FAIR - User contributions [en]

Jesus Christ/Worship

2010-02-03T12:14:39Z

Pwellauer:

{{JesusChristPortal}}
==Criticism==
Critics claim that despite the Saints' witness of Christ, they worship "a different Jesus" and so are not entitled to consider themselves "Christians."
{{main|Latter-day Saints aren't Christians}}
{{CriticalSources}}

==Response==
The most important recent document to discuss the beliefs of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints regarding our Lord and Savior is found in "The Living Christ: The Testimony of the Apostles."{{ref|livingchrist1}}

Latter-day Saints believe the following:
[[Image:Another jesus protest 2.jpg| 200px|right|A protester at the April 2003 LDS General Conference attempts to convince others that members of the Church do not believe in the Biblical Jesus. Members of the Church may believe some different things ''about'' Jesus, but this does not mean they worship a different being than the protester.]]
* Jesus is the Christ, the promised Messiah
* Jesus of Nazareth is the Only Begotten Son of the Father
* Jesus was born of a virgin birth to Mary
* Jesus is perfect, without sin
* Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life. No one can come to the Father, but by Him
* Jesus performed miracles. He:
** healed the sick
** opened eyes of the blind
** opened ears of the deaf
** forgave sins
** cast out demons and evil spirits
** changed water into wine
** multiplied loaves and fishes
** raised the dead
* Jesus was foreshadowed by, and fulfilled, the law of Moses
* Jesus suffered and died for the sins of all humanity
* Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate, died, was buried, and rose again
* Jesus appeared in resurrected form to Mary, Thomas, the apostles, five hundred brethren at once
* Jesus ascended to the Father to sit down on the right hand of His power
* Jesus converted Saul of Tarsus on the road to Damascus
* Jesus will come again to reign in glory with all the faithful

To be sure, there are doctrinal differences between some Christians and the Latter-day Saints. But, this is true of virtually all Christians:

:Christians have argued, often passionately, over every conceivable point of Christian doctrine from the filioque to the immaculate conception. There is scarcely an issue of worship, theology, ethics, and politics over which some Christians have not disagreed among themselves.{{ref|steinmetz1}}

Latter-day Saints have no quarrel with the idea that some of their beliefs about Jesus may differ from those of other Christians. If there were no differences in belief at all, it would make little sense to have the hundreds of Christian denominations which exist.

But, it is insulting and unfair to insist that the LDS do not worship the "same" Jesus as other Christians. By analogy, a Protestant might consider Martin Luther an inspired instrument in the hands of God to reform the wayward Christian Church. A Catholic might rather consider Luther to be a wayward priest who was gravely mistaken. Clearly, the opinions about Luther may differ, but it would be absurd to insist that Catholics and Lutherans are each talking about a ''different'' Luther.

==Conclusion==
Rather than illuminating LDS Christians' or non-LDS Christians' beliefs about Jesus, this accusation is simply an attempt to spread discord and confusion.

LDS Christians and other Christians agree on the vast majority of points on Jesus' nature, mission, and indispensable role in salvation.

The LDS differ from other Christians only in that they tend to believe ''additional'' things about Jesus, since they have other scriptures (such as the [[Book_of_Mormon_basics |Book of Mormon]]) which provide them with further information. This information complements the Biblical beliefs which they share with the whole Christian world.

==Endnotes==
# {{note|livingchrist1}} {{Ensign1|author=Twelve Apostles|article=The Living Christ: The Testimony of the Apostles, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints|date=December 2004|start=4}}{{link|url=http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/2004.htm/ensign%20december%202004.htm/the%20living%20christ%20the%20testimony%20of%20the%20apostles%20the%20church%20of%20jesus%20christ%20of%20latterday%20saints.htm}}
#{{note|steinmetz1}} David Steinmetz, "Christian Unity: A Sermon by David Steinmetz," ''News and Notes'' 5/6 (April 1990); cited by {{aremormonschristians|start=36|end=37}}

==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===
{{FallacyBegin}}
* [[Logical_fallacies#Ad_hominem | Ad hominem]]
* [[Logical_fallacies#Appeal_to_authority | Appeal to authority]]
* [[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#Argument_from_repetition | Argument from repetition]]
* [[Logical_fallacies#Argumentum_ad_numerum | Argument ad numerum]]
* [[Logical_fallacies#Bandwagon_fallacy | Bandwagon fallacy]]
* [[Logical_fallacies#Begging_the_question | Begging the question]]
* [[Logical_fallacies#False_analogy | False analogy]]
* [[Logical_fallacies#False_premise | False premise]]
* [[Logical_fallacies#Ideology_over_reality | Ideology over reality]]
* [[Logical_fallacies#No_true_Scotsman | No true Scotsman]]
* [[Logical_fallacies#Poisoning_the_well | Poisoning the well]]
* [[Logical_fallacies#Straw_man | Straw man]]
{{FallacyEnd}}
*[[Bible basics]]
*[[Book of Mormon basics]]
{{DefinitionFallaciesWiki}}

{{JesusWiki}}

===FAIR web site===
{{JesusFAIR}}

===External links===
*{{FR-18-2-6}}
{{JesusLinks}}

===Printed material===
{{JesusPrint}}

[[de:Heilige_der_Letzten_Tage_beten_einen_anderen_Jesus_an]]

The Bible/Lost scripture

2009-07-07T06:18:46Z

Pwellauer:

{| style="margin: 0em 0em 0em 0em; border: 0px; align="right" cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0
|-
| {{BiblePortal}}
|-
| {{EarlyChristianityPortal}}
|}

{{question}}

==Question==

I've heard about "lost scripture" mentioned in the Bible. What does the Book of Mormon mean when it says that "plain and precious" things have been taken out of the bible? What is this about, and what implications does it have for the doctrine of Biblical [[Biblical_inerrancy|inerrancy]] and [[Biblical_completeness|sufficiency]]?

==Answer==
Stephen E. Robinson said the following of this subject:

:"The Book of Mormon teaches that "plain and precious" things have been taken out of the Bible (1 Nephi 13:24-29). Both Latter-day Saints and Evangelicals often assume this means that the present biblical books went through a cut-and-paste process to remove these things...However, I see no reason to understand things this way, and in fact I it is largely erroneous. The pertinent passages from the Book of Mormon give no reason to assume that the process of removing plain and precious things from Scripture was one exclusively or even primarily of editing the books of the present canon. The bulk of the text-critical evidence is against a process of wholesale cutting and pasting...
:It is clear to me, therefore, that "the plain and precious truths" were not necessarily in the originals of the ''present'' biblical books, and I suspect that the editing process that excised them did not consist solely or even primarily of cutting and pasting the present books, but rather largely in keeping ''other'' apostolic or prophetic writings from being included in the canon. In othe words, "the plain and precious truths" were primarily excised not by means of controlling the ''text'', but by means of controlling the ''canon''."{{ref|robinson1}}

So called "lost scripture" is in reference to writings mentioned or cited within the present Biblical record, but which are not in the Bible itself. Some of these writings are known from other sources, and some are not.

===Examples of "lost scripture"===

{| valign="top" border="1"
!Lost writing!!Biblical citation to the lost writing
|-
| style="width:50%" valign="top"| Book of the Wars of the Lord ||{{s||Numbers|21|14}}
|-
|Book of Jasher||{{s||Joshua|10|13}}, {{s|2|Samuel|1|18}}
|-
|Book of the Acts of Solomon||{{s|1|Kings|11|41}}
|-
|Book of Samuel the Seer||{{s|1|Chronicles|29|29}}
|-
|Book of Gad the Seer||{{s|1|Chronicles|29|29}}
|-
|Book of Nathan the Prophet||{{s|1|Chronicles|29|29}}, {{s|2|Chronicles|9|29}}
|-
|Prophecy of of Ahijah||{{s|2|Chronicles|9|29}}
|-
|Visions of Iddo the Seer||{{s|2|Chronicles|9|29}}, {{s|2|Chronicles|12|15}}, {{s|2|Chronicles|13|22}}
|-
|Book of Shemaiah||{{s|2|Chronicles|12|15}}
|-
|Book of Jehu||{{s|2|Chronicles|20|34}}
|-
|Sayings of the Seers||{{s|2|Chronicles|33|19}}
|-
|lament for Josiah||{{s|2|Chronicles|35|25}}
|-
|Paul's epistle to Corinthians before our "1 Corinthians"||{{s|1|Corinthians|5|9}}
|-
|Paul's possible earlier Ephesians epistle||{{s||Ephesians|3|3}}
|-
|Paul's epistle to Church at Laodicea||{{s||Colossians|4|16}}
|-
|1 Enoch 1:19 and The Assumption of Moses||{{s||Jude|1|14-15}}
|-
|1 Enoch||"It influenced Matthew, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Ephesians, Colossians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, Hebrews, 1 John, Jude (which quotes it directly) and Revelation (with numerous points of contact)…in molding New Testament doctrines concerning the nature of the Messiah, the Son of Man, the messianic kingdom, demonology, the future, resurrection, the final judgment, the whole eschatological theater, and symbolism."{{ref|enochwide1}}
|}

===Examples of canonical differences among Bibles===

The picture is further complicated by the fact that Christians have not always agreed on the "canon"—that is, they have not always agreed upon which writings were "scripture" and which were not.

Some examples of these variations:

{| valign="top" border="1"
!Christian Person or Group!!Difference in canon from Protestant Bible (eg KJV)
|-
|Catholics||Apocrypha is canonical
|-
|Orthodox||Apocrypha is canonical
|-
|Clement of Alexanderia (A.D. 200)|| Included in canon:
* Epistle of Barnabas
* Epistle of Clement
* The Preaching of Peter{{ref|pr2}}
|-
|Roman Christians (circa A.D. 200)||Included in canon:
*Revelation of Peter
*Wisdom of Solomon
Excluded from canon:
*Hebrews
*1 Peter
*2 Peter
*3 John{{ref|ash1}}
|-
|Origen (''date'')||Included in canon:
* Epistle of Barnabas
* Shepherd of Hermas{{ref|pr3}}
Excluded from canon: 
*James
*Jude
*2 John
*Those disputed by Rome(see above){{ref|ash2}}
|-
|Syriac Peshitta||Excluded from the canon:
* 2 Peter
* 2 John
* 3 John
* Jude
* Revelation of St. John{{ref|syriac1}}
|-
|Armenian Church||Included in canon:
* 3 Corinthians
Excluded from canon: 
* Revelation of St. John prior to 12th century{{ref|armenian1}}
|-
|Ethiopian Church||Included in canon:
*Sinodos
* Clement
* Book of the Covenant
* Didascalia{{ref|ethiopian1}}
|-
|Martin Luther||Considered Epistle of James "a right strawy epistle."{{ref|straw1}} Also didn't agree with Sermon on the Mount because didn't match his "grace only" theology.
|-
|}

===Implications for inerrancy and sufficiency doctrine of the Bible===

All these canons cannot be correct. Why must we accept that the critic's Bible is complete and inerrant? By what authority is this declared? Such an authority would have to be ''outside'' the Bible, thus demonstrating that there is some other source for the Word of God besides the Bible.

Furthermore, one should remember that Biblical writers were not aware of the Bible canon, because the Bible was not compiled until centuries later. Thus, Biblical writers cannot have referred to completeness and sufficiency of the canon, because the canon did not exist.

==Conclusion==

1. Biblical writers considered writings not in the present canon to be scriptural writings. 
2. Christian groups do not agree on what constitutes the Biblical canon—any claim that the canon is closed, complete, and sufficient must answer:
: a) ''which'' canon?
: b) what establishes this canon as authoritative and not some other?
3. Differences in canon between Christian groups ''and'' Biblical authors' clear belief in the scriptural status of other non-Biblical texts argue against a coherent doctrine of Biblical sufficiency and inerrancy drawn from the Bible itself. Such a claim must come from outside the Bible.

==Endnotes==

#{{note|robinson1}} Blomberg, Craig and Robinson, Stephen, ''How Wide the Divide'', Intervarsity Press, Illinois. 1997, pg 63.
#{{note|enochwide1}} E. Isaac, "1 (Ethiopic Apocalypse of) Enoch," in ''The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha'', ed. J. H. Charlesworth, 2 vols, (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1983), 1:10; cited in {{ComparingLDSBeliefs}}
#{{note|pr2}} {{ComparingLDSBeliefs}}
#{{note|ash1}} Mike Ash, "Is the Bible Complete?": 1. {{pdflink|url=http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Brochures/Is_the_Bible_Complete.pdf}}
#{{note|pr3}} {{ComparingLDSBeliefs}}; citing Clyde L. Manschreck, ''A History of Christianity in the World'', 2d. ed. (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1985), 52.
#{{note|ash2}} Mike Ash, "Is the Bible Complete?": 1. {{pdflink|url=http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Brochures/Is_the_Bible_Complete.pdf}}
#{{note|syriac1}} {{FR-11-2-4}}; citing Kurt Aland, ''Nestle-Aland Greek-English New Testament'', 5th ed. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1990), 769–75; see also Craig A. Evans, ''Noncanonical Writings and New Testament Interpretation'' (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1992), 190–219, who provides almost 1,500 quotations, allusions, and parallels between noncanonical sources and the New Testament.
#{{note|armenian1}}{{FR-11-2-4}}
#{{note|ethiopian1}}{{FR-11-2-4}}
#{{note|straw1}} Timothy George, "'A Right Strawy Epistle': Reformation Perspectives on James," ''The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology'' (Fall 2000), 20–31.{{pdflink|url=http://www.sbts.edu/pdf/sbjt_2000Fall3.pdf}}

==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===
{{BibleWiki}}

===FAIR web site===
{{BibleFAIR}}

===External links===
{{BibleLinks}}

===Printed material===
{{BiblePrint}}
[[de:Verlorene_Schriften]]
[[es:Escrituras_perdidas]]

The Bible/Lost scripture

2009-07-07T06:14:33Z

Pwellauer: /* Endnotes */

{| style="margin: 0em 0em 0em 0em; border: 0px; align="right" cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0
|-
| {{BiblePortal}}
|-
| {{EarlyChristianityPortal}}
|}

{{question}}

==Question==

I've heard about "lost scripture" mentioned in the Bible. What does the Book of Mormon mean when it says that "plain and precious" things have been taken out of the bible? What is this about, and what implications does it have for the doctrine of Biblical [[Biblical_inerrancy|inerrancy]] and [[Biblical_completeness|sufficiency]]?

==Answer==
Stephen E. Robinson said the following of this subject:

:"The Book of Mormon teaches that "plain and precious" things have been taken out of the Bible (1 Nephi 13:24-29). Both Latter-day Saints and Evangelicals often assume this means that the present biblical books went through a cut-and-paste process to remove these things...However, I see no reason to understand things this way, and in fact I it is largely erroneous. The pertinent passages from the Book of Mormon give no reason to assume that the process of removing plain and precious things from Scripture was one exclusively or even primarily of editing the books of the present canon. The bulk of the text-critical evidence is against a process of wholesale cutting and pasting...
:It is clear to me, therefore, that "the plain and precious truths" were not necessarily in the originals of the ''present'' biblical books, and I suspect that the editing process that excised them did not consist solely or even primarily of cutting and pasting the present books, but rather largely in keeping ''other'' apostolic or prophetic writings from being included in the canon. In othe words, "the plain and precious truths" were primarily excised not by means of controlling the ''text'', but by means of controlling the ''canon''."{{ref|robinson1}}

So called "lost scripture" is in reference to writings mentioned or cited within the present Biblical record, but which are not in the Bible itself. Some of these writings are known from other sources, and some are not.

===Examples of "lost scripture"===

{| valign="top" border="1"
!Lost writing!!Biblical citation to the lost writing
|-
| style="width:50%" valign="top"| Book of the Wars of the Lord ||{{s||Numbers|21|14}}
|-
|Book of Jasher||{{s||Joshua|10|13}}, {{s|2|Samuel|1|18}}
|-
|Book of the Acts of Solomon||{{s|1|Kings|11|41}}
|-
|Book of Samuel the Seer||{{s|1|Chronicles|29|29}}
|-
|Book of Gad the Seer||{{s|1|Chronicles|29|29}}
|-
|Book of Nathan the Prophet||{{s|1|Chronicles|29|29}}, {{s|2|Chronicles|9|29}}
|-
|Prophecy of of Ahijah||{{s|2|Chronicles|9|29}}
|-
|Visions of Iddo the Seer||{{s|2|Chronicles|9|29}}, {{s|2|Chronicles|12|15}}, {{s|2|Chronicles|13|22}}
|-
|Book of Shemaiah||{{s|2|Chronicles|12|15}}
|-
|Book of Jehu||{{s|2|Chronicles|20|34}}
|-
|Sayings of the Seers||{{s|2|Chronicles|33|19}}
|-
|lament for Josiah||{{s|2|Chronicles|35|25}}
|-
|Paul's epistle to Corinthians before our "1 Corinthians"||{{s|1|Corinthians|5|9}}
|-
|Paul's possible earlier Ephesians epistle||{{s||Ephesians|3|3}}
|-
|Paul's epistle to Church at Laodicea||{{s||Colossians|4|16}}
|-
|1 Enoch 1:19 and The Assumption of Moses||{{s||Jude|1|14-15}}
|-
|1 Enoch||"It influenced Matthew, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Ephesians, Colossians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, Hebrews, 1 John, Jude (which quotes it directly) and Revelation (with numerous points of contact)…in molding New Testament doctrines concerning the nature of the Messiah, the Son of Man, the messianic kingdom, demonology, the future, resurrection, the final judgment, the whole eschatological theater, and symbolism."{{ref|enochwide1}}
|}

===Examples of canonical differences among Bibles===

The picture is further complicated by the fact that Christians have not always agreed on the "canon"—that is, they have not always agreed upon which writings were "scripture" and which were not.

