the revelations of God; wherefore, they did hearken unto my words. 7 And we did take our tents and whatsoever things were possible for us, and did journey in the wilderness for the space of many days. And after we had journeyed for the space of many days we did pitch our tents. [italics added] ([http://scriptures.lds.org/2_ne/5/5#7 2 Nephi 5:5 - 7])</blockquote>

{| border="1" cellpadding="5" cellspacing="0" align="center"

!"Nephites"!! Fate !! "Lamanites" !! Fate !! Other !! Fate
|-
|Nephi & family ||flee ||Laman [+wife?] || stay || Ishmael || Dies in Old World
|-
|Sam & family ||flee||Lemuel [+wife?]||stay|| Ishamel's wife|| Unknown (dies?)
|-
|Jacob [no wife?] ||flee||Sons of Ishmael [+wives?]||stay|| Lehi|| Dies prior to split
|-
|Joseph [no wife?] ||flee||—||—||Sariah||Unknown (dies?)
|-
|Nephi's sisters ||flee||—||—||—||—
|-
|Zoram & family ||flee||—||—||—||—
|}

The majoriy of the original immigrants leaves with Nephi. And, despite all the members that he mentions, he also says he took "all those who would go with me." There is no one of the original colony unaccounted for; those who went with Nephi (and later made him their teacher and ruler) were likely 'others' who have "believed in the warnings and revelations of God."

===Relative Size of Nephites vs. Lamanites===

Despite the majority of the immigrants going with Nephi, the Lamanites are consistently mentioned as being much more numerous (at least double) than the Nephites. This includes the period before Mosiah I's exodus (See [http://scriptures.lds.org/jarom/1/6#6 Jarom 1:6]) and afterward, despite the introduction of Zarahemla's people (the so-called 'Mulekites') to bolster Nephite numbers. (See [http://scriptures.lds.org/mosiah/25/3#3 Mosiah 25:3], [http://scriptures.lds.org/hel/4/25#25 Helaman 4:25].)

There is one intriguing passage in which Mormon explains the numeric disparity as it applies to Captain Moroni's wars:

:...thus the Nephites were compelled, alone, to withstand against the Lamanites, who were a compound of Laman and Lemuel, and the sons of Ishmael, and all those who had dissented from the Nephites, who were Amalekites and Zoramites, and the descendants of the priests of Noah. 14 Now ''those descendants'' were as numerous, ''nearly,'' as were the Nephites; and thus the Nephites were obliged to contend with their brethren, even unto bloodshed. [italics added] [http://scriptures.lds.org/alma/43/13#14 Alma 43:13-14].

Mormon here lists a variety of peoples under the rubric 'Lamanites,' and then indicates that ''these descendants'' almost match the Nephites in numbers. Yet, clearly, the 'Lamanites' (in a broader sense) always have a massive manpower advantage, as we are told just a few verses later in [http://scriptures.lds.org/alma/43/51#51 Alma 43:51].

The phrase "those descendants," by this reading, does not apply merely to the "descendants of the priests of Noah," since this is a tiny group of only 24 Lamanite women and their former-priest husbands. (See [http://scriptures.lds.org/mosiah/20/5#5 Mosiah 20:5], [http://scriptures.lds.org/mosiah/23/31#39 Mosiah 23:31-39].) These "Amulonites" had been decimated by angry Lamanites only a few years earlier, and were ever after ''persona non grata'' on both sides of the conflict. (See [http://scriptures.lds.org/alma/25/3#9 Alma 25:3-9].) Their numerical contribution to the Lamanite hordes was likely negligible.{{ref|sorenson2}}

Mormon's point seems clear—''all'' the 'Nephites': original Lehi/Nephi descendants, Zarahemla descendants, and any 'others' or client peoples—are nearly numerically matched simply by the descendants of Laman, Lemuel, Ishmael and a variety of Nephite descendants. To this must then be added the manpower "sink" which the Lamanites possess in the form of the 'others' which ''they'' control politically.

This is what makes the Lamanite invasion so dangerous, since as defenders the Nephites require fewer men to hold off an attacking army (See [http://scriptures.lds.org/alma/49/1#25 Alma 49:1-25], [http://scriptures.lds.org/alma/59/9#9 Alma 59:9]). If the Nephites were "nearly" outnumbered by ''all'' the "Lamanites" (in the broader sense of those under Lamanite political control), then a Lamanite attack would be both foolhardy and of no great worry to a well-entrenched general like Moroni.

But, the Lamanites' vast numerical superiority is repeatedly emphasized: (See [http://scriptures.lds.org/alma/43/51#51 Alma 43:51], [http://scriptures.lds.org/alma/48/3#4 Alma 48:3-4]).

Moroni struggles to provide his troops with reinforcements and adequate garrisons (see [http://scriptures.lds.org/alma/52/16#17 Alma 52:16-17],[http://scriptures.lds.org/alma/58/3#5 Alma 58:3-5], [http://scriptures.lds.org/alma/58/32#36 Alma 58:32-36]) while the Lamanites can continually field large new armies (see [http://scriptures.lds.org/alma/51/9#11 Alma 51:9-11], [http://scriptures.lds.org/alma/52/12#12 Alma 52:12], [http://scriptures.lds.org/alma/57/17#17 Alma 57:17], [http://scriptures.lds.org/alma/58/5#5 Alma 58:5]).

The Lamanites even seek to exploit their numerical advantage by opening a two front war (See [http://scriptures.lds.org/alma/52/13#13 Alma 52:13], [http://scriptures.lds.org/alma/56/10#10 Alma 56:10]). This strategy splits their forces and risks defeat in detail, which would be very unwise if they did not enjoy a marked numerical advantage. This advantage is clearly present, since their tactics very nearly succeed (See [http://scriptures.lds.org/alma/52/14#14 Alma 52:14], [http://scriptures.lds.org/alma/53/8#8 Alma 53:8], [http://scriptures.lds.org/alma/58/2#2 Alma 58:2]).