Some examples of these variations:

{| valign="top" border="1"
!Christian Person or Group!!Difference in canon from Protestant Bible (eg KJV)
|-
|Catholics||Apocrypha is canonical
|-
|Orthodox||Apocrypha is canonical
|-
|Clement of Alexanderia (A.D. 200)|| Included in canon:
* Epistle of Barnabas
* Epistle of Clement
* The Preaching of Peter{{ref|pr2}}
|-
|Roman Christians (circa A.D. 200)||Included in canon:
*Revelation of Peter
*Wisdom of Solomon
Excluded from canon:
*Hebrews
*1 Peter
*2 Peter
*3 John{{ref|ash1}}
|-
|Origen (''date'')||Included in canon:
* Epistle of Barnabas
* Shepherd of Hermas{{ref|pr3}}
Excluded from canon: 
*James
*Jude
*2 John
*Those disputed by Rome(see above){{ref|ash2}}
|-
|Syriac Peshitta||Excluded from the canon:
* 2 Peter
* 2 John
* 3 John
* Jude
* Revelation of St. John{{ref|syriac1}}
|-
|Armenian Church||Included in canon:
* 3 Corinthians
Excluded from canon: 
* Revelation of St. John prior to 12th century{{ref|armenian11}}
|-
|Ethiopian Church||Included in canon:
*Sinodos
* Clement
* Book of the Covenant
* Didascalia{{ref|ethiopian1}}
|-
|Martin Luther||Considered Epistle of James "a right strawy epistle."{{ref|straw1}} Also didn't agree with Sermon on the Mount because didn't match his "grace only" theology.
|-
|}

===Implications for inerrancy and sufficiency doctrine of the Bible===

All these canons cannot be correct. Why must we accept that the critic's Bible is complete and inerrant? By what authority is this declared? Such an authority would have to be ''outside'' the Bible, thus demonstrating that there is some other source for the Word of God besides the Bible.

Furthermore, one should remember that Biblical writers were not aware of the Bible canon, because the Bible was not compiled until centuries later. Thus, Biblical writers cannot have referred to completeness and sufficiency of the canon, because the canon did not exist.

==Conclusion==

1. Biblical writers considered writings not in the present canon to be scriptural writings. 
2. Christian groups do not agree on what constitutes the Biblical canon—any claim that the canon is closed, complete, and sufficient must answer:
: a) ''which'' canon?
: b) what establishes this canon as authoritative and not some other?
3. Differences in canon between Christian groups ''and'' Biblical authors' clear belief in the scriptural status of other non-Biblical texts argue against a coherent doctrine of Biblical sufficiency and inerrancy drawn from the Bible itself. Such a claim must come from outside the Bible.

==Endnotes==

#{{note|robinson1}} Blomberg, Craig and Robinson, Stephen, ''How Wide the Divide'', Intervarsity Press, Illinois. 1997, pg 63.
#{{note|enochwide1}} E. Isaac, "1 (Ethiopic Apocalypse of) Enoch," in ''The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha'', ed. J. H. Charlesworth, 2 vols, (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1983), 1:10; cited in {{ComparingLDSBeliefs}}
#{{note|pr2}} {{ComparingLDSBeliefs}}
#{{note|ash1}} Mike Ash, "Is the Bible Complete?": 1. {{pdflink|url=http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Brochures/Is_the_Bible_Complete.pdf}}
#{{note|pr3}} {{ComparingLDSBeliefs}}; citing Clyde L. Manschreck, ''A History of Christianity in the World'', 2d. ed. (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1985), 52.
#{{note|ash2}} Mike Ash, "Is the Bible Complete?": 1. {{pdflink|url=http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Brochures/Is_the_Bible_Complete.pdf}}
#{{note|syriac1}} {{FR-11-2-4}}; citing Kurt Aland, ''Nestle-Aland Greek-English New Testament'', 5th ed. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1990), 769–75; see also Craig A. Evans, ''Noncanonical Writings and New Testament Interpretation'' (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1992), 190–219, who provides almost 1,500 quotations, allusions, and parallels between noncanonical sources and the New Testament.
#{{note|armenian1}}{{FR-11-2-4}}
#{{note|ethiopian1}}{{FR-11-2-4}}
#{{note|straw1}} Timothy George, "'A Right Strawy Epistle': Reformation Perspectives on James," ''The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology'' (Fall 2000), 20–31.{{pdflink|url=http://www.sbts.edu/pdf/sbjt_2000Fall3.pdf}}

==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===
{{BibleWiki}}

===FAIR web site===
{{BibleFAIR}}

===External links===
{{BibleLinks}}

===Printed material===
{{BiblePrint}}
[[de:Verlorene_Schriften]]
[[es:Escrituras_perdidas]]

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

2009-07-03T03:49:16Z

Pwellauer: /* Endnotes */

{{question}}
{{RacePortal}}

==Question==
*Don't Latter-day Saints believe and teach that blacks are descendents of Cain, and that they are cursed?
*I heard that, prior to 1978, blacks were denied access to temple open houses because they carried the “mark of Cain.”

===Source(s) of criticism===
*{{CriticalWork:Martin:Kingdom of the Cults|pages=236}}

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

===Were blacks turned away from temple open houses?===
It would be surprising and unfortunate if a black person in the 1960's was turned away from a temple open house during the period that the priesthood ban was in place. Blacks were certainly allowed in during a temple open house, and many did tour the temple during these times. There is no priesthood requirement to tour a temple during an open house, and all are welcome. This is not to say, however, that such an unfortunate denial of entry did not take place. Sadly, prevailing racial attitudes during the 1950’s and 1960’s make it quite possible that a member might have denied such entry, even going so far as to say that the person carried the “mark of Cain.” Even highly placed Church leaders made [[Racist statements by Church leaders|statements during this period]] which would now be considered quite racist. Such attitudes are, of course, repugnant to modern Latter-day Saints.

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

==Endnotes==

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

==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===
{{BlacksPriesthoodWiki}}

===FAIR web site===
{{BlacksPriesthoodFAIR}}

===Videos===
{{Video:Mauss:2003:Study in Misplaced Apologetic}}

===External links===
{{BlacksPriesthoodLinks}}

===Printed material===
{{BlacksPriesthoodPrint}}

{{Suggestions}}

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

2009-07-03T03:47:02Z

Pwellauer: /* Endnotes */

{{question}}
{{RacePortal}}

==Question==
*Don't Latter-day Saints believe and teach that blacks are descendents of Cain, and that they are cursed?
*I heard that, prior to 1978, blacks were denied access to temple open houses because they carried the “mark of Cain.”

===Source(s) of criticism===
*{{CriticalWork:Martin:Kingdom of the Cults|pages=236}}

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

===Were blacks turned away from temple open houses?===
It would be surprising and unfortunate if a black person in the 1960's was turned away from a temple open house during the period that the priesthood ban was in place. Blacks were certainly allowed in during a temple open house, and many did tour the temple during these times. There is no priesthood requirement to tour a temple during an open house, and all are welcome. This is not to say, however, that such an unfortunate denial of entry did not take place. Sadly, prevailing racial attitudes during the 1950’s and 1960’s make it quite possible that a member might have denied such entry, even going so far as to say that the person carried the “mark of Cain.” Even highly placed Church leaders made [[Racist statements by Church leaders|statements during this period]] which would now be considered quite racist. Such attitudes are, of course, repugnant to modern Latter-day Saints.

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

==Endnotes==

#{{note|haynes.6}}Stephen R. Haynes, ''Noah's Curse: The Biblical Justification of American Slavery'' (New York: Oxford University Press, 2002)
#{{note|origen.215}}Origen, "Genesis Homily XVI," in ''Homilies on Genesis and Exodus, translated by Ronald E. Heine (Washington: Catholic University of America Press, 1982), p. 215, referenced in Haynes.
#{{note|haynes.7-8}}Haynes, p. 7-8.
#{{note|haynes.8}}Haynes, p. 8.
#{{note|palmer.import.591}}Haynes, ''Noah's Curse: The Biblical Justification of American Slavery'', p. 127-8 citing Palmer, "The Import of Hebrew History," ''Southern Presbyterian Review 9 (April 1856) 591
#{{note|palmer.historic.4-5}}Haynes, p. 129, citing Palmer, ''Our Historic Mission, An Address Delivered before the Eunomian and PhiMu Societies of La Grange Synodical College, July 7 1858'' (New Orleans: True Witness Office, 1859), 4-5.
#{{note|cherry.179-180}}Haynes, p. 132, citing Cherry, ''God's New Israel'', 179-180 who in turn is citing one of Palmer's sermons.
#{{note|haynes.161}}Haynes, p. 161.

#{{note|mcconkie1}} Bruce R. McConkie, [http://www.zionsbest.com/alike.html “All Are Alike unto God,”] address in the Second Annual CES Symposium, Salt Lake City, August 1978.

==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===
{{BlacksPriesthoodWiki}}

===FAIR web site===
{{BlacksPriesthoodFAIR}}

===Videos===
{{Video:Mauss:2003:Study in Misplaced Apologetic}}

===External links===
{{BlacksPriesthoodLinks}}

===Printed material===
{{BlacksPriesthoodPrint}}

{{Suggestions}}

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

2009-07-03T03:44:13Z

Pwellauer: /* Endnotes */

{{question}}
{{RacePortal}}

==Question==
*Don't Latter-day Saints believe and teach that blacks are descendents of Cain, and that they are cursed?
*I heard that, prior to 1978, blacks were denied access to temple open houses because they carried the “mark of Cain.”

===Source(s) of criticism===
*{{CriticalWork:Martin:Kingdom of the Cults|pages=236}}

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

===Were blacks turned away from temple open houses?===
It would be surprising and unfortunate if a black person in the 1960's was turned away from a temple open house during the period that the priesthood ban was in place. Blacks were certainly allowed in during a temple open house, and many did tour the temple during these times. There is no priesthood requirement to tour a temple during an open house, and all are welcome. This is not to say, however, that such an unfortunate denial of entry did not take place. Sadly, prevailing racial attitudes during the 1950’s and 1960’s make it quite possible that a member might have denied such entry, even going so far as to say that the person carried the “mark of Cain.” Even highly placed Church leaders made [[Racist statements by Church leaders|statements during this period]] which would now be considered quite racist. Such attitudes are, of course, repugnant to modern Latter-day Saints.

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

==Endnotes==

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

==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===
{{BlacksPriesthoodWiki}}

===FAIR web site===
{{BlacksPriesthoodFAIR}}

===Videos===
{{Video:Mauss:2003:Study in Misplaced Apologetic}}

===External links===
{{BlacksPriesthoodLinks}}

===Printed material===
{{BlacksPriesthoodPrint}}

{{Suggestions}}

Book of Mormon/DNA evidence

2009-05-02T06:35:13Z

Pwellauer: linkfix

{{LongVersion|topic=DNA and the Book of Mormon|url=http://www.fairwiki.org/index.php/Book_of_Mormon_and_DNA_evidence:Summary|extra=}}
{{Template:DNAPortal}}

==Criticism==
DNA samples taken from modern Native Americans do not match the DNA of modern inhabitants of the Middle East. Critics argue that this means the Book of Mormon's claim that Native Americans are descended from Lehi must be false, and therefore the Book of Mormon is not an ancient record as Joseph Smith claimed.

===Sources of the Criticism===
*{{CriticalWork:Abanes:Becoming Gods|pages=73 367 n.131-135}}
*{{CriticalWork:Hanegraaff:Mormon Mirage|pages=?}}
*{{CriticalWork:Martin:Kingdom of the Cults|pages=202}}
*Thomas W. Murphy, "Lamanite Genesis, Genealogy, and Genetics," in Dan Vogel and Brent Lee Metcalfe, eds., ''American Apocrypha: Essays on the Book of Mormon'' (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2002).
*Thomas W. Murphy and Simon G. Southerton, "Genetic Research a 'Galileo Event' for Mormons," ''Anthropology News'' 44/2 (February 2003): 20
*{{CriticalWork:Southerton:Losing|pages=1–207}}
* {{50Questions}}

==Response==

Few criticisms of the Church have received as much media attention as this criticism, with so little thought and science being applied to the question. DNA attacks against the Book of Mormon account fail on numerous grounds.

===Initial considerations===
It is important to realize that critics of the Book of Mormon base their arguments on DNA data that has never been shown to be even relevant to the issue of Book of Mormon genetics, let alone conclusive. Such critics have cobbled together DNA data gathered from unrelated studies to produce arguments with the appearance of scientific weight but having no real significance. ''No genetic studies have been designed and performed to test the hypothesis that Native Americans were of Lehite descent and that this inheritance is detectable today.''

DNA issues can be complex for the non-specialist (especially those who were in high school more than twenty years ago, before much of the modern understanding of DNA was available). A number of excellent articles are available on this topic.

''For those interested in general introductions to DNA science:''
* This article provides a basic overview by an LDS bishop who is also a world expert on the use of genetic testing. It is quite short, simple, and straight-forward: {{FR-18-1-6}} 
* This article provides more detail, but is still accessible to the non-specialist: {{FR-15-2-6}} 

''These articles discuss the feasibility of testing various hypotheses using the Book of Mormon and DNA:''

* {{JBMS-12-1-3}} {{NB}}

===Geography===

{{Main|Book of Mormon and DNA evidence/Geography issues}}

A variety of geographic models have been suggested for the Book of Mormon. Some geographic models introduce other difficulties for the DNA attacks.

===Are all Amerindians "Lamanites"?===

{{Main|Amerindians as Lamanites/Summary|Amerindians as Lamanites}}

Critics have claimed that DNA tests mean that all Amerindians cannot be "Lamanites," and even some Church authors have conceded this point too readily.

===Haplotype X2a===

{{Main|Book_of_Mormon_and_DNA_evidence/Geography_issues/Haplotype_X2a}}

Some have tried to use a genetic group called haplotype X2a as proof of the Book of Mormon, but the science at present cannot support this.

==General genetics issues==

Regardless of the geographical model used, efforts to date at "testing" the Book of Mormon through the use of genetic data encounter a number of problems and issues that should be considered. The remainder of this page discusses issues which must be considered regardless of the geographical model being used.

===What are we looking for?===

Genetic attacks on the Book of Mormon focus on the fact that Amerindian DNA seems closest to Asian DNA, and not DNA from "the Middle East" or "Jewish" DNA. However, this attack ignores several key points.

Lehi and his family are clearly ''not'' Jews. They belong to the tribe of Manasseh ({{s||Alma|10|3}}, {{s|1|Nephi|5|14}}), and married into Ishmael's family, the tribe of Ephraim.{{ref|ephraim1}} These tribes were carried away captive by the Assyrians, and did not contribute greatly to the current genetic mix of the Middle East.

Furthermore, the Middle East is located at the crossroads of three continents, and has seen a great deal of immigration, mixing, and intermarriage. To use modern Middle Eastern DNA as the "standard" against which to measure what Manasseh and Ephraim DNA must have been like 2600 years ago is extraordinarily sloppy science.

''Articles which consider that "Asian" DNA and Lehite DNA may actually correspond due to an earlier common source:''
* {{FR-18-1-7}} 

===What Jewish DNA?===

Identifying DNA criteria for Manasseh and Ephraim may always be beyond our reach. But, even identifying markers for ''Jews''—a group that has remained relatively cohesive and refrained from intermarriage with others more than most groups—is an extraordinarily difficult undertaking.

One author cautioned:

:Studies of human genetic diversity have barely begun. Yet the fashion for genetic ancestry testing is booming. . . . Other groups, such as Jews, are now being targeted. This despite the fact that Jewish communities have little in common on their mitochondrial side—the maternal line down which Judaism is traditionally inherited. It's the male side that shows common ancestry between different Jewish communities—so, of course, that's what the geneticists focus on. . . . Geneticists—like preachers and philosophers before them—need to avoid promising more than they can deliver.{{ref|genie1}}

''Articles which discuss the various criteria (and the difficulties involved) for identifying "Jewishness" via DNA include:''

* {{JBMS-12-1-4}} 
* {{FR-18-1-6}} 
* {{FR-17-1-5}} 
* {{FR-15-2-1}} 
* {{FR-18-1-7}} {{NB}}
* {{FR-15-2-9}} 

===Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA)===

Mitochondrial DNA is passed only from mothers to their children. It has been used in attacks on the Book of Mormon, and yet even known ''Jewish'' populations do not share mtDNA.

:A new study now shows that the women in nine Jewish communities from Georgia . . . to Morocco have vastly different genetic histories from the men. . . . The women's identities, however, are a mystery, because . . . their genetic signatures are not related to one another or to those of present-day Middle Eastern populations.{{ref|wade1}}

So, known Jewish groups cannot be linked at all by mtDNA studies, and yet the critics would have us believe that two of the lost tribes (Ephraim and Manasseh—from whom we have no 'control' or 'reference' samples to compare to) can be ruled out as ancestors of the Amerindians via mtDNA testing?

''Articles which discuss difficulties in using mtDNA:''

* {{JBMS-12-1-4}} 
* {{FR-15-2-6}} 
* {{FR-18-1-7}} 

===Y-Chromosome DNA===

Y-chromosomes are only spread from father to son; the female line does not carry them at all. These markers have also been used by critics to "prove" that the Amerindians cannot be descended from Lehi.

Despite claims that Y-chromosome data do not support Book of Mormon claims, there are some markers which should be considered in another light:

:Douglas Forbes points out that Y-chromosome SNP biallelic marker Q-P36 (also known by the mutation marker M-242), postulated by geneticist Doron Behar and colleagues to be a founding lineage among Ashkenazi Jewish populations, is also found in Iranian and Iraqi Jews and is a founding lineage group present in 31 percent of self-identified Native Americans in the U.S.{{ref|stewart2}}

''Articles which discuss Y chromosome issues:''

* {{JBMS-12-1-4}} 
* {{FR-15-2-6}} 
* {{FR-18-1-7}} 

====Lemba and Cohen modal haplotype====
Murphy uses the "Lemba" as an example of a group proven to be Jewish via DNA testing. But, this example is misleading. The Lemba were identified as Jewish because of a marker called the "Cohen modal haplotype." This marker is carried by about half of those who claim descent from Aaron, Moses' brother, and only 2-3% of other Jews.

But, the Book of Mormon does not suggest—and in fact seems to exclude—the idea that Levites (the priestly family of Aaron) were among the Lehi party. Without priestly families, one would not expect to find the Cohen modal haplotype! Yet, only 2-3% of modern Jews from non-priestly families (to say nothing of Ephraim and Manasseh—remember, Lehi and company are not "Jews") can be identified by this test.{{ref|stewart1}} Are these 97-98% of modern Jews then ''not'' Jews because the genetic test is negative for them? Excluding the Nephites on the basis of such a poor test that we would not even expect them to pass (since they do not include Levitical families) shows how far the critics will twist the evidence to find fault.

''Articles which discuss Cohen modal haplotype issues:''

* {{FR-15-2-8}} 
* {{FR-18-1-7}} {{NB}}

===90% death rate with European contact===

Approximately ninety percent of the Amerindian population died out following contact with the Europeans; most of this was due to infectious disease against which they had no defense.{{ref|cook1}}

Since different genes likely provide different resistances to infectious disease, it may be that eliminating 90% of the pre-contact gene pool has significantly distorted the true genetic picture of Lehi's descendants.

===What about the Jaredites?===

Critics often over-look the Jaredites, and assume (as in the hemispheric models [[Book_of_Mormon_and_DNA_evidence/Geography_issues#Hemispheric_geography_model.2C_type_2|type 2]] and [[Book_of_Mormon_and_DNA_evidence/Geography_issues#Hemispheric_geography_model.2C_type_3|type 3]]) that the Jaredites can have contributed nothing of consequence to the Lehite DNA picture.

But, it is not clear that this must be the case. Some LDS have believed in a total eradication of the Jaredites, others have argued that Jaredite remnants survived and mixed with the Lehites. Bruce R. McConkie, while believing that the majority of Amerindian descent was from Israel (i.e. Lehi, Ishmael, and Mulek) nevertheless wrote:

:The American Indians, however, as Columbus found them also had other blood than that of Israel in their veins. It is possible that isolated remnants of the Jaredites may have lived through the period of destruction in which millions of their fellows perished. It is quite apparent that groups of orientals found their way over the Bering Strait and gradually moved southward to mix with the Indian peoples. We have records of a colony of Scandinavians attempting to set up a settlement in America some 500 years before Columbus. There are archeological indications that an unspecified number of groups of people probably found their way from the old to the new world in pre-Columbian times. Out of all these groups would have come the American Indians as they were discovered in the 15th century.{{ref|mcconkie1}}

The Jaredites are complete genetic unknowns. They cannot be Israelites, since they pre-date Israel. Some authors, such as Hugh Nibley, long ago argued that they were of ''Asian'' origin.{{ref|nibley1}}

''Articles which discuss the relevance of Jaredite issues:''
* {{JBMS-12-1-4}} 

===Fundamentalist "suicide bombing"===

It should be remembered too that many sectarian critics use DNA science in a sort of "suicide bombing" attack on the Church.{{ref|stewart3}} The fundamentalist Christian critics are happy to use DNA as a stick to beat the Book of Mormon, but do not tell their readers that there is much ''stronger'' DNA evidence for concepts which fundamentalist Christian readers might not accept, such as:

* evolutionary change in species
* human descent from other primates

And, despite being inconsistent with DNA data, fundamentalist critics do not call on their congregations to abandon such literalistic Biblical concepts as:

* the earth being only 6,000 years old
* a Biblical Adam and Eve were the parents of all humanity only 4,000 years before Christ
* a world-wide, Noachian flood which exterminated all life except that which was in the Ark, occurred approximately 5,000 years ago

The critics are often hypocritical—they claim the Saints should abandon the Book of Mormon on flimsy, dubious science, and yet do not tell their audience that ''they'' should (by the same logic) abandon religious beliefs of their own that have much ''more'' DNA evidence against them.

''Discussions of this ironic twist are found in'':

* {{FR-15-2-1}} 
* {{FR-18-1-7}} 

==Conclusion==

DNA attacks against the Book of Mormon are ill-advised, a "contrived controversy."{{ref|contrived1}} Various geographical models introduce issues unique to each model, but the DNA data is no where as conclusive as the critics claim, regardless of the geographical model chosen.

Critics tend to opt for the most naive, ill-informed reading possible of the Book of Mormon text, and then cry foul when the Saints point out that they have given much thought to these issues and come to more nuanced conclusions that are more faithful to the Book of Mormon text than the critics' poorly-considered caricatures.

Critics do not provide the "whole story" of the DNA data, and seem to want to use the certainty which DNA provides in modern crime-solving as a springboard to trick the Saints, the media, and investigators into thinking that their historical DNA conclusions are as solid.

The Church's statement on the matter of DNA is succinct and accurate:

:The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ is exactly what it claims to be — a record of God's dealings with peoples of ancient America and a second witness of the divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ. The strongest witness of the Book of Mormon is to be obtained by living the Christ-centered principles contained in its pages and by praying about its truthfulness.

:Recent attacks on the veracity of the Book of Mormon based on DNA evidence are ill considered. Nothing in the Book of Mormon precludes migration into the Americas by peoples of Asiatic origin. The scientific issues relating to DNA, however, are numerous and complex.{{ref|lds1}}

In fact, DNA data tells us nothing which we did not already know from archaeological data—at present, the human settlement of the Americas is thought to date thousands of years before the advent of Lehi. Many of these settlers have links to east Asia. None of this is news, and none of it threatens the Book of Mormon's status as authentic history.

But, the critics hope that their listeners will be awed by the banner of DNA science, and conclude that something more impressive is going on. Informed members of the Church have not been persuaded by their tactics, and much has been written to help non-specialists understand the "numerous and complex" issues in the fascinating and valuable science of genetics.

==Endnotes==
#{{note|ephraim1}} "The Prophet Joseph informed us that the record of Lehi, was contained on the 116 pages that were first translated and subsequently stolen, and of which an abridgement is given us in the first Book of Nephi, which is the record of Nephi individually, he himself being of the lineage of Manasseh; but that Ishmael was of the lineage of Ephraim, and that his sons married into Lehi's family, and Lehi's sons married Ishmael's daughters, thus fulfilling the words of Jacob upon Ephraim and Manasseh in the 48th chapter of Genesis..." - {{JoD23_1|author=Erastus Snow|start=184|date=6 May 1882|title=Ephraim And Manassah, etc.}}
#{{note|genie1}} Martin Richards, "Beware the Gene Genies," ''Guardian'' (21 February 2003), accessed 7 July 2006. {{link|url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,899835,00.html}}; cited by Stewart, "DNA and the Book of Mormon."
#{{note|wade1}} Nicholas Wade, "In DNA, New Clues to Jewish Roots," ''New York Times'' (14 May 2002): F1 (col. 1); cited by Stewart, "DNA and the Book of Mormon."
#{{note|stewart1}} See "Cohen Modal Haplotype," in {{FR-18-1-7}}
#{{note|stewart2}} See "Y-Chromosome Data," in {{FR-18-1-7}} (Citations omitted)
#{{note|cook1}} Suzanne Austin Alchon, 'A Pest in the Land: New World Epidemics in a Global Perspective,' Albuquerque : University of New Mexico Press, c2003.
#{{note|mcconkie1}} {{MD1|article=American Indians|start=33}}{{GL1|url=http://gospelink.com/library/doc?doc_id=208606}}
#{{note|nibley1}} See, for example, {{Nibley5|start=153|end=following}} {{GL1|url=http://gospelink.com/library/doc?book_doc_id=272004}}
#{{note|stewart3}} The expression "suicide bombing" in this context comes from Stewart, "DNA and the Book of Mormon."
#{{note|contrived1}} {{FR-18-1-6}}
#{{note|lds1}} Press Release, "Mistakes in the News: DNA and the Book of Mormon" (11 November 2003){{link|url=http://www.lds.org/newsroom/mistakes/0,15331,3885-1-18078,00.html}}

==Further reading==

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

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

===Videos===
{{DNAFAIRVideo}}

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

===Printed material===
{{DNAPrint}}
[[de:Buch_Mormon_und_DNS-Beweise]]
[[es:El Libro de Mormón y la evidencia del ADN]]

Mormonism and politics/California Proposition 8

2009-01-05T11:11:47Z

Pwellauer:

{{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
[[Image:NoOn8.vandalism.png|center]]

=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)
*Robert P. George, Professor of Jurisprudence and director of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions at Princeton University, [http://www.byub.org/devotionals/?selectedMonth=10&selectedYear=2008 On the Moral Purposes of Law and Government], BYU Devotional (Oct. 2008)—A good explanation of why this matters to the Church. (Currently available as video only)

=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=
:''"This was political malpractice," says a Democratic consultant who operates at the highest level of California politics...."and it was painful to watch. They shouldn't be allowed to pawn this off on the Mormons or anyone else. They snatched defeat from the jaws of victory, and now hundreds of thousands of gay couples are going to pay the price.''"
:—"Same-Sex Setback," ''Rolling Stone'' (Dec. 11, 2008) 
{{parabreak}}
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)
{{parabreak}}
*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}}
:''What was the reaction to the ad? Widespread condemnation? Scorn? Rebuke? Tepid criticism?
:''Nope.''
:''This newspaper, a principled opponent of Proposition 8, ran an editorial saying that the "hard-hitting ad" was too little, too late.''
:''The upshot seemed to be that if the pro-gay-marriage forces had just flooded the airwaves with more religious slander, things would have turned out better.
:—Jonah Goldberg, [http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-goldberg2-2008dec02,0,6411205.column An ugly attack on Mormons], ''Los Angeles Times'' (Dec. 2, 2008)
{{parabreak}}
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!"

With regard to schools, we see this statement from the "No on 8" side weeks after the election:

:Thankfully there are some great organizations out there to help schools create a safer, more inclusive environment. GLSEN works with school communities to create safe learning environments through policy advocacy and trainings for school administrators, teachers and students. Groundspark, creator of a number of educational films on preventing school bias and celebrating family diversity, will soon premier "Straightlaced," a new film encouraging teens to question their assumptions about gender roles and homophobia. Children of Lesbians and Gays Everywhere and (in the Bay Area) Our Family Coalition help families and youth navigate the school system and advocate for all families.

:So there's one thing both the proponents and opponents of Prop. 8 were right about -- Prop. 8 had nothing to do with the schools. And it had everything to do with the schools.
:—Isobel White, [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/isobel-white/prop-8-and-our-schools_b_150720.html Prop. 8 and our schools -- time to tell it like it is.], ''Huffington Post'', (Dec. 12, 2008)

*[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 some travel expenses. 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 use its facilities or donation processing system to collect money destined for the "Yes on 8" campaign?|Did the Church use its facilities or donation processing system to collect money destined for 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 and boycotts|Blacklists and boycotts]]
**[[/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#Intimidation of gays and lesbians|Intimidation of gays and lesbians]]
**[[/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}}

[[de:Proposition_8]]

Book of Mormon/Witnesses/Hypnotism

2008-07-06T13:03:51Z

Pwellauer:

{{BoMWitnessPortal}}
==Criticism==

Critics claim that the Book of Mormon witnesses may have been sincere in their testimony, but were actually the victims of 'hallucination' or 'hypnosis' induced in them by Joseph Smith.

===Source(s) of the criticism===
{{BoMWitnessesCritics}}

==Response==

(''Note'': All emphasis in the following quotes have been added.)

David Whitmer—like the other witnesses—had been charged with being deluded into thinking he had seen an angel and the plates. Joseph Smith III remembered when David was such accused, and said:

:"How well and distinctly I remember the manner in which Elder Whitmer arose and drew himself up to his full height—a little over six feet—and said, in solemn and impressive tones: 'No sir! I was not under any hallucination, nor was I deceived! '''I saw with these eyes''', and '''I heard with these ears'''! I know whereof I speak!'."{{ref|whitmer1}}

Martin Harris used the same qualifying statements to describe his experience in 1829:

:"In introducing us, Mr. Godfrey said, 'Brother Harris, I have brought these young men to hear your statement as to whether or not you believe the Book of Mormon to be true.' His face was turned to the wall. He turned and faced us and said, 'Now I don't believe, but I know it to be true, for '''with these eyes I saw''' the angel and '''with these ears (pointing to them) I heard''' him say it was a true and correct record of an ancient people that dwelt upon this the American continent'."{{ref|harris1}}

Oliver Cowdery was asked, “Was your testimony based on a dream, was it the imagination of your mind, was it an illusion”? He responded with the exact same qualifying statements as the other two Witnesses:

:"'''My eyes saw''', '''my ears heard''', and my understanding was touched, and I know that whereof I testified is true. It was no dream, no vain imagination of the mind—it was real."{{ref|cowdery1}}

==Conclusion==

The Three Witnesses had the opportunity to qualify their testimony, but all of them insisted that their vision was literal and unmistakable. In addition, they each verified the literalness of the event by stating that their physical ears heard a heavenly voice. Critics twist the historical record in their effort to eliminate the troublesome witnesses but their testimonies cannot be convincingly dismissed.

==Endnotes==

#{{note|whitmer1}} Joseph Smith III visited David Whitmer in 1884, along with a committee from the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and several onlookers. According to Joseph III's memoirs, one of the non-believers there was a military officer, who suggested the possibility that Whitmer "had been mistaken and had simply been moved upon by some mental disturbance or hallucination, which had deceived him into thinking he saw" the angel and the plates. Joseph III's recollection of Whitmer's response is quoted above. See Memoirs of Joseph Smith III, cited in Mary Audentia Smith Anderson, Joseph Smith III and the Restoration (Independence, MO: 1952), pp. 311-12. Cited in {{InvestigatingWitnesses1|start=88}}
#{{note|harris1}} Alma L. Jensen, attested statement, Dayton, Ohio, 1 June 1936, L. Tom Perry Special Collections Library, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah.
#{{note|cowdery1}}{{IE|author=Jacob F. Gates|article=Testimony of Jacob Gates|num=15|date=March 1912|start=418|end=419}}

==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===
{{BoMWitnessesWiki}}

===FAIR web site===
{{BoMWitnessesFAIR}}

===External links===
{{BoMWitnessesLinks}}

===Printed material===
{{BoMWitnessesPrint}}

[[de:BMZeugen:Massenhypnose]]

Book of Mormon/Plain and precious doctrines

2008-07-06T04:27:00Z

Pwellauer:

{{BoMPortal}}

== Plain and Precious Book of Mormon Doctrines ==

=== Criticism ===
Critics claim that the Book of Mormon is nothing more than a "bad copy of the Bible"; that anyone could have churned out such pedestrian, warmed-over ideas by borrowing liberally from the Bible and his own personal experiences.

==Video==
{{VideoBoM1}}
<videoflash>XnTte8FBtzw</videoflash>

=== Response ===
The Book of Mormon has many marvelous and unique doctrines that expand on the Biblical text. The sincere reader knows that all scripture is inspiring. The prophet Nephi in the Book of Mormon makes the bold claim that it would contain "many plain and precious" doctrines that originally existed in the Bible, but were subsequently removed, either deliberately or by error ([http://scriptures.lds.org/en/1_ne/13/26-40#26 1 Nephi 13:26–40]). The following is a partial list of some of these "many plain and precious" doctrines that are found in the Book of Mormon, but are either not found in the Bible, or are not spelled out clearly enough to prevent great debate and disagreement among Christians seeking to know the will of God.

==== Doctrines relating to the Savior and his mission ====
*Christ offereth himself unto all who have a broken heart and a contrite spirit ([http://scriptures.lds.org/en/2_ne/2/7#7 2 Nephi 2:7], [http://scriptures.lds.org/en/3_ne/9/20#20 3 Nephi 9:20]) (see also [http://scriptures.lds.org/en/ps/34/18#18 Psalms 34:18])
*Christ shall redeem men from their sins, not in their sins ([http://scriptures.lds.org/en/alma/11/34-37#34 Alma 11:34–37], [http://scriptures.lds.org/en/hel/5/10-11#10–11 Helaman 5:10-11]) (see also [http://scriptures.lds.org/en/matt/1/21#21 Matthew 1:21])
*Why Christ, being perfect, still needed to be baptized ([http://scriptures.lds.org/en/2_ne/31/4-10#4 2 Nephi 31:4–10]) (see also [http://scriptures.lds.org/en/matt/3/13-15#13 Matthew 3:13-15])
*The perfect plan of mercy and justice ([http://scriptures.lds.org/en/alma/42/11-15,22-30#13 Alma 42:11-15,22-30], [http://scriptures.lds.org/en/alma/34/10-16#10 Alma 34:10-16])
*In addition to our sins, the Savior took upon him our pains, afflictions and temptations, that he might know how to comfort and strengthen us ([http://scriptures.lds.org/en/alma/7/11-12#11 Alma 7:11–12])
*The infinite nature of the atonement ([http://scriptures.lds.org/en/2_ne/9/7#7 2 Nephi 9:7], [http://scriptures.lds.org/en/alma/34/10-12#10 Alma 34:10-12])
*Without the resurrection, all men would become angels to the devil, subject to the devil, and be miserable forever. ([http://scriptures.lds.org/en/2_ne/9/8-10#8 2 Nephi 9:8–10])
*All things given of God are a type of Christ and testify of Him ([http://scriptures.lds.org/en/2_ne/11/4#4 2 Nephi 11:4], [http://scriptures.lds.org/en/alma/30/44#44 Alma 30:44])
*How the Law of Moses was the schoolmaster to Israel ([http://scriptures.lds.org/en/mosiah/13/27-31#27 Mosiah 13:27-31], [http://scriptures.lds.org/en/alma/34/13-14#13 Alma 34:13-14])
*How Christ is both the Father and the Son ([http://scriptures.lds.org/en/mosiah/15/1-9#1 Mosiah 15:1-9])
*Who are Christ's seed, as described in [http://scriptures.lds.org/en/isa/53/10#10 Isaiah 53:10]? ([http://scriptures.lds.org/en/mosiah/15/10-14#10 Mosiah 15:10-14], [http://scriptures.lds.org/en/mosiah/5/7#7 Mosiah 5:7])
*The Plan of Redemption was prepared from the foundation of the world, ([http://scriptures.lds.org/en/alma/12/25#25 Alma 12:25]), Jesus Christ is central to that plan ([http://scriptures.lds.org/en/ether/3/14#14 Ether 3:14])
*Christ's redemption is retroactive in saving the faithful who preceded it ([http://scriptures.lds.org/en/alma/39/15-19#15 Alma 39:15-19])
*The premortal spirit body of Jesus Christ looked just like his mortal body ([http://scriptures.lds.org/en/ether/3/16-16#6 Ether 3:6-16]) (see also [http://scriptures.lds.org/en/gen/1/26-27#26 Genesis 1:26-27])

==== What the devil doesn't want us to know ====
*Murmuring quenches the Spirit ([http://scriptures.lds.org/en/1_ne/3/5-6#5 1 Nephi 3:5–6])
*How Satan will be bound during the millennium ([http://scriptures.lds.org/en/1_ne/22/26#26 1 Nephi 22:26])
*Satan is the father of all lies ([http://scriptures.lds.org/en/2_ne/2/18#18 2 Nephi 2:18])
*Satan's techniques for ensnaring men ([http://scriptures.lds.org/en/2_ne/28/19-30#19 2 Nephi 28:19-30])
*The evil spirit teaches that a man must not pray ([http://scriptures.lds.org/en/2_ne/32/8#8 2 Nephi 32:8])
*Satan whispers to people that there is no hell nor devil ([http://scriptures.lds.org/en/2_ne/28/22#22 2 Nephi 28:22])
*What motivates Satan - retribution for his misery ([http://scriptures.lds.org/en/2_ne/2/18#18 2 Nephi 2:18], [http://scriptures.lds.org/en/2_ne/2/27#27 2 Nephi 2:27])
*What is meant by 'the chains of hell' ([http://scriptures.lds.org/en/alma/12/9-11#9 Alma 12:9-11])
*Laboring diligently in the vineyard protects us from sin and the cunning snares of the devil ([http://scriptures.lds.org/en/alma/28/14#14 Alma 28:14])
*Anti-Christ defined ([http://scriptures.lds.org/en/alma/30/6-60#6 Alma 30:6-60])
*The devil hates all men, including those that follow him ([http://scriptures.lds.org/en/alma/30/60#60 Alma 30:60])
*"Wickedness never was happiness" ([http://scriptures.lds.org/en/alma/41/10#10 Alma 41:10])
*Pride is Satan's most effective tool for our destruction ([http://scriptures.lds.org/en/3_ne/6/10-16#10 3 Nephi 6:10-16])
*Satan is the father of all contention ([http://scriptures.lds.org/en/3_ne/11/29#29 3 Nephi 11:29])