In short, Mormon spells the problem out clearly—the Nephites are dramatically outnumbered— and he explains that this is because the Lamanite and dissenter numbers alone nearly match all the Nephite manpower, with the understanding that the client people(s) available as Lamanite manpower tip the balance.

No other reading makes sense of the text, which is rigorously consistent.

===Other Examples===

Alma refers to the dissident Zoramites, and prays, "O Lord, their souls are precious, and many of them are our brethren." (See [http://scriptures.lds.org/alma/31/35#35 Alma 31:35]). Yet, the Nephites refer to Lamanites, Nephites, and "Mulekites" as their "brethren." (See [http://scriptures.lds.org/mosiah/1/5#5 Mosiah 1:5], [http://scriptures.lds.org/mosiah/7/2#13 Mosiah 7:2-13],[http://scriptures.lds.org/alma/24/7#8 Alma 24:7-8]). Clearly, the Zoramites are a mixed group of those who immigrated from Palestine and 'others.'

Mormon also mentions another "people who were in the land Bountiful" near the narrow neck that Moroni worries will ally themselves with Nephite enemies (See [http://scriptures.lds.org/alma/50/32#32 Alma 52:32]).

Demographically, much more is going on here than the critics' skimming of the text reveals.

===Why Don't We Hear More About the Others?===

The Book of Mormon is not primarily a history of a people. It is the history of a message—the doctrine of Christ—and those who either embraced or rejected it. It is also likely a "kinship record," which is a history written from the point of view of a social clan: the Nephite ruling class. Thus, the text focuses the majority of its attention on the doctrine of Christ, and how that doctrine affects the relatives of the kin group keeping the record.

The Nephite record keepers clearly understand that there is more going on, and are quite clear that the labels "Nephite" and "Lamanite" are political terms of convenience, where membership is varied and fluid. As Jacob said:

:But I, Jacob, shall not hereafter distinguish them by these names, but I shall call them Lamanites that seek to destroy the people of Nephi, and those who are friendly to Nephi I shall call Nephites, or the people of Nephi, according to the reigns of the kings. [http://scriptures.lds.org/jacob/1/14#14 Jacob 1:14]

Elder Boyd K. Packer emphasized that the Book of Mormon's view of itself is often not how some members of the Church portray it:

:The Book of Mormon is often introduced as "a history of the ancient inhabitants of the American continent, the ancestors of the American Indians." We have all seen missionaries about the world with street boards displaying pictures of American Indians or pyramids and other ruins in Latin America. That introduction does not reveal the contents of this sacred book any better than an introduction of the Bible as "a history of the ancient inhabitants of the Near East, the ancestors of the modern Israelites" would reveal its contents.The presentation of the Book of Mormon as a history of the ancestors of the American Indians is not a very compelling nor a very accurate introduction. When we introduce the Book of Mormon as such a history–and that is the way we generally introduce it–surely the investigator must be puzzled, even disappointed, when he begins to read it. Most do not find what they expect. Nor do they, in turn, expect what they find…The Book of Mormon is not biographical, for not one character is fully drawn. Nor, in a strict sense, is it a history. While it chronicles a people for a thousand and twenty–one years and contains the record of an earlier people, it is in fact not a history of a people. It is the saga of a message, a testament.{{ref|packer1}}

==Conclusion==

The Book of Mormon contains many overt references, and some more oblique ones, to 'other' peoples that were part of the demographic mix in Book of Mormon times. The Nephite record keeps its focus on a simplistic "Nephite/Lamanite" dichotomy both because it is a kinship record, and because its focus is religious, not politico-historical.

But, as one author observed, it is

:inescapable that there were substantial populations in the "promised land" throughout the period of the Nephite record, and probably in the Jaredite era also. The status and origin of these peoples is never made clear because the writers never set out to do any such thing; they had other purposes. Yet we cannot understand the demographic or cultural history of Lehi's literal descendants without taking into account those other groups, too.

:Hereafter, readers will not be justified in saying that the record fails to mention "others" but only that we readers have hitherto failed to observe what is said and implied about such people in the Book of Mormon.{{ref|sorenson1}}

==Endnotes==
#{{note|sorenson2}}An alternate explanation is that the Amulonites have also assimilated their own client peoples, increasisng their numbers. This is suggested in {{JBMS-1-1-2}}
#{{note|packer1}}Boyd K. Packer, ''Let Not Your Heart Be Troubled'' (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1991), 280–282.
#{{note|sorenson1}}{{JBMS-1-1-2}} (see page 34).

==Further reading==
{{Book_of_Mormon_anachronisms}}
===FAIR wiki articles===
{{BoMGeographyWiki}}

===FAIR web site===
*{{tg|url=http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai113.html|topic=New World Context of Book of Mormon}}
*Matthew Roper, "Book of Mormon Peoples and Pre-columbian Populations" {{fairlink|url=http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/conf/2003RopM.html}}
*Steven J. Danderson, "Adding Up the Book of Mormon Peoples," {{fairlink|url=http://www.fairlds.org/Book_of_Mormon/Adding_Up_the_Book_of_Mormon_Peoples.html}}

===External links===
*{{FR-6-1-9}}
*{{JBMS-1-1-2}}

===Printed material===
*{{revisited1|author=James E. Smith|article=How Many Nephites? The Book of Mormon at the Bar of Demography|start=Chapter 10}}
*{{Aas1|start=1}}
*{{MormonsMap1|start=111}}

[[es:Demografía del Libro de Mormón]]