==== The purpose of life ====
*"Adam fell that men might be, and men are, that they might have joy" ([http://scriptures.lds.org/en/2_ne/2/25#25 2 Nephi 2:25])
*The fall of Adam and Eve was part of God's plan – had he not fallen, they would have remained in the garden forever, knowing no joy or misery, doing no good nor evil, having no children. ([http://scriptures.lds.org/en/2_ne/2/22–25#22 2 Nephi 2:22–25])
*"For it must needs be that there is an opposition in all things" ([http://scriptures.lds.org/en/2_ne/2/11#11 2 Nephi 2:11])
*In mortality, men are given all choices, and "they are free to choose liberty and eternal life through the great Mediator of all men, or to choose captivity and death, according to the captivity and power of the devil." ([http://scriptures.lds.org/en/2_ne/2/27#27 2 Nephi 2:27], [http://scriptures.lds.org/en/hel/14/30-31#30 Helaman:14:30-31])
*This life is a probationary state, a time to prepare to meet God. ([http://scriptures.lds.org/en/alma/42/1-10,13#4 Alma 42:1-10,13], [http://scriptures.lds.org/en/alma/12/20-24#24 Alma 12:24 (20-24)], [http://scriptures.lds.org/en/alma/34/32#32 Alma 34:32])
*Do not procrastinate the day of your repentance ([http://scriptures.lds.org/en/alma/34/32-34#32 Alma 34:32-34], [http://scriptures.lds.org/en/hel/13/38#38 Helaman 13:38])
*True wisdom, foolishness defined ([http://scriptures.lds.org/en/2_ne/9/28–29,42#28 2 Nephi 9:28–29,42])
*The blessings of obedience to God's commandments ([http://scriptures.lds.org/en/mosiah/2/41#41 Mosiah 2:41])
*The natural man is an enemy to God. What we must do to become saints ([http://scriptures.lds.org/en/mosiah/3/19#19 Mosiah 3:19])
*The answer to the age-old question: 'Why does God allow bad things to happen to good people?': The Lord tries the patience and faith of his people ([http://scriptures.lds.org/en/mosiah/23/21#21 Mosiah 23:21])
*"O, remember my son, and learn wisdom in thy youth; yea, learn in they youth to keep the commandments of God." ([http://scriptures.lds.org/en/alma/37/35#35 Alma 37:35])
*Because men's hearts are false, unsteady and quickly lifted up in pride, God must chasten them with many afflictions, lest they completely forget Him. ([http://scriptures.lds.org/en/hel/12/1-6#1 Helaman 12:1-6])
*We have a fullness of joy when we labor to bring souls unto Christ ([http://scriptures.lds.org/en/3_ne/28/9-10#9 3 Nephi 28:9-10])

==== Faith, Repentance, Baptism, the gift of the Holy Ghost and Enduring to the End ====
*No unclean thing can enter into the kingdom of heaven ([http://scriptures.lds.org/en/1_ne/10/21#21 1 Nephi 10:21],[http://scriptures.lds.org/en/1_ne/15/34#34 1 Nephi 15:34], [http://scriptures.lds.org/en/1_ne/15/34#34 Alma 7:21], [http://scriptures.lds.org/en/alma/40/26#26 Alma 40:26], [http://scriptures.lds.org/en/alma/45/16#16 Alma 45:16])
*The still, small voice of the Spirit is felt ([http://scriptures.lds.org/en/1_ne/17/45#45 1 Nephi 17:45])
*At the resurrection, those who do not repent shall have a perfect knowledge of all our guilt, uncleanness and nakedness, while the righteous shall have a perfect knowledge of their enjoyment and their righteousness, being clothed in purity. ([http://scriptures.lds.org/en/2_ne/9/14#14 2 Nephi 9:14])
*"We are saved by grace, after all we can do." ([http://scriptures.lds.org/en/2_ne/25/23#23 2 Nephi 25:23])
*It isn't enough to have faith once, repent once, and be baptized. We must press forward, feasting upon the word of Christ, and endure to the end. ([http://scriptures.lds.org/en/2_ne/31/19-20#19 2 Nephi 31:19-20])
*Baptism existed before John the Baptist ([http://scriptures.lds.org/en/2_ne/31/4-6,8,11-12#4 2 Nephi 31:4–6,8,11–12] [http://scriptures.lds.org/en/mosiah/18/10,13,15-17#10 Mosiah 18:10,13,15–17])
*The fruits of pride ([http://scriptures.lds.org/en/3_ne/6/10–16#10 3 Nephi 6:10–16])
*The only source of inequality of men is due to sin and transgression ([http://scriptures.lds.org/en/alma/28/13#13 Alma 28:13])
*How to retain a remission of your sins ([http://scriptures.lds.org/en/mosiah/4:11-26#11 Mosiah 4:11-26])
*How to endure to the end ([http://scriptures.lds.org/en/mosiah/4/29-30#29 Mosiah 4:29-30])
*To gain salvation, men must repent, keep the commandments, be born again, cleanse their garments through the blood of Christ, be humble and strip themselves of all pride and envy, and do the works of righteousness ([http://scriptures.lds.org/en/alma/5/14-35#14 Alma 5:14-35])
*Our sins hold us back and bind us down to destruction ([http://scriptures.lds.org/en/alma/7/14-16#14 Alma 7:14-16])
*How to nourish and grow our faith in Jesus Christ ([http://scriptures.lds.org/en/alma/32/6-43#6 Alma 32:6-43])
*We are to have "faith unto repentance" ([http://scriptures.lds.org/en/alma/34/15-17#15 Alma 34:15-17])
*The gospel is defined ([http://scriptures.lds.org/en/3_ne/27/13-21#13 3 Nephi 27:13-21], (also referred to as "the doctrine of Christ") [http://scriptures.lds.org/en/3_ne/11/31-41#31 3 Nephi 11:31-41], [http://scriptures.lds.org/en/2_ne/31/10-21#10 2 Nephi 31:10-21])
*We receive no witness until after the trial of our faith ([http://scriptures.lds.org/en/ether/12/6#6 Ether 12:6])
*"If men come unto me I will show unto them their weakness. I give unto men weakness that they may be humble; and my grace is sufficient for all men that humble themselves before me; for if they humble themselves before me, and have faith in me, then will I make weak things become strong unto them." ([http://scriptures.lds.org/en/ether/12/27#27 Ether 12:27])
*You cannot have faith and hope without being meek and lowly of heart ([http://scriptures.lds.org/en/moro/7/43-44#43 Moroni 7:43-44])
*"And the first fruits of repentance is baptism; and baptism cometh by faith unto the fulfilling the commandments; and the fulfilling the commandments bringeth remission of sins." ([http://scriptures.lds.org/en/moro/8/25#25 Moroni 8:25])
*The remission of sins brings meekness and lowliness of heart, which in turn bring the visitation of the Holy Ghost ([http://scriptures.lds.org/en/moro/8/26#26 Moroni 8:26])

==== Qualifications for baptism ====
*We must be willing to follow the Savior with full purpose of heart and with real intent. ([http://scriptures.lds.org/en/2_ne/31/3#3 2 Nephi 31:3], [http://scriptures.lds.org/en/2_ne/31/10-13#10 2 Nephi 31:10-13])
*We must repent of our sins, thereby witnessing unto the Father that we are willing to take upon us the name of Christ. ([http://scriptures.lds.org/en/2_ne/31/3#3 2 Nephi 31:3], [http://scriptures.lds.org/en/moro/6/2–3#2 Moroni 6:2–3])
*We must be willing to come into the fold of God, and to be called His people (([http://scriptures.lds.org/en/mosiah/18/8#8 Mosiah 18:8])
*We must be willing to bear one another's burdens, willing to mourn with those that mourn, comfort those that stand in need of comfort. ([http://scriptures.lds.org/en/mosiah/18/9#9 Mosiah 18:9])
*We must be willing to stand as witnesses of God at all times and in all places, even until death. ([http://scriptures.lds.org/en/mosiah/18/10#10 Mosiah 18:10])
*We must be willing to serve God, keep His commandments, and desire to have His Spirit poured out more abundantly upon us. ([http://scriptures.lds.org/en/mosiah/18/10#10 Mosiah 18:10], [http://scriptures.lds.org/en/mosiah/21/35#35 Mosiah 21:35])
*Notwithstanding the Savior being holy, he was baptized to witness to the Father that he was willing to keep his commandments. ([http://scriptures.lds.org/en/2_ne/31/7#7 2 Nephi 31:7])
*We must repent, be baptized and become as a little child or we can in nowise inherit the kingdom of God. ([http://scriptures.lds.org/en/3_ne/11/37-38#37 3 Nephi 11:37–38])
*We must have a broken heart and a contrite spirit. ([http://scriptures.lds.org/en/moro/6/2–3#2 Moroni 6:2-3])
*Baptism not for infants ([http://scriptures.lds.org/en/moro/8/4-23#4 Moroni 8:4-23])
*Baptism and repentance are for those that are accountable and capable of committing sin ([http://scriptures.lds.org/en/moro/8/10#10 Moroni 8:10])

==== Prayer ====
*Preparation precedes revelation ([http://scriptures.lds.org/en/1_ne/16/23-29#23 1 Nephi 16:23,24,28,29])
*We are not to perform anything without first praying, that God will consecrate the performance for the welfare of our souls. ([http://scriptures.lds.org/en/2_ne/32/9#9 2 Nephi 32:9])
*How to understand the things of God ([http://scriptures.lds.org/en/1_ne/15/2-4#2 1 Nephi 15:2–4])
*Trust not in the arm of flesh ([http://scriptures.lds.org/en/2_ne/4/34#34 2 Nephi 4:34],[http://scriptures.lds.org/en/2_ne/28/31#31 2 Nephi 28:31])
*"Seek not to counsel the Lord, but to take counsel from his hand." ([http://scriptures.lds.org/en/jacob/4/10#10 Jacob 4:10])
*The answer to the question 'Does it do any good to pray for others?' ([http://scriptures.lds.org/en/mosiah/27/14#14 Mosiah 27:14])
*Where, When and What we are to pray for ([http://scriptures.lds.org/en/alma/34/17-27#17 Alma 34:17-27])
*If we do not care for the poor and the needy, the Lord will not answer our prayers ([http://scriptures.lds.org/en/alma/34/28-29#28 Alma 34:28-29])
*We are to live in thanksgiving daily ([http://scriptures.lds.org/en/alma/34/38#38 Alma 34:38])
*The Savior's sermon on prayer in the Americas: we are to hold up His light by following His example of praying always ([http://scriptures.lds.org/en/3_ne/18/15-25#15 3 Nephi 18:15-25]) (see also 3 Nephi 11 - 18 for examples of the Savior praying among the Nephites)
*If a man offers a gift, or prays grudgingly to the Lord, it is the same as if he gave nothing - except he shall do it with real intent, it profits him nothing ([http://scriptures.lds.org/en/moro/7/6-8#6 Moroni 7:6-8])
*Charity is the pure love of Christ. ([http://scriptures.lds.org/en/moro/7/47#47 Moroni 7:47]) We are to pray with all the energy of our hearts to be filled with this love ([http://scriptures.lds.org/en/moro/7/48#48 Moroni 7:48], [http://scriptures.lds.org/en/moro/8/26#26 Moroni 8:26])
*We are to pray with real intent, having faith in Christ ([http://scriptures.lds.org/en/moro/10/3-5#3 Moroni 10:3-5]) (see also [http://scriptures.lds.org/en/james/1/5-6#5 James 1:5-6])
*We are to ponder before asking God the truth of any thing (such as the Book of Mormon), then pray with real intent (i.e. be willing to do what the Lord tells you). A testimony of the truth then comes by the power of the Holy Ghost ([http://scriptures.lds.org/en/moro/10/3-5#3 Moroni 10:3-5])

==== The power of the Scriptures ====
*To profit and learn from the scriptures, we are to 'liken' them unto ourselves ([http://scriptures.lds.org/en/1_ne/19/23#23 1 Nephi 19:23])
*Why we need the Book of Mormon in addition to the Bible ([http://scriptures.lds.org/en/2_ne/29/1-14#1 2 Nephi 29:1-14], [http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bm/ttlpg#2 Title Page (see end of last paragraph)])
*The scriptures "enlarge the memory" of the people ([http://scriptures.lds.org/en/alma/37/8#8 Alma 37:8])
*"Yea, we see that whosoever will may lay hold upon the word of God, which is quick and powerful, which shall divide asunder all the cunning and the snares and the wiles of the devil, and lead the man of Christ in a strait and narrow course across that everlasting gulf of misery which is prepared to engulf the wicked— And land their souls, yea, their immortal souls, at the right hand of God in the kingdom of heaven, to sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and with Jacob, and with all our holy fathers, to go no more out." ([http://scriptures.lds.org/en/hel/3/29-30#29 Helaman 3:29-30])

==== For our day ====
*The answer to the age-old question 'How can God be a god of love, yet have commanded the Israelites to destroy the Canaanites?' ([http://scriptures.lds.org/en/1_ne/17/32-45#32 1 Nephi 17:32–45])
*When nations ripen in iniquity, the Lord destroys them. ([http://scriptures.lds.org/en/1_ne/17/37-38#37 1 Nephi 17:37-38], [http://scriptures.lds.org/en/2_ne/1/7#7 2 Nephi 1:7], [http://scriptures.lds.org/en/alma/45/16#16 Alma 45:16], [http://scriptures.lds.org/en/ether/2/8-12#8 Ether 2:8-12])
**Before destroying them, he sends prophets to warn them ([http://scriptures.lds.org/en/2_ne/25/9#9 2 Nephi 25:9])
**People are ripe for destruction when they cast out the righteous from among them ([http://scriptures.lds.org/en/hel/13/12-14#12 Helaman 13:12-14]) (see also [http://scriptures.lds.org/en/gen/18/23-33#23 Genesis 18:23-33])
*Priestcraft defined and condemned ([http://scriptures.lds.org/en/2_ne/26/29-31#29 2 Nephi 26:29-31])
*God is a God of miracles, the same yesterday, today, and forever, but works among the children of men according to their faith ([http://scriptures.lds.org/en/2_ne/27/23#23 2 Nephi 27:23], [http://scriptures.lds.org/en/ether/12/7-22#12 Ether 12:12 (7-22)], [http://scriptures.lds.org/en/morm/9/7-11,15-21#7 Mormon 9:7-11,15-21], [http://scriptures.lds.org/en/moro/7/27,35-38#27 Moroni 7:27,37 (35-38)])
*Under what circumstances we are justified in going to war ([http://scriptures.lds.org/en/alma/43/45-47#45 Alma 43:45-47], [http://scriptures.lds.org/en/alma/48/14-16#14 Alma 48:14-16],[http://scriptures.lds.org/en/alma/43/29-30#29 Alma 43:29-30])
*The coming forth of the Book of Mormon is a sign that the Lord has commenced to gather Israsel and fulfill his covenants ([http://scriptures.lds.org/en/3_ne/29/1-9#1 3 Nephi 29:1-9])
*"Touch not the evil gift, nor the unclean thing" ([http://scriptures.lds.org/en/moro/10/30#30 Moroni 10:30])

==== Other plain and precious things ====
*"By small and simple things are great things brought to pass, and by very small means the Lord doth confound the wise and bringeth about the salvation of many souls" ([http://scriptures.lds.org/en/alma/37/6#6 Alma 37:6], [http://scriptures.lds.org/en/1_ne/16/9#9 1 Nephi 16:9])
*The Lord will not give a commandment without preparing a way for us to obey it. ([http://scriptures.lds.org/en/1_ne/3/7#7 1 Nephi 3:7], [http://scriptures.lds.org/en/1_ne/17/3#3 1 Nephi 17:3])
*The guilty take the truth to be hard ([http://scriptures.lds.org/en/1_ne/16/2#2 1 Nephi 16:2])
*Joseph of Egypt's vision of what would befall his posterity to the last days ([http://scriptures.lds.org/en/2_ne/3/5-16#5 2 Nephi 3:5–16])
*The best sermon on gratitude and humility ever given ([http://scriptures.lds.org/en/mosiah/2/19-25#19 Mosiah 2:19-25])

*The difference between physical death and spiritual death ([http://scriptures.lds.org/en/alma/12/16#16 Alma 12:16])
*How to teach with power and authority ([http://scriptures.lds.org/en/alma/17/1-3#1 Alma 17:1-3])
*The preaching of the word of God has a more powerful effect to lead people to do that which is just than anything else, even more powerful than the sword. ([http://scriptures.lds.org/en/alma/31/5#5 Alma 31:5])
*When we are slothful and forget to exercise faith and diligence, then the Lord's marvelous works cease in our life, and we do not progress in our journey ([http://scriptures.lds.org/en/alma/37/38-46#38 Alma 37:38-46])

*"Bridle all your passions, that ye may be filled with love" ([http://scriptures.lds.org/en/alma/38/12#12 Alma 38:12])
*The Spirit of Christ is given to every man to know good from evil ([http://scriptures.lds.org/en/moro/7/16-17#16 Moroni 7:16-17])
*Everything which invites men to do good, and to believe in Christ is sent from God. Everything which persuades men to do evil, believe not in Christ, and deny Christ is of the devil ([http://scriptures.lds.org/en/moro/7/16-17#16 Moroni 7:16-17])
*The role and ministry of angels ([http://scriptures.lds.org/en/moro/7/25,29-32#25 Moroni 7:25,29-32])
*By the power of the Holy Ghost, men may know the truth of all things ([http://scriptures.lds.org/en/moro/10/5#5 Moroni 10:5])

=== Conclusion ===
It would have been truly amazing if Joseph Smith had come up with any one of these doctrines on his own. Taken together, they are convincing evidence that the Book of Mormon is scripture, and that it indeed contains "many plain and precious things" that were removed from the Bible, or not taught clearly enough by Biblical authors to prevent confusion and disagreement among sincere Christians. As George Q. Cannon once said “no wicked man ''could'' write such a book as this; and no good man ''would'' write it, unless it were true and he were commanded of God to do so.” That Joseph or anyone else had made up the Book of Mormon from 'whole cloth' would be infinitely more miraculous than the divine account of its origin, as given by Joseph Smith.

==Further Reading==

===FAIR Wiki articles===
* [[Book_of_Mormon_basics|Book of Mormon basics]]
* [[Online_textual_sources_and_materials#Scripture_study | FAIRWiki scripture study links]]
{{BoMWiki}}
===FAIR Web site===
{{BoMFAIR}}
===External links===
* [http://scriptures.lds.org/bm/contents Book of Mormon] - on-line searchable Book of Mormon
* [http://www.mormon.org/learn/0,8672,1090-1,00.html# Audio format]: MP3 download or streaming of the Book of Mormon
*{{Ensign|author=Kent P. Jackson|article=''I Have A Question'': Why is the witness of Christ and His mission much clearer in the Book of Mormon than in the Old Testament?|date=August 1999|start=66|end=67}}((link|url=http://beta.lds.org/portal/site/LDSOrg/menuitem.b12f9d18fae655bb69095bd3e44916a0/?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=cbd584d4a0a0c010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1}}
* {{Ensign1|author=Gilbert W. Scharffs|article=Unique Insights on Christ from the Book of Mormon|date=December 1988|start=8}}{{link|url=http://beta.lds.org/portal/site/LDSOrg/menuitem.b12f9d18fae655bb69095bd3e44916a0/?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=112a27cd3f37b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1}}
{{BoMLinks}}

===Printed material===
* Robert J. Matthews, “What the Book of Mormon Tells Us about Jesus Christ,” Paul Cheesman, ed., ''The Book of Mormon: The Keystone Scripture'' (Provo, Utah: BYU Religious Studies Center, 1988), 21–43.
{{BoMPrint}}

[[de:Klare_und_kostbare_Lehren_im_Buch_Mormon]]

Book of Mormon/Wordprint studies

2008-07-06T04:24:43Z

Pwellauer:

{{question}}
==Question==
What are wordprints? What do they have to do with the Book of Mormon?

==Answer==

===What is a wordprint?===
Wordprinting, or "stylometry" as it is more commonly known, is the science of measuring literary style. The main assumption underlying stylometry is that an author has aspects of literary style that may be unconsciously used, and can be used to identify their work. Stylometrists analyze literature using statistics, math formulas and artificial intelligence to determine the "style" of an author's writing.

Because authors may write on a variety of topics, the vocabulary they use may vary considerably. Researchers often attempt to use "non-contextual words" in their analyses to avoid this problem: patterns in the use of these words (e.g. such as: ''and'', ''if'', ''the'', etc.) will be less influenced by a change in subject matter.

Debate about the value of wordprints persists, though it has been used in some academic settings to identify previously-unknown authors. Readers are cautioned that the results of wordprint analysis of the Book of Mormon are only as reliable as they would be for other written works, and that "the jury is still out" as to whether wordprints can actually do what their advocates hope. The statistical analyses are not generally disputed; the points of contention revolve around the assumptions which undergird the statistics.{{ref|tvedtnes1}}

===Initial efforts===

The initial Book of Mormon wordprint studies by were carried out by Larsen, Rencher, and Layton.{{ref|larsen1}} They compared twenty-four Book of Mormon authors (each having at least 1,000 words) to each other, and concluded on the basis of three separate statistical tests that these authors were distinct from each other and Oliver Cowdery, Joseph Smith, Jr., and Solomon Spaulding.

These efforts were critiqued in Ernest H. Taves, ''Trouble Enough: Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon'' (Buffalo, N.Y.: Prometheus Books, 1984), 225–60. John Hilton characterized Taves' review as "fundamentally flawed," and noted that his effort "therefore did nothing to add to or detract from their work." {{ref|hilton1}}

An LDS author considered some of Larsen, Rencher, and Layton's work in {{Sunstone|author=D. James Croft|article=Book of Mormon 'Wordprints' Reexamined|num=6|date=March-April 1981|start=15|end=21}} Croft pointed out some flaws in their assumptions, and was cautious about whether wordprint evidence should be accepted or rejected as it then stood.

===John Hilton and the Berkeley Group===
====Methods====
A more sophisticated approach was taken by John Hilton and non-LDS colleagues at Berkeley.{{ref|echoes1}} The "Berkeley Group's" method relied on non-contextual word ''patterns'', rather than just individual words. This more conservative method was designed from the ground up, and required works of at least 5,000 words.

The Berkeley Group first used a variety of control tests with non-disputed authors (e.g. works by Mark Twain, and translated works from German) in an effort to:

* demonstrate the persistence of wordprints despite an author's effort to write as a different 'character'
* demonstrate that wordprints were not obliterated by translation (e.g. two different authors rendered by the same translator would still have different wordprints).

The Berkeley Group's methods have since passed peer review, and were used to identify previously unknown writings written by Thomas Hobbes.{{ref|chicago1}}

The Berkeley Group compared Book of Mormon texts written by Nephi and Alma with themselves, with each other, and with work by Joseph, Oliver, and Solomon Spaulding. Each comparison is assessed based upon the number of "rejections" provided by the model. The greater the number of rejections, the greater the chance that the two texts were ''not'' written by the same author. Tests with non-disputed texts showed that two texts by the same author never scored more than 6 rejections; thus, one cannot be certain if scores between 1–6 were written by the same or different authors. Scores of 0 rejections makes it statistically likely the two texts were written by the same author.

However, seven or more rejections indicates that the texts were written by a different author with a high degree of probability:{{ref|hilton3}}

{| border="1"
|'''# of Rejections'''||'''Certainty of being different authors'''
|-
|7||99.5%
|-
|8||99.9%
|-
|9||99.99%
|-
|10||99.997%
|}

====Results====

The results are striking:{{ref|hilton4}}

''Recall that any test '''over 6''' indicates different authorship; 1–6 or less is indeterminate; 0 is same author. Each '''x''' represents one test.''
{|border="1"
|Compare||Total Number of Tests Performed||0||1||2||3||4||5||6||'''7'''||'''8'''||'''9'''||'''10'''||'''11'''||'''12'''||'''13'''||'''14'''||'''15'''
|-
|Nephi vs. Nephi||3||----||----||x||----||x||x||----||----||----||----||----||----||----||----||----||----
|-
|Alma vs. Alma||3||----||x||x||x||----||----||----||----||----||----||----||----||----||----||----||----
|-
|Smith vs. Smith||3||x||----||xx||----||----||----||----||----||----||----||----||----||----||----||----||----
|-
|Cowdery vs. Cowdery||1||----||x||----||----||----||----||----||----||----||----||----||----||----||----||----||----
|-
|Spaulding vs. Spaulding||1||----||----||x||----||----||----||----||----||----||----||----||----||----||----||----||----
|-
|Nephi vs. Alma||9||----||----||x||----||----||xx||xx||x||x||x||x||----||----||----||----||----
|-
|Smith vs. Nephi||6||----||----||----||----||x||----||----||----||xx||----||x||x||x||----||----||----
|-
|Smith vs. Alma||6||----||----||----||xx||x||x||----||xx||----||----||----||----||----||----||----||----
|-
|Cowdery vs. Nephi||6||----||----||----||----||----||----||x||x||----||----||----||xx||----||x||x||----
|-
|Cowdery vs. Alma||6||----||----||----||----||----||----||----||xxxx||x||x||----||----||----||----||----||----
|-
|Spaulding vs. Nephi||6||----||----||----||----||----||----||----||----||----||----||x||x||x||----||x||xx
|-
|Spaulding vs. Alma||6||----||----||----||----||----||----||xxx||----||xx||----||----||----||x||----||----||----|-
|}

Furthermore, each "rejection" is statistically independent—this means that the chance of two different authors being the product the same person can be determined by ''multiplying'' the chance of each individual failure.{{ref|hilton4}}

Thus the chance of Nephi and Alma being the same author is found by:

:chance of 7 rejections x 8 rejections x 9 rejections x 10 rejections
:= 0.005 x 0.001 x 0.0001 x 0.00003
:= '''0.000000000000015'''
:=1.5 x 10-14
This is a roughly 1 in 15 ''trillion'' chance of Nephi and Alma having the same author. Hilton rightly terms this "statistical overkill".

{|border="1"
|'''Authors'''||'''Cumulative chance of being the same author'''
|-
|Nephi and Alma || 1.5 x 10-14
|-
|Joseph Smith and Alma || 2.5 x 10-5
|-
|Joseph Smith and Nephi || less than 2.7 x 10-20
|-
|Olivery Cowdery and Alma ||6.25 x 10-17
|-
|Olivery Cowdery and Nephi ||less than 8.1 x 10-19
|-
|Spaulding and Alma || less than 3 x 10-11
|-
|Spaulding and Nephi || less than 7.29 x 10-28
|}

===Conclusion===

As John Hilton put the matter, if wordprinting is a valid technique, then this analysis suggests that it is "statistically indefensible" to claim that Joseph, Oliver, or Solomon Spaulding wrote the 30,000 words in the Book of Mormon attributed to Nephi and Alma.{{ref|hilton2}} The Book of Mormon also contains work written by more than one author. Critics who wish to reject Joseph's account of the Book of Mormon's production must therefore identify multiple authors for the text, and then explain how Joseph acquired it and managed to pass it off as his own.

==Endnotes==
#{{note|tvedtnes1}}See, for example, the discussion in {{FR-9-2-4}}
#{{note|larsen1}}{{BYUS|author=Wayne A. Larsen, Alvin C. Rencher, and Tim Layton|article=Who Wrote the Book of Mormon? An Analysis of Wordprints|vol=20|num=3|date=Spring 1980|start=225|end=51}}{{link|url=http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/cgi-bin/docviewer.exe?CISOROOT=/byustudies&CISOPTR=25592&CISOSHOW=23550}}
#{{note|hilton1}} {{revisited1|author=John L. hilton|article=On Verifying Wordprint Studies: Book of Mormon Authorship|start=Chapter 9}} {{GL1|url=http://gospelink.com/library/doc?book_doc_id=264966}} ''(This is a modified version of the BYU Studies paper in the Further Reading section.)''
#{{note|echoes1}}{{Echoes|author=Noel B. Reynolds|article=Old Wine In Old Bottles|start=132|end=135}}
#{{note|chicago1}} Thomas Hobbes, edited by Noel B. Reynolds and Arlene W. Saxonhouse, ''Three Discourses: A Critical Modern Edition of Newly Identified Works of the Young Hobbes'' (Urbana and Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago Press, 1995).
#{{note|hilton3}} {{BYUS1|author=John L. Hilton|article=On Verifying Wordprint Studies: Book of Mormon Authorship|vol=30|num=3|date=1990|start=99}} {{link|url=http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/cgi-bin/docviewer.exe?CISOROOT=/byustudies&CISOPTR=21980&CISOSHOW=9793}} {{pdflink|url=http://davies-linguistics.byu.edu/courses/chum385/for_class/30.3Hilton.pdf}}
#{{note|hilton2}} Hilton, ''BYU Studies'', "On Verifying Word Print Studies," 101.
#{{note|hilton4}} Hilton, ''BYU Studies'', "On Verifying Word Print Studies," endnote #21.

==Further reading==
===FAIR wiki articles===
{{BofM authorship theories}}

===FAIR web site===
{{BoMAuthorshipFAIR}}
* The Grace of Apologetics {{fairlink|url=http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/conf/2003KelR.html}}
* Wordprint evidence and 'Deutero-Isaiah' {{fairlink|url=http://www.fairlds.org/apol/bom/bom02.html}}

===External links===
*{{BYUS|author=John L. Hilton|article=On Verifying Wordprint Studies: Book of Mormon Authorship|vol=30|num=3|date=1990|start=89|end=108}} {{link|url=http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/cgi-bin/docviewer.exe?CISOROOT=/byustudies&CISOPTR=21980&CISOSHOW=9793}} {{pdflink|url=http://davies-linguistics.byu.edu/courses/chum385/for_class/30.3Hilton.pdf}}; reprinted in {{revisited1|author=John L. hilton|article=On Verifying Wordprint Studies: Book of Mormon Authorship|start=Chapter 9}} {{GL1|url=http://gospelink.com/library/doc?book_doc_id=264966}}
*{{JBMS-6-1-5}}
*{{FR-9-2-4}}
{{BoMAuthorshipLinks}}

===Printed material===
*Tim Hiatt and John Hilton, "Can Authors Alter their Wordprints? Faulkner's Narrators in As I Lay Dying," ''Selected Papers from the Proceedings of the Sixteenth Annual Symposium'', edited by Melvin Luthy (Provo, Utah: Deseret Language and Linguistic Society, 1990).
*John L. Hilton, "Review of Ernest Taves' Book of Mormon Stylometry," (Provo, Utah: FARMS, 1986).
*John L. Hilton and Kenneth D. Jenkins, "On Maximizing Author Identification by Measuring 5000 Word Texts" (Provo, Utah: FARMS, 1987).
*Frederick W. Mosteller and David L. Wallace, ''Inference and Disputed Authorship: The Federalist Papers'' (Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1964); second edition published as Frederick Mosteller and David L, Wallace, ''Applied Bayesian and Classical Inference: The Case of the Federalist Papers'' (New York: Springer-Verlag, 1984).
*{{Echoes|author=Noel B. Reynolds|article=Old Wine In Old Bottles|start=132|end=135}}
{{BoMAuthorshipPrint}}

[[de:uch_Mormon_Autorschaft:_Wortmusterstudien]]

View of the Hebrews theory of Book of Mormon authorship

2008-07-06T04:22:34Z

Pwellauer:

==Criticism==
Critics claim that a 19th century work by Ethan Smith, ''View of the Hebrews'', provided source material for Joseph Smith's construction of the Book of Mormon. Critics also postulate a link between Ethan Smith and Oliver Cowdery, since both men lived in Poultney, Vermont while Smith served as the pastor of the church that Oliver Cowdery's family attended at the time that ''View of the Hebrews'' was being written.

===Source(s) of the Criticism===
*John Ankerberg and John Weldon, ''Everything You Ever Wanted to Know about Mormonism'' (Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 1992), 279–80, 301–2.
*Peter Bartley, ''Mormonism: The Prophet, the Book, and the Cult'' (Dublin: Veritas, 1989), 28–9.
*{{AntiBook:Brodie:No Man Knows|pages=46–47}}
*Maurice C. Burrell, ''Wide of the Truth: A Critical Assessment of the History, Doctrines and Practices of the Mormon Religion'' (London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1972).
*Marvin C. Cowan, ''Mormon Claims Answered'' (Salt Lake City: By the Author, 1975).
*Charles A. Crane & Steven A. Crane, ''Ashamed of Joseph : Mormon Foundations Crumble'' (Joplin, Mo. : College Press Pub. Co., 1993), 123–5.
*Ed Decker and Dave Hunt, ''The Godmakers'' (Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 1984).
*Ronald Enroth, ''A Guide to Cults and New Religions'' (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity , 1983).
*Gordon H. Fraser, ''Is Mormonism Christian?'' (Chicago: Moody Press, 1957).
*Ralph L. Foster, ''The Book of Mormon on Trial'' (Salt Lake City: n.p., 1963).
*G. T. Harrison, ''Mormons Are Peculiar People'' (New York: Vantage, 1954).
*Mervin B. Hogan, " "A Parallel': A Matter of Chance vs. Coincidence," ''Rocky Mountain Mason'' (January 1956): 17–31.
*Harold H. Hougey, ''"A Parallel"?The Basis of the Book of Mormon'' (Concord, CA: Pacific, 1963).
*Robert N. Hullinger, "The Lost Tribes of Israel and the Book of Mormon," ''Lutheran Quarterly'' 22:3 (August 1970): 319–29.
*Larry Jonas, ''Mormon Claims Examined'' (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 1961).
*Wesley M. Jones, ''A Critical Study of Book of Mormon Sources'' (Detroit: Harlo Press, 1964).
*Thomas O'Dea, ''The Mormons'' (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1957).
*Brigham D. Madsen, ed., ''B. H. Roberts: Studies of the Book of Mormon'' (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1985).
*{{AntiBook:Palmer:Insider|pages=58–64}}
*David Persuitte, ''Joseph Smith and the Origins of the Book of Mormon'' (Jefferson, NC: McFarland, 1985).
*John A. Price, "The Book of Mormon vs. Anthropological Prehistory," ''The Indian Historian'' 7:3 (Summer 1974): 35–40.
*Leslie Rumble, "The Book of Mormon," ''The Homiletic and Pastoral Review'' 60:4 (January 1960): 338–45.
*James M. Sire, ''Scripture Twisting: 20 Ways the Cults Misread the Bible'' (Downers Grove: Intervarsity, 1980).
*George D. Smith, "Defending the Keystone: Book of Mormon Difficulties," ''Sunstone'' 6:3 (May–June 1981): 45–50.
*{{Dialogue|author=George D. Smith|article='Is There Any Way to Escape These Difficulties?' The Book of Mormon Studies of B. H. Roberts|vol=17|num=2|date=Summer 1984|start=94|end=111}}
*George D. Smith, "Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon," ''Free Inquiry'' 4:1 (Winter 1983): 21–31.
*{{AntiBook:Southerton:Losing|pages=153}}
*Jerald and Sandra Tanner, ''Mormonism—Shadow or Reality'' (Salt Lake City: Modern Microfilm, 1987[1964]).
*{{AntiBook:Tanner:Changing World|pages=126–8}}
*Dan Vogel, ''Indian Origins and the Book of Mormon'' (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1986).
*I. Wiley Woodbridge, ''The Founder of Mormonism'' (New York, 1902), 124–126.

==Response==
===''View of the Hebrews'' during the lifetime of Joseph Smith===
The theory the Joseph Smith plagiarized ''View of the Hebrews'' was never advanced during his lifetime. The prevailing theory of the day was the [[Book of Mormon and Spaulding manuscript|Spalding Theory]], which quickly lost credibility upon the discovery of an actual Spalding manuscript in 1884 which bore no resemblance to the Book of Mormon. There are no records which indicate that Joseph Smith came into contact with the ''View of the Hebrews'' during the period of time that he was translating the Book of Mormon. The ''View of the Hebrews'' theory was in fact first proposed by I. Woodbridge Riley in 1902, 42 years after the death of the prophet.{{ref|woodbridge1}}

There was, however, a reference to ''View of the Hebrews'' within Joseph Smith's lifetime, but it came from the prophet himself. In an article published in the ''Times and Seasons'' on June 1, 1842, Joseph quoted ''View of the Hebrews'' in support of the Book of Mormon:

:If such may have been the fact, that a part of the Ten Tribes came over to America, in the way we have supposed, leaving the cold regions of Assareth behind them in quest of a milder climate, it would be natural to look for tokens of the presence of Jews of some sort, along countries adjacent to the Atlantic. In order to this, we shall here make an extract from an able work: written exclusively on the subject of the Ten Tribes having come from Asia by the way of Bherings Strait, by the Rev. Ethan Smith, Pultney, Vt., who relates as follows: "Joseph Merrick, Esq., a highly respectable character in the church at Pittsfield, gave the following account: That in 1815, he was leveling some ground under and near an old wood shed, standing on a place of his, situated on (Indian Hill)... [Joseph then discusses the supposed phylacteries found among Amerindians, citing ''View of the Hebrews'' p. 220, 223.]{{ref|js1}}

===B.H. Roberts examination of the theory===
The ''View of the Hebrews'' theory was examined in detail by B. H. Roberts in 1921 and 1922. Roberts took the position of examining the Book of Mormon from a critical perspective in order to alert the General Authorities to possible future avenues of attack by critics. The resulting manuscripts were titled ''Book of Mormon Difficulties'' and ''A Parallel''. Roberts, who believed in a [[Book of Mormon geography:New World:HGT|hemispheric geography]] for the Book of Mormon, highlighted a number of parallels between ''View of the Hebrews'' and ''The Book of Mormon.'' Roberts stated,

:[C]ould the people of Mulek and of Lehi...part of the time numbering and occupying the land at least from Yucatan to Cumorah...live and move and have their being in the land of America and not come in contact with other races and tribes of men, if such existed in the New World within Book of Mormon times? To make this seem possible the area occupied by the Nephites and Lamanites would have to be extremely limited, much more limited, I fear, than the Book of Mormon would admit our assuming.{{ref|roberts1}}

Roberts concluded that, if one assumed that Joseph Smith wrote the ''Book of Mormon'' himself, that ''View of the Hebrews'' could have provided him with a foundation for creating the book. In fact, many of the issues highlighted by Roberts vanish when a [[Book of Mormon geography:New World:LGT|limited geography theory]] is considered. The acceptance of the ''View of the Hebrews'' theory is therefore contingent upon the acceptance of a hemispheric geography model for the ''Book of Mormon''. In order to promote ''View of the Hebrews'' as a source, critics necessarily reject any limited geography theory proposal for the ''Book of Mormon''.

In 1985, Roberts' manuscripts were published under the title ''Studies of the Book of Mormon''. This book is used by critics to support their claim that [[B.H. Roberts' testimony of the Book of Mormon|B. H. Roberts lost his testimony]] after performing the study. Roberts, however, clearly continued to publicly support the ''Book of Mormon'' until his death, and reaffirmed his testimony both publicly and in print.

===Examples of parallels and differences===
Some parallels do exist between the two books. For example, ''View of the Hebrews'' postulates the existence of a civilized and a barbarous nation who were constantly at war with one another, with the civilized society eventually being destroyed by their uncivilized brethren. This has obvious similarities to the story of the Nephites and the Lamanites in the ''Book of Mormon''.

Many of the "parallels" that are discussed are not actually parallels at all once they are fully examined:
{| valign="top" border="1" style="width:100%; font-size:85%"
!width="50%"|Parallel
!width="50%"|Divergence
|-
|The Book of Mormon speaks of the destruction of Jerusalem...
||...by the Babylonians in 586 B.C.
|-
|View of the Hebrews speaks of the destruction of Jerusalem...
||...by the Romans in 70 A.D.
|-
|The Book of Mormon talks about Israelites coming to the American continent...
||...via the ocean on board a ship.
|-
|View of the Hebrews talks about Israelites coming to the American continent...
||...via dry land across the Bering Strait.
|-
|The Book of Mormon claims that the Israelites spread out to fill the entire land...
||...from the South to the North.
|-
|View of the Hebrews claims that the Israelites spread out to fill the entire land...
||...from the North to the South.
|-
|The Book of Mormon talks of a great lawgiver (whom some assume to be associated with the legend of Quetzalcoatl)...
||...who is identified as Jesus Christ.
|-
|View of the Hebrews talks of a great lawgiver (whom some assume to be associated with the legend of Quetzalcoatl)...
||...who is identified as Moses.
|-
|The Book of Mormon tells of an ancient book that was preserved for a long time and then buried...
||...in order to preserve the writings of prophets for future generations.
|-
|View of the Hebrews tells of an ancient book that was preserved for a long time and then buried...
||...because they had lost the knowledge of reading it and it would be of no further use to them. {{ref|voth.223}}
|-
|The Book of Mormon was taken from a buried book taken from the earth...
||...in the form of a set of gold metal plates.
|-
|View of the Hebrews talks of a buried book taken from the earth...
||...in the form of four, dark yellow, folded leaves of old parchment.{{ref|voth.220}}
|-
|The Book of Mormon claims that a reformed Egyptian...
||...was used to record a sacred history.
|-
|View of the Hebrews claims that an Egyptian influence...
||...is present in hieroglyphic paintings made by native Americans.{{ref|voth.184-5}}
|}

Some "parallels" between the ''Book of Mormon'' and ''View of the Hebrews'' are actually parallels with the Bible as well:

{| valign="top" border="1" style="width:100%; font-size:85%"
!width="33%"|The Book of Mormon
!width="33%"|View of the Hebrews
!width="34%"|The King James Bible
|-
|The Book of Mormon tells the story of inspired seers and prophets.
||View of the Hebrews talks of Indian traditions that state that their fathers were able to foretell the future and control nature.
||The Bible tells the story of inspired seers and prophets.
|-
|The Book of Mormon was translated by means of the Urim and Thummim, which consisted of two stones fastened to a breastplate.
||View of the Hebrews describes a breastplate with two white buttons fastened to it as resembling the Urim and Thummim.
||The Bible describes the Urim and Thummim as being fastened to a breastplate. {{scripture||exodus|28|30}}
|}

===Availability of the source document===
The ''View of the Hebrews'' theory became more popular as the availability of the book itself diminished. The best evidence that argues against ''View of the Hebrews'' as the primary source for the Book of Mormon is a reading of the text itself, yet the ability to access that text had become more difficult over the years. In order to provide the interested reader with the ability to decide for themselves, BYU's Religious Studies Center re-published the 1825 edition of ''View of the Hebrews'' in 1996.{{ref|hedges1}}

==Conclusion==
The ''View of the Hebrews'' theory is yet another attempt to fit a secular origin to the Book of Mormon. Many of the criticisms proposed are based upon B. H. Roberts' list of parallels, which only had validity if one applied a hemispheric geography model to the Book of Mormon. There are a significant number of differences between the two books, which are easily discovered upon reading Ethan Smith's work. Many points that Ethan Smith thought were important are not mentioned at all in the Book of Mormon, and many of the "parallels" are no longer valid based upon current scholarship.{{ref|welch1}}

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

==Endnotes==
#{{note|woodbridge1}}I. Woodbridge Riley, ''The Founder of Mormonism'' (New York, 1902), 124–26.
#{{note|js1}}{{TS | author=Joseph Smith, Jr.| vol=3|num=15|article=From Priest's American Antiquities|date=1 June 1842|start=813|end=815 }}
#{{note|roberts1}}Brigham H. Roberts, Brigham D. Madsen, ed., ''Studies of the Book of Mormon'', (Urbana, Illinois: University of Illinois Press, 1985) ISBN 0252010434 .
#{{note|hedges1}}{{FR-9-1-12}}
#{{note|voth.223}}Ethan Smith, ''View of the Hebrews'', 1825. p. 223.
#{{note|voth.220}}Smith, p. 220.
#{{note|voth.184-5}}Smith, pp. 184-5.
#{{note|welch1}}{{Reexploring |author=John W. Welch|article=View of the Hebrews: "An Unparallel"
|start=83 | end=87}}

==Further reading==
*Ethan Smith, ''View of the Hebrews'', 2nd Edition, 1825 [http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/View_of_the_Hebrews] (online)

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

===FAIR web site===
*{{tg|url=http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai277.html|topic=View of the Hebrews}}
{{BoMAuthorshipFAIR}}

===External links===
*{{Ensign|author=Bruce D. Blumell|article=Would you respond to the theories that the Book of Mormon is based on the Spaulding manuscript or on Ethan Smith's ''View of the Hebrews?''|date=September 1976|start=83|end=87}}{{link|url=http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/1976.htm/ensign%20september%201976.htm/i%20have%20a%20question.htm?fn=document-frame.htm$f=templates$3.0#LPTOC2}}
*{{FR-9-1-12}}
*Jeff Lindsay, "Plagiarism in the Book of Mormon: Is It Derived from Modern Writings?, ''jefflindsay.com'' (accessed 5 October 2005).{{link|url=http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_BMProb3.shtml}}
*{{FR-2-1-24}}
*{{FR-4-1-28}}
*{{FR-4-1-27}}
*{{Ensign|author=John W. Welch|article=B. H. Roberts: Seeker After Truth|vol=16|date=March 1986|start=56|end=62}}{{link|url=http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/1986.htm/ensign%20march%201986%20.htm/b.%20h.%20roberts%20seeker%20after%20truth.htm}}
{{BoMAuthorshipLinks}}

===Printed material===
*Ariel Crowley, ''About the Book of Mormon'' (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1961).
*{{NewWitnessForChrist|vol=2|start=391|end=400}}
*Hugh Nibley, "The Comparative Method," in {{Nibley8|start=193|end=206}}
*{{BYUS|author=Spencer J. Palmer and William L. Knecht|article=View of the Hebrews: Substitute for Inspiration?|vol=5|num=2|date=1964|start=105|end=113}} {{link|url=http://byustudies.byu.edu/Products/MoreInfoPage/MoreInfo.aspx?Type=7&ProdID=553}}
*William L. Riley, "A Comparison of Passages from Isaiah and Other Old Testament Prophets of Ethan Smith's View of the Hebrews and the Book of Mormon," master's thesis, Brigham Young University, 1971.
*Sidney B. Sperry, ''Answers to Book of Mormon Questions'' (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1967), 176–79. {{pdflink|url=http://www.shields-research.org/Books/Sperry/ATBOMQ.html}}
*{{VoHBYU1|start=1}}
*Ethan Smith, ''View of the Hebrews : exhibiting the destruction of Jerusalem; the certain restoration of Judah and Israel; the present state of Judah and Israel; and an address of the prophet Isaiah relative to their restoration'' (Poultney, (Vt.) : Printed and published by Smith & Shute, 1823). [1st edition]
*John W. Welch, "An Unparallel: Ethan Smith and the Book of Mormon," (Provo, Utah: FARMS, 1985); republished in {{reexploring|author=John W. Welch|article=An Unparallel: Ethan Smith and the Book of Mormon|start=83|end=86}}{{GL1|url=http://gospelink.com/library/doc?doc_id=296815}}
{{BoMAuthorshipPrint}}

[[de:Buch_Mormon_Autorschaft:_View_of_the_Hebrews]]

Golden Pot theory of Book of Mormon authorship

2008-07-06T04:15:36Z

Pwellauer:

==Criticism==
Former LDS Church Education System (CES) teacher Grant Palmer argues that Joseph Smith developed his story of visits by Moroni and the translation of a sacred book from ''The Golden Pot'', a book by German author E.T.A. Hoffmann.

===Source(s) of the Criticism===
*{{AntiBook:Palmer:Insider|pages=Chapter 5}}

==Response==

Understanding this attack requires that we understand the intellectual history of Palmer's claim. This is not to dismiss Palmer through ''argumentum ad hominem'', but because the ''context'' in which ideas are developed can often explain the origin of those ideas.

Therefore, one must realize that Grant Palmer was a teacher in the Church educational system. More than twenty years prior to publication, while still a Church employee, Palmer began work on the manuscript that was later published as "An Insider's View."

===Palmer's theory based on a known forgery===
In 1985 a [[Mark_Hofmann|Hofmann]] [[Forgeries|forgery]] known as the [[Church_reaction_to_Hofmann_forgeries|Salamander letter]] became public. Louis Midgley has shown how this letter affected Palmer's faith. When Palmer became aware of the book ''The Golden Pot'', he saw parallels between the Salamander letter and the fictional story. As personal doubts were arising Palmer saw a connection between these two fictional stories and a secular explanation for the origins of Book of Mormon.

When the true nature of the Salamander letter as a forgery became known, Palmer had already convinced himself that the Book of Mormon was not a work of God. He therefore was unwilling or unable to reconcile his faith. He took his 20 years worth of letters and began writing a book during this time of which an early draft came into Midgley's possession during 1987. Palmer first used the name Paul Pry, Jr., a pseudonym also used by an early anti-Mormon writer active in the 1800s. Midgley indicated that "[b]y hiding behind the name Paul Pry, Palmer signaled his anti-Mormon agenda in the first draft of his book."{{ref|midgley1}}

After going through a detailed examination of some of the claims of Palmer relating to the similarities between the two, Midgley makes the observation that "Every claim that Palmer makes concerning parallels between Hoffmann's weird tale and the story of the restoration is just as tenuous and problematic—just as forced or contrived—as is his claim that there is translation of an ancient history being described in that tale."{{ref|midgley2}}

James Allen points out that the comparisons between The Golden Pot and Joseph's story are forced, "that is, they are presented in such a way that the context in 'The Golden Pot' is distorted and the comparison with Joseph Smith's story is contrived."{{ref|allen1}}

===A Tortured Tale===
To believe Palmer's version of history one must subscribe to the following scenario (or something very similar) with all its assumptions—

''Der golden Topf'' (''The Golden Pot'') was first published in Europe in German in 1814 and 1819. It was published in French in 1822.{{ref|palmer1}} It was not available in English until 1827 in London and Edinburgh,{{ref|palmer2}} and became available in America that same year. According to Palmer, a man by the name of Luman Walters lived in Paris after the story had been first published and when the story would have been available to him. Palmer suggests, although he offers no real evidence, that Mr. Walters had an unusual interest in the occult and things magical and therefore would surely (despite a lack of evidence) have brought ''Der golden Topf'' with him from Europe. Mr. Walters moved to Sodus, New York,{{ref|palmer3}} about 25 miles from Palmyra, and lived there at least during the period of 1820 to 1823 when he likely knew Joseph Smith.{{ref|palmer4}} Walters and Joseph Smith were part of a group involved in digging for treasure at Miner's Hill, owned by Abner Cole.

According to Palmer, Luman Walters became acquainted with Joseph Smith during this period, and was thought to be the "most likely conduit"{{ref|palmer5}} for ''The Golden Pot'' to be made available to Joseph Smith. Abner Cole and others claimed that it was during this period the "idea of a 'book' [The Book of Mormon?] was doubtless suggested to the Smiths by one Walters, although they make no direct connection with 'The Golden Pot.'"{{ref|palmer6}}

Even as Palmer points to the relationship between Walters and Joseph Smith as a reason to accept ''The Golden Pot'' as the basis for early Mormon history, he fails to mention that Brigham Young noted that Walters "rode over sixty miles three times the same season they [the gold plates] were obtained by Joseph" in an effort to obtain the plates for himself.{{ref|brigham1}} This hardly sounds like a man who had convinced Joseph to concoct the story of the plates based on some fictional story.

Either Walters believed the plates were real or knew they were not because of his part in formulating the plan of deception. His desire to obtain them certainly suggests the former and argues against the latter. Even this does not establish that Joseph and Walters were acquainted; only that Walters knew about Joseph Smith, had heard about the plates, and presumed they were genuine. This, of course, is fatal to Palmer's theory, but he does not account for it.

Joseph Smith reported his First Vision from God the Father and Jesus Christ as happening in 1820. Yet Palmer claims that Joseph received the idea of this divine visit from conversations with Luman Walters sometime during the period 1820-1823. This means that Joseph Smith was chosen by Mr. Walters from a town 25 miles from his own (a significant distance in the 1820s), and was convinced, apparently rather quickly, by virtue of a story Walters related (from the German or the French version as the English version was not available until 1827) to formulate a lifelong plan of deception. Palmer never claims that Joseph ever read ''The Golden Pot'', only that Walters shared the story with him.

Joseph was 15–18 years old during these years, and yet the reader is to believe that Walters convinced him to adapt and concoct a story that would follow in some crude manner the outline of this fictional book. Somehow, Palmer insists, Walters convinced this young man, whom he had known for a relatively short time, to commit to living a lie for the rest of his life. Furthermore, Walters had Joseph backdate his First Vision to an earlier year and then immediately begin the deception that would become the central focus of his entire life. This plan would be followed in spite of the persecution that immediately came into the Prophet's life because of the very nature of the story.

It is not clear what Walters would have gained from encouraging Joseph in such a course, and there is no evidence that Walters turned up later to try to profit from Joseph's position of prominence in Kirtland or Nauvoo.

Not only did the young Joseph need to commit to this path, it also had to be enthusiastically accepted and followed by his trusting family. According to Palmer's strained scenario, Joseph's family must have seen some virtue in doing so, although no evidence is given as to what they hoped to gain. During this period the Smiths were under extreme financial hardship, and they would scarcely had seen any economic advantage to the tale. (Any delusions which the Smiths might have entertained about Joseph's story making them rich and popular would have been quickly dispelled by events.

Walters would have had to persuade Joseph, or the future prophet was able to immediately take the story verbally related to him (as he was unable to read it in German or French), make the personal commitment needed, and then quickly convince his family that it was true and that God had, indeed, visited him a few years ago and that he had just forgot to mention it.

It is no wonder that Palmer's theory has not been embraced by others who share his disbelief in the Restoration, since this reconstruction is at least as incredible as talk of angels and gold plates.

===History of Dissembling===
The evidence indicates that Palmer turned from his faith based on a Mark Hofmann forgery and E.T.A. Hoffman's fairy tale, and then wrote this book to justify his new found disbelief. Despite his lack of faith in the Church's foundational events, Palmer continued to portray himself as a believer, in order to maintain his employment with the Church. However, Palmer did wish to publish his book; he simply waited until he retired with Church pension intact.

Palmer's supporters have argued that there is nothing wrong with Palmer deceiving Church leaders and members about his convictions and beliefs, while being paid with Church funds to teach Church doctrine to its youth in the CES. Palmer's supporters on this point should consider that non-LDS thinkers clearly understand the ethical and moral problem here, even if Palmer doesn't:

:It [the clergy's] duty to to fix the lines (of doctrine) clearly in your minds: and if you wish to go beyond them you must change your profession. This is your duty not specially as Christians or as priests but as honest men. There is a danger here of the clergy developing a special professional conscience which obscures the very plain moral issue. Men who have passed beyond these boundary lines in either direction are apt to protest that they have come by their unorthodox opinions honestly. In defense of those opinions they are prepared to suffer obloquy and to forfeit professional advancement. They thus come to feel like martyrs. But this simply misses the point which so gravely scandalizes the layman. We never doubted that the unorthodox opinions were honestly held: what we complain of is your continuing in your ministry after you have come to hold them. We always knew that a man who makes his living as a paid agent of the Conservative Party may honestly change his views and honestly become a Communist. What we deny is that he can honestly continue to be a Conservative agent and to receive money from one party while he supports the policy of the other.{{ref|lewis1}}

==Conclusion==

To date, Palmer's conclusion has not been found credible by any other historians or authors, including other anti-Mormon writers. His theory is based on a forgery from twenty years before his book's publication, and he remained wedded to his ideas despite this. His inability to jetison his convoluted pet theory once the Salamander forgery became known does not speak highly of his historical skills, or his work's intellectual rigor. Palmer's decision to hide his hostile work until he could retire with a pension paid by the tithing funds of the Church belies his claimed commitment to honesty and 'telling the whole truth.'

==Endnotes==
#{{note|midgley1}}{{FR-15-2-16}}
#{{note|midgley2}} Midgley, 395.
#{{note|allen1}} {{FR-16-1-13}}
#{{note|palmer1}} Palmer, ''An Insider's View,'' 141.
#{{note|palmer2}} Palmer, 138.
#{{note|palmer3}} Palmer, 139.
#{{note|palmer4}} Palmer, 142.
#{{note|palmer5}} Palmer, 141.
#{{note|palmer6}} Palmer, 142.
#{{note|brigham1}} Allen, "Asked and Answered," 261; and {{JoD2_1|author=Brigham Young|title=The Priesthood and Satan, Etc.|date=18 February 1855|vol=2|start=180|end=180}}
#{{note|lewis1}} C.S. Lewis, "Christian Apologetics," Easter 1945; reprinted in ''God in the Dock'', edited by Walter Hooper, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1970 [1945]), 89–90.

==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===
*{{BoMAuthorshipWiki}}
*{{BoMPlagiarismWiki}}

===FAIR web site===
{{BoMAuthorshipFAIR}}
*{{tg|url=http://www.fairlds.org/apol/bom/bom15.html|topic=Reviews of Grant Palmer and ''An Insider's View of Mormon Origins''}}

===External links===
*{{BoMAuthorshipLinks}}
* {{FARMSReview|author=James B. Allen|article=Asked and Answered: A Response to Grant H. Palmer (Review of ''An Insiders View of Mormon Origins''|vol=16|num=1|date=2004|start=235|end=286}}[http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=review&id=533 *]
*E.T.A. Hoffmann, [http://www.blackmask.com/books72c/goldpot.htm ''The Golden Flower Pot''], online text at ''blackmask.com'' (accessed 5 October 2005).
*Jeff Lindsay, "Plagiarism in the Book of Mormon: Is It Derived from Modern Writings?, [http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_BMProb3.shtml ''jefflindsay.com''] (accessed 5 October 2005).
* {{FARMSReview|author=Daniel C. Peterson|article=Editor's Introduction]: Of 'Galileo Events,' Hype, and Suppression: Or, Abusing Science and Its History|vol=15|num=2|date=2003|start=ix|end=lxii}}[http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=review&id=499 *]
* {{FARMSReview|author=Mark Ashurst-McGee|article=A One-sided View of Mormon Origins|vol=15|num=2|date=2003|start=309|end=364}}[http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=review&id=513 *]
* {{FARMSReview|author=Davis Bitton|article=The Charge of a Man with a Broken Lance (But Look What He Doesn't Tell Us)|vol=15|num=2|date=2003|start=257|end=272}}[http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=review&id=511 *]
* {{FARMSReview|author=Steven C. Harper|article=Trustworthy History?|vol=15|num=2|date=2003|start=273|end=308}}[http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=review&id=512 *]
* {{FARMSReview|author=Louis Midgley|article=Prying into Palmer|vol=15|num=2|date=2003|start=365|end=410}}[http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=review&id=514 *]
* {{FARMSReview|author=Group|article=Statement from the Joseph Fielding Smith Institute for Latter-day Saint History on Grant Palmer's work|vol=15|num=2|date=2003|start=255|end=256}}[http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=review&id=510 *]
===Printed material===
*{{BoMAuthorshipPrint}}

[[de:Buch_Mormon_Autorschaft:_Der_goldne_Topf]]

The Spalding Theory of Book of Mormon authorship

2008-07-06T04:12:37Z

Pwellauer:

{{draft}}

==Criticism==

Critics claim that Joseph Smith either plagiarized or relied upon a manuscript by Solomon Spaulding to write the Book of Mormon.

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

''Sources which accept the Spaulding manuscript theory:''
* Henry Caswall, ''The Prophet of the Nineteenth Century, or, the Rise, Progress, and Present State of the Mormons, or Latter-Day Saints : To Which Is Appended an Analysis of the Book of Mormon'' (London: Printed for J. G. F. & J. Rivington, 1843), 13–25.
*John A. Clark, ''Gleanings By The Way'' (Philadelphia: W.J. and J.K. Simon; New York: Robert Carter, 1842), 246–254.
*Eber D. Howe, ''Mormonism Unvailed'' (New York: AMS Press, 1834 [1977]).
*William Alexander Linn, ''The Story of the Mormons'' (New York: Macmillan, 1902).
* Mrs. T.B.H. [Fanny] Stenhouse, ''"Tell It All": The Story of a Life's Experience in Mormonism'' (Hartford, Conn.: A.D. Worthington & Co., 1875), 267.
* Wilhelm Wyl, ''Mormon Portraits Volume First: Joseph Smith the Prophet, His Family and Friends'' (Salt Lake City: Tribune Printing and Publishing Co., 1886), 20, 118, 122–124, 238–243.
''Claimed the existence of a '''second''' Spaulding manuscript when the first theory failed:''
*George B. Arbaugh, ''Revelation in Mormonism'' (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1932).
*Howard A. Davis, Wayne L. Cowdrey, and Walter Martin, ''Who Really Wrote the Book of Mormon?'' (Santa Ana, Ca.: Vision House Publishers, 1977.)
*Wayne L. Cowdery, Howard A. Davis, and Arthur Vanick, ''Who Really Wrote the Book of Mormon? The Spalding Enigma.'' (St. Louis: Concordia, 2005.)

==Response==

Since the Book of Mormon was first published, many have been unwilling to accept Joseph Smith's account of how it was produced. It's easy to dismiss Joseph's story of angels, gold plates, and a miraculous interpretation process; it's much harder to come up with an alternative explanation that accounts for the complexity and consistency of the Book of Mormon, as well as the historical details of its production.

Many critics, unwilling to credit the uneducated, backwater farm boy Joseph Smith as the Book of Mormon's author, have looked to possible sources from which he could have plagiarized. One of the earliest theories was that Joseph plagiarized the unpublished manuscript of a novel written by the Reverend Solomon Spaulding (1761–1816).

Spaulding was a lapsed Calvinist clergyman and author of an epic tale of the ancient Native American "Mound Builders." The theory postulates that Spaulding wrote his manuscript in biblical phraseology and read it to many of his friends. He subsequently took the manuscript to Pittsburg, where it fell into the hands of a Mr. Patterson, in whose office Sidney Rigdon worked, and that through Sidney Rigdon it came into the possession of Joseph Smith and was made the basis of the Book of Mormon.

There are two major problems with this theory:

#The historical record indicates that Sidney Rigdon first learned of the Book of Mormon from Parley P. Pratt and his missionary companions in November 1830, and that Rigdon did not meet Joseph Smith until December of that same year. All of this was long after the Book of Mormon was translated and published. Critics can only marshal circumstantial evidence of a conspiracy in which Rigdon met Joseph much earlier, then later pretended to be converted to Mormonism.
#The purported Spaulding manuscript was not brought forward for analysis because no one knew where it was, or if it even existed. In 1884 an authentic Solomon Spalding manuscript was recovered in Honolulu, Hawaii and taken to the Oberlin College Library in Ohio. The unfinished story bore hardly any resemblance to the Book of Mormon. The text was published by the RLDS Church in 1885 under the title "Manuscript Found." The LDS Church also published the text. (See "Further Reading," below, for links to online texts).

The discovery and publishing of the manuscript put to rest the Spaulding theory for several decades. But in the early 20th century the theory surfaced again, only this time its advocates claimed there was a ''second'' Spaulding manuscript that was the ''real'' source for the Book of Mormon. However, supporters of the revised Spaulding theory have not produced this second purported manuscript.

===Rejection of the Spaulding theory by critics of the Book of Mormon===

Many ''critics'' of the Book of Mormon reject the Spaulding theory as unworkable:
* Davis H. Bays, ''The Doctrines and Dogmas of Mormonism Examined and Refuted,'' (St. Louis: Christian Publishing, 1897), 22, 25
::[This theory is] "erroneous, and it will lead to almost certain defeat.... The facts are all opposed to this view, and the defenders of the Mormon dogma have the facts well in hand.... The Spaulding story is a failure. Do not attempt to rely upon it — it will let you down."
* Fawn Brodie, ''No Man Knows My History'' (New York, A. A. Knopf, 1945), 453
::"The tenuous chain of evidence accumulated to support the Spaulding-Rigdon theory breaks altogether when it tries to prove that Rigdon met Joseph Smith before 1830."
* Jerald and Sandra Tanner, ''Did Spaulding Write the Book of Mormon?'' (Salt Lake City: Utah Lighthouse Ministry, 1977).

==Conclusion==

Modern supporters of the Spaulding authorship theory simply ignore the inconvenient fact that the manuscript recovered in the late 19th century bears no resemblance to the Book of Mormon and that no second manuscript has been discovered.

Until the purported second manuscript appears, all these critics have is a nonexistent document which they can claim says anything they want. This is doubtlessly the attraction of the "theory" and shows the lengths to which critics will go to disprove the Book of Mormon.

It is interesting to consider that the best explanation such critics can propose requires that they invent a document, then invent its contents.

==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===
{{BofM authorship theories}}
{{BoMPlagiarismWiki}}

===FAIR web site===
*{{tg|url=http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai115.html|topic=Spaulding Theory}}
{{BoMAuthorshipFAIR}}
*Matthew B. Brown, "Solomon Spaulding and the Book of Mormon" {{fairlink|url=http://www.fairlds.org/apol/bom/bom09.html}}
*John K. Wise, "Clouds Without Water, Zeal Without Knowledge" {{fairlink|url=http://www.fairlds.org/Reviews/Rvw01010.html}}

===External links===
* '''Online text''' of "Manuscript Found", the Spaulding document discovered in 1884 and published by the RLDS Church.{{link|url=http://www.solomonspalding.com/docs/rlds1885.htm}}
*{{Ensign|author=Bruce D. Blumell|article=Would you respond to the theories that the Book of Mormon is based on the Spaulding manuscript or on Ethan Smith's ''View of the Hebrews?''|date=September 1976|start=83|end=87}}{{link|url=http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/1976.htm/ensign%20september%201976.htm/i%20have%20a%20question.htm?fn=document-frame.htm$f=templates$3.0#LPTOC2}}
*{{Dialogue|author=Lester Bush|article=The Spalding [sic] Theory Then and Now|vol=10|num=4|date=Autumn 1977|start=40|end=69}}{{link|url=http://content.lib.utah.edu/cgi-bin/docviewer.exe?CISOROOT=/dialogue&CISOPTR=1260&CISOSHOW=1149}}
*{{Ensign|author=Orson Scott Card|article=News of the Church: Spaulding ''Again?''|vol=7|date=September 1977|start=94|end=95}}{{link|url=http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/1977.htm/ensign%20september%201977.htm/news%20of%20the%20church.htm?fn=document-frameset.htm$f=templates$3.0#LPTOC4}}
*Jeff Lindsay, "Plagiarism in the Book of Mormon: Is It Derived from Modern Writings?, ''jefflindsay.com'' (accessed 5 October 2005).{{link|url=http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_BMProb3.shtml}}
*{{FR-1-1-10}}
*{{BYUS|author=Gary F. Novak|article=Naturalistic Assumptions and the Book of Mormon|vol=30|num=3|date=1990|start=23|end=40}}{{link|url=http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/cgi-bin/docviewer.exe?CISOROOT=/byustudies&CISOPTR=21980&CISOSHOW=9859}}
*"Origins of the Spaulding Manuscript", by Professor A. S. Root, Oberlin College, 12 May 1927.{{link|url=http://www.oberlin.edu/archive/faq/spaulding_origins.html}}
*{{FR-17-2-3}}{{GL1|url=http://gospelink.com/library/doc?doc_id=282981}}
*{{IE1|author=President Joseph F. Smith|article=The Manuscript Found|vol=33|num=4|date=February 1900|start=? page}}{{link|url=http://www2.ida.net/graphics/shirtail/manuscri.htm}}
{{BoMAuthorshipLinks}}

===Printed material===
:'''''Responses to the Spalding theory:'''''
*{{BoMComesForth|article=The Spalding-Rigdon Theory|start=185|end=201}}
*{{NewWitnessesForGod | vol=3, Chapter XLIV|article=Counter Theories of Origin|start=347 | end=406}}{{GL1|url=http://gospelink.com/library/doc?doc_id=211299}}
*{{DFS1 |vol=1|article=A Brief Debate on the Book of Mormon|start=365|}}{{GL1|url=http://gospelink.com/library/doc?doc_id=205446}}
*{{DFS1 |vol=2|article=The Origin of the Book of Mormon|start=95|end=229|}}{{GL1|url=http://gospelink.com/library/doc?doc_id=205459}}
*Benjamin Winchester, ''The Origin of the Spaulding Story, Concerning the Manuscript Found,'' (Philadelphia: Brown, Bicking & Guilfert, 1840).
*Dean C. Jessee, 'Spalding theory' re-examined,' ''Church News'' (20 August 1977): 3–5.
{{BoMAuthorshipPrint}}

[[de:Buch_Mormon_Autorschaft:_Das_Spaulding_Manuskript]]

Book of Mormon/Authorship theories

2008-07-06T04:10:11Z

Pwellauer:

{{draft}}
==Criticism==
Critics produce a variety of theories to explain the existence of the Book of Mormon. A number of different authorship theories have been proposed since the book was first published in 1830. One critic even goes so far as to suggest that the Church ''encourages'' challenging the authorship of the Book of Mormon.

===Source(s) of the Criticism===
* Richard Abanes, ''One Nation Under Gods: A History of the Mormon Church.'' (Thunder's Mouth Press, 2003), 68.
*{{AntiBook:Brodie:No Man Knows|pages=Chapter 4}}
* Eber D. Howe, ''Mormonism Unvailed'', (Painesville, Ohio: Telegraph Press, 1834).
*{{AntiBook:Palmer:Insider|pages=Chapter 5}}
* David Persuitte, ''Joseph Smith and the Origins of The Book of Mormon'' (2nd edition), (McFarland & Company, October 2000).
* Simon G. Southerton, ''Losing a Lost Tribe: Native Americans, DNA and the Mormon Church'', (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2004).
* Jerald and Sandra Tanner,(1987). ''Mormonism - Shadow or Reality? '' (Salt Lake City, Utah: Utah Lighthouse Ministry), 84-85.
* Dan Vogel, ''Joseph Smith: The Making of a Prophet'', (Salt Lake City, Utah: Signature Books, 2004).

==Response==
Ever since it was first published in 1830, numerous secular and non-secular theories have been proposed to account for the existence of the Book of Mormon. Initially, it was assumed that the book was the product of Joseph Smith’s own creative mind—a book not worthy of attention since it could not possibly contain anything of value. As critics began to actually read the book however, it became apparent that the depth and complexity of the writing did not fit well with the proposal that Joseph Smith, Jr. as the book’s sole author. This gave rise to the theory that Joseph Smith had an educated accomplice in his effort to create the book. The accomplices most often proposed are typically Sidney Rigdon and Oliver Cowdery.

Some secular authorship theories also postulate that Joseph Smith plagiarized sources that may have been available to him during the time that he was producing the Book of Mormon. The most commonly referenced potential sources include an unpublished manuscript by Solomon Spalding, a published work called ''View of the Hebrews,'' and the King James Bible.

===Authorship theory categories===
Non-secular authorship theories (those involving some sort of “spiritual” element) usually fall into one of the following categories:
* Joseph Smith’s own story that he received the plates from an angel and translated them by “the power of God,” but that the work thus produced is simply inspirational fiction.
* Joseph Smith created the book through “non-divine” inspiration.
* Joseph Smith wrote the book without any knowledge of what he was writing through a process called [[Book of Mormon and automatic writing|“automatic” or “spirit” writing]]. Closely related to this theory is that Joseph wrote the book during fits of [[Book of Mormon and epilepsy|Epilesy]].

Book of Mormon secular authorship theories usually fall into one of the following categories:
* Joseph Smith wrote the book on his own, without assistance and with full knowledge that he was writing a work of fiction. It is sometimes postulated that Joseph wrote the book by drawing upon his own life’s experiences.
* Joseph Smith wrote the book on his own by plagiarizing works that were available to him. Examples of this are the [[Book of Mormon and View of the Hebrews|''View of the Hebrews'']] theory and [[Book of Mormon and the Golden Pot|''The Golden Pot'']] theory.
* An associate of Joseph Smith (Sidney Rigdon or Oliver Cowdery) wrote the book, either alone or in a group, and then allowed Joseph to take the credit.
* Some combination of theories involving associates and plagiarism together. An example of this is the [[Book of Mormon and Spaulding manuscript|Spalding-Rigdon theory]].

===Critics do not agree on a prevailing theory===
The critics themselves have never come to an agreement on which theory holds the most promise. For example, Fawn Brodie discounted the Spalding-Rigdon theory in favor of the ''View of the Hebrews'' theory. Various authorship theories have fallen into or out of favor as new evidence has come to light. The Spalding-Rigdon theory, first introduced by E. D. Howe in his anti-Mormon book ''Mormonism Unvailed'', was quite popular until the later discovery of a Spalding manuscript which bore little resemblance to the Book of Mormon narrative. The ''View of the Hebrews'' theory became popular with the publishing of B. H. Roberts’ critical examination of the Book of Mormon titled ''Studies of the Book of Mormon.'' The best argument against ''View of the Hebrews'' being the source for the Book of Mormon is the text of ''View of the Hebrews'' itself. Because the book was not widely available for many years, Brigham Young University re-published it in order to make it available to those who wished to make this comparison for themselves.

All new theories that are proposed tend to combine elements of various older theories in an ever evolving attempt to pin down, in secular terms, the precise origin of the Book of Mormon.

==Conclusion==

Had anyone other than Joseph Smith had authored the Book of Mormon, it surely would have come out by now: the person that is able to move millions can make millions. Breaking this story to the world would truly be the religious story of the century. The fact that no one has come forward is due simply to the fact that there is no one else: any other explanation, besides that given by Joseph Smith simply doesn't hold any water. Anyone who has read the Book of Mormon knows that if Joseph Smith or anyone else had written the Book of Mormon 'from whole cloth' would be infinitely more miraculous than the account given by Joseph Smith.

==Further reading==
* Solomon Spaulding (Rex C. Reeve, ed), ''Manuscript Found: The Complete Original "Spaulding" Manuscript'', (Provo, Utah: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 1996)
* {{VoHBYU | start=x|end=y }}
===FAIR wiki articles===
{{BofM authorship theories}}

===FAIR web site===
{{BoMAuthorshipFAIR}}

===External links===
{{BoMAuthorshipLinks}}

===Printed material===
{{BoMAuthorshipPrint}}Smith|vol=1|start=210|end=213}}

[[de:Buch_Mormon_Autorschaft:_Theorien]]

Book of Mormon/Anachronisms/Cement

2008-07-05T04:04:16Z

Pwellauer:

==Criticism==
Critics claim that the Nephites in the land northward building out of cement in [http://scriptures.lds.org/hel/3/7#11 Helaman 3:7-11] (circa 47 B.C.) is not valid. As John L. Smith put the claim, "There is zero archaeological evidence that any kind of cement existed in the Americas prior to modern times" (Smith, 8).

===Source(s) of the Criticism===
*John L. Smith, "What about those Gold Plates?" ''The Utah Evangel'' 33:6 (September 1986): 8.

==Response==
Unfortunately for the critics, hanging their attacks on an 'absence of evidence' backfires. In fact, there is excellent evidence for the use of cement in Mesoamerica:

:Once thought to be anachronistic, references to "cement" in the Book of Mormon (Helaman 3:7,9,11) can be seen today as further evidence of the authenticity of the text. This is because today the presence of expert cement technology in pre-Hispanic America is a well-established archaeological fact. "American technology in the manufacture of cement, its mixing and placement two thousand years ago, paralleled that of the Greeks and the Romans during the same period" notes structural engineer, David Hyman, in a recent study devoted to the use of cement in Pre-Columbian Mexico. The earliest known sample of such cement dates to the first century A.D. and is a "fully developed product." Known samples of Mesoamerican cement work show signs of remarkable skill and sophistication. "Technology in the manufacturing of calcareous cements in Middle America [were] equal to any in the world at the advent of the Christian Era." For example, concrete floor slabs at Teotihuacan that date to about this time exceed many present-day building requirements. While the earliest known samples are from the first century A.D., scholars believe that "their degree of perfection could not have been instantaneously created, but rather would have required a considerable period of development" before then. Hyman asks, "Were these materials invented by indigenous unnamed people far preceding the occupation of Teotihuacan, or were they introduced by an exotic culture." In its references to "cement," the Book of Mormon anticipates what has now been well established.{{ref|roper1}}

==Conclusion==

Cement is not anachronistic. The Book of Mormon places it in exactly the right spot and time period for Mesoamerican use of this building material.

==Endnotes==
#{{note|roper1}} Matthew Roper, "Right on Target: Boomerang Hits and the Book of Mormon" {{fairlink|url=http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/conf/2001RopM.html}}

==Further reading==

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

===FAIR web site===
* Matthew Roper, "Right on Target: Boomerang Hits and the Book of Mormon" {{fairlink|url=http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/conf/2001RopM.html}}

===External links===
*"Cement in the Book of Mormon," (Provo, Utah: FARMS).{{link|url=http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=transcripts&id=128}}
*{{Insights1|author=Matthew G. Wells and John W. Welch|article=Concrete Evidence for the Book of Mormon|date=May 1991|start=2}}
*{{Reexploring|author=Matthew G. Wells and John W. Welch|article=Concrete Evidence for the Book of Mormon|start=212|end=214}}{{GL1|url=http://gospelink.com/library/doc?book_doc_id=296854}}

===Printed material===
*David S. Hyman, ''A Study of the Calcareous Cements in Prehispanic Mesoamerican Building Construction'' (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University, 1970).

[[de:Anachronismen_im_Buch_Mormon/Zement]]
[[es:Anacronismos del Libro de Mormón: Cemento]]

Book of Mormon/Anachronisms/Cement

2008-07-05T04:02:55Z

Pwellauer:

==Criticism==
Critics claim that the Nephites in the land northward building out of cement in [http://scriptures.lds.org/hel/3/7#11 Helaman 3:7-11] (circa 47 B.C.) is not valid. As John L. Smith put the claim, "There is zero archaeological evidence that any kind of cement existed in the Americas prior to modern times" (Smith, 8).

===Source(s) of the Criticism===
*John L. Smith, "What about those Gold Plates?" ''The Utah Evangel'' 33:6 (September 1986): 8.

==Response==
Unfortunately for the critics, hanging their attacks on an 'absence of evidence' backfires. In fact, there is excellent evidence for the use of cement in Mesoamerica:

:Once thought to be anachronistic, references to "cement" in the Book of Mormon (Helaman 3:7,9,11) can be seen today as further evidence of the authenticity of the text. This is because today the presence of expert cement technology in pre-Hispanic America is a well-established archaeological fact. "American technology in the manufacture of cement, its mixing and placement two thousand years ago, paralleled that of the Greeks and the Romans during the same period" notes structural engineer, David Hyman, in a recent study devoted to the use of cement in Pre-Columbian Mexico. The earliest known sample of such cement dates to the first century A.D. and is a "fully developed product." Known samples of Mesoamerican cement work show signs of remarkable skill and sophistication. "Technology in the manufacturing of calcareous cements in Middle America [were] equal to any in the world at the advent of the Christian Era." For example, concrete floor slabs at Teotihuacan that date to about this time exceed many present-day building requirements. While the earliest known samples are from the first century A.D., scholars believe that "their degree of perfection could not have been instantaneously created, but rather would have required a considerable period of development" before then. Hyman asks, "Were these materials invented by indigenous unnamed people far preceding the occupation of Teotihuacan, or were they introduced by an exotic culture." In its references to "cement," the Book of Mormon anticipates what has now been well established.{{ref|roper1}}

==Conclusion==

Cement is not anachronistic. The Book of Mormon places it in exactly the right spot and time period for Mesoamerican use of this building material.

==Endnotes==
#{{note|roper1}} Matthew Roper, "Right on Target: Boomerang Hits and the Book of Mormon" {{fairlink|url=http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/conf/2001RopM.html}}

==Further reading==

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

===FAIR web site===
* Matthew Roper, "Right on Target: Boomerang Hits and the Book of Mormon" {{fairlink|url=http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/conf/2001RopM.html}}

===External links===
*"Cement in the Book of Mormon," (Provo, Utah: FARMS).{{link|url=http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=transcripts&id=128}}
*{{Insights1|author=Matthew G. Wells and John W. Welch|article=Concrete Evidence for the Book of Mormon|date=May 1991|start=2}}
*{{Reexploring|author=Matthew G. Wells and John W. Welch|article=Concrete Evidence for the Book of Mormon|start=212|end=214}}{{GL1|url=http://gospelink.com/library/doc?book_doc_id=296854}}

===Printed material===
*David S. Hyman, ''A Study of the Calcareous Cements in Prehispanic Mesoamerican Building Construction'' (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University, 1970).

[[de:Anachronismen_im_Buch_Mormon:Zement]]
[[es:Anacronismos del Libro de Mormón: Cemento]]

Book of Mormon/Anachronisms/The Red Sea

2008-07-05T03:57:18Z

Pwellauer:

==Criticism==
'''KJV Bible''': Critics cast doubt on Moses' miraculous parting of the Red Sea by asserting that this belief arose due to a mistranslation of the Hebrew phrase ''yam sûp''. The critics argue that the phrase should read "the Reed Sea," and that the Israelites actually just crossed a marshy inlet while the Egyptians' chariots got stuck in the mud.

'''Book of Mormon''': Having "proved" that the popular understanding of the KJV is inaccurate, the critics then conclude that the Book of Mormon's use of "Red Sea" is evidence that Joseph was not producing an inspired translation, but simply copying from the (mistaken) King James text.

==Response==
'''Book of Mormon''': Even if the King James translation of "Red Sea" were in error, one would be unable to draw conclusions about the correctness of the Book of Mormon translation. Just as the Apostle Paul's New Testament writings used the language of the Septuagint (Greek New Testament), despite the existence of earlier, more accurate manuscripts known today, Joseph Smith used the language of the King James Bible. In both cases, a prophet used the language of the most commonly used version of scripture for the time.

'''KJV Bible:''' Ironically, despite its irrelevance for the issue of Book of Mormon accuracy, the "Reed Sea" claim is, itself, the product of a modern error in understanding.

According to an article in ''Biblical Archaeology Review'', the popular idea that the Hebrew phrase ''yam sûp'' actually means "Sea of Reeds" is erroneous and unsupported by linguistic evidence. Other passages use the same term, and clearly refer to the body of water which modern readers call the "Red Sea," such as [http://scriptures.lds.org/1_kgs/9/26#25 1 Kgs. 9:26]:
:And king Solomon made a navy of ships in Ezion-geber, which is beside Eloth, on the shore of the Red sea, in the land of Edom.
The ''BAR'' article's author, Bernard F. Batto, agrees that ''yam sûp'' does not literally mean "Red Sea" (that would be ''yam adam''). Rather, he believes that it is related to the Hebrew root ''sûp'', meaning "to cease to exist," or the word ''sôp'', meaning simply "end."
Thus, a literal translation of the Hebrew name for this body of water would be "the Sea at the End of the World." This name is appropriate, since the ancients considered the "Red Sea" to be at the frontier or edge of known geography, or their "world."
This usage is confirmed in extra-biblical Jewish literature, where the phrase ''yam sûp'' is used to refer to the Red Sea, the Persian Gulf, and the Indian Ocean; i.e., "all those connecting oceans to the south."{{ref|BAR1}} Thus, the title "Sea at the End of the World" is fitting, since it was on the edge of the known world.

Regardless of the Hebrew intricacies, since the body of water being described is known to the modern reader as the Red Sea, it is appropriate to translate ''yam sûp'' as such. The goal of the Book of Mormon's translation is surely to communicate ''meaning'', not the fine points of Hebrew idiom. Clearly, the Book of Mormon's use of "Red Sea" accords with modern usage and the intent of its ancient authors.

==Conclusion==
There is no reason to rewrite the text of Exodus. Latter-day Saints generally consider Exodus' account of the parting of the Red Sea to be a literal, miraculous event. And, even if modern readers have doubts, the Book of Mormon prophets clearly accepted Exodus as literal. Thus, the translation of the Book of Mormon reflects ''their'' intent, not the preoccupations of modern linguists.

==Endnotes==
#{{note|BAR1}}Bernard F. Batto, "Red Sea or Reed Sea?: How the Mistake Was Made and What ''Yam Sûp'' Really Means," ''Biblical Archaeology Review'' 10:4 (July/August 1984): 56–63.

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

[[de:Anachronismen_im_Buch_Mormon/Rotes_Meer_Schilfmeer]]

Reformed Egyptian and the Book of Mormon

2008-07-05T03:53:23Z

Pwellauer:

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

===Source(s) of the Criticism===
*John Ankerberg and John Weldon, ''Everything You Ever Wanted to Know about Mormonism'' (Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 1992), 294-5.
*Francis J. Beckwith, Carl Mosser, et al., ''The New Mormon Challenge: Responding to the Latest Defenses of a Fast-Growing Movement'' (Grand Rapids, Mich. : Zondervan, 2002).
*{{QuestionsMormonsShouldAsk}}
*Marvin W. Cowan, ''Mormon Claims Answered'', (Salt Lake City: Utah Lighthouse Ministry, 1997), chapter 4.
* John Hyde, ''Mormonism : Its Leaders and Designs'', 2nd ed., (New York: W.P. Fetridge & Co., 1857), 216.
*{{AntiBook:Palmer:Insider|pages=57}}
*Latayne Colvett Scott, ''The Mormon Mirage : a former Mormon tells why she left the church'' (Grand Rapids : Zondervan Pub. House, 1979),63-4.
*Jerald and Sandra Tanner, ''Archaelogy and the Book of Mormon'' (Salt Lake City, UT: Utah Lighthouse Ministry, 1969; reprinted with second appendix, 1972), 17–19.
*{{AntiBook:Tanner:Changing World|pages=141-145}}
*Jerald and Sandra Tanner, ''Mormonism—Shadow or Reality?'', 5th ed., (Salt Lake City: Utah Lighthouse Ministry, 1987), 97–125, 125A, 125G.
*Kurt Van Gorden, ''Mormonism'' (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995), 8, footnote 7.
* Wilhelm Wyl, ''Mormon Portraits Volume First: Joseph Smith the Prophet, His Family and Friends'' (Salt Lake City: Tribune Printing and Publishing Co., 1886), 196 footnote.

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

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

Anti-Mormon authors Ankerberg and Weldon claim:

:Mormonism has never explained how godly Jews [sic] of A.D. 400 allegedly knew Egyptian, nor why they would have written their sacred records entirely in the language of their pagan, idolatrous enemies" (p. 284). "How likely is it that the allegedly Jewish [sic] Nephites would have used the Egyptian language to write their sacred scriptures? Their strong antipathy to the Egyptians and their culture makes this difficult to accept. When modern Jews copy their scripture, they use Hebrew. They do not use Egyptian or Arabic, the language of their historic enemies" (pp. 294-95). "[N]o such language [as reformed Egyptian] exists and Egyptologists declare this unequivocally.{{ref|ankerberg1}}

They are, however, spectacularly wrong, and "Mormonism" has explained why repeatedly:

:The statement "When modern Jews copy their scripture, they use Hebrew. They do not use Egyptian or Arabic, the language of their historic enemies" is quite an astonishing display of ignorance. Since the Egyptian language has been dead for centuries, it is hardly remarkable that modern Jews do not read the Bible in Egyptian. On the other hand, "the first and most important rendering [of the Old Testament] from Hebrew [into Arabic] was made by Sa'adya the Ga'on, a learned Jew who was head of the rabbinic school at Sura in Babylon (died 942)" (George A. Buttrick, ed., ''The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible'' [hereafter ''IDB''], 4 vols. and supplement [Nashville: Abingdon, 1962–1976], 4:758b). Thus, Jews have indeed translated the Bible into "Arabic, the language of their historic enemies." They also have translated it into the language of their "historic enemies" the Greeks (''IDB'' 4:750b on the Septuagint) and Aramaeans (''IDB'' 1:185-93; 4:749-50, on the Aramaic Targums).{{ref|peterson1}}

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

===Further examples===

William Hamblin provides additional example of such reformation of Egyptian, including:
* Byblos Syllabic texts
* Cretan hieroglyphics
* Meroitic
* Psalm 20 in demotic Egyptian
* Proto-Sinaitic and the alphabet{{ref|hamblin1}}

==Conclusion==

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

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

==Endnotes==
# {{note|GeeTved1}} John Gee and John A. Tvedtnes, "Ancient Manuscripts Fit Book of Mormon Pattern," ''Insights'' 19:2 (February 1999): 4–5.{{link|url=http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=insights&id=58}}
# {{note|TvedRicks1}} {{JBMS-5-2-7}}
# {{note|ankerberg1}} Ankerberg and Weldon, 294.
# {{note|peterson1}} {{FR-5-1-2}}
# {{note|hamblin1}} {{FR-19-1-6}}
==Best articles to read next==
{{LearnMore}}
#{{FR-19-1-6}}
#{{FR-5-1-16}}
#{{JBMS-5-2-7}} 

==Further reading==

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

===FAIR web site===
*{{tg|url=http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai091.html|topic=Reformed Egyptian}}

===External links===
*Ariel Crowley, "The Anthon Transcript," ''Improvement Era'', 45:1 (January 1942) and 45:2 (February 1942), 45:3 (March 1942). [http://www.shields-research.org/Scriptures/BoM/Anthon_Transcript-Crowley/Anthon_Transcript-Crowley.htm *]
*John Gee and John A. Tvedtnes, "Ancient Manuscripts Fit Book of Mormon Pattern," ''Insights'' 19:2 (February 1999): 4–5.{{link|url=http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=insights&id=58}}
*William J. Hamblin, "Reformed Egyptian," FARMS Featured Papers, 1995. {{link|url=http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?id=36&table=transcripts}}
*{{FR-19-1-6}}
*{{FR-5-1-16}}
*{{insights1|author=Stephen D. Ricks|article=Language and Script in the Book of Mormon|date=March 1992|vol=12|num=3|start=2}}{{link1|url=http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=insights&id=17}}
*{{Ensign1|author=John L. Sorenson|article=Digging into the Book of Mormon: Our Changing Understanding of Ancient America and Its Scripture, Part 2|date=October 1984|start=17}}{{link|url=http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/1984.htm/ensign%20october%201984%20.htm/digging%20into%20the%20book%20of%20mormon%20our%20changing%20understanding%20of%20ancient%20america%20and%20its%20scripture%20part%202%20.htm}}
* {{JBMS-5-2-7}} 
* {{FR-15-1-11}}

===Printed material===
*Carl H. Jones, "The 'Anthon Transcript' and Two Mesoamerican Cylinder Seals," ''Newsletter and Proceedings of the Society for Early Historical Archaeology'' 122 (September 1970): 1–8.
*{{Nibley7_1|start=149}}{{GL1|url=http://gospelink.com/library/doc?doc_id=274530}}

[[de:Anachronismen_im_Buch_Mormon/Reformiertes_%C3%84gyptisch]]
[[es:Anacronismos del Libro de Mormón: Egipcio reformado]]

Plants in the Book of Mormon

2008-07-05T03:50:09Z

Pwellauer:

==Criticism==
Critics claim that plants mentioned in the Book of Mormon are not found in the New World, and are thus evidence that Joseph fabricated the text based upon his own cultural background.

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

==Video==
{{VideoBoM1}}

<videoflash>wNqV9dRzslc</videoflash>

==Response==

===Barley===

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

==Conclusion==

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

==Endnotes==
# {{note|sorensmith}} {{reexploring|author=John L. Sorenson and Robert F. Smith|article=Barley in Ancient America|start=130|end=132}}
# {{note|soren1}} John L. Sorenson, "Plants and Animals," in {{FR-6-1-10}}
# {{note|soren2}} {{Aas1|start=232}}{{GL1|url=http://gospelink.com/library/doc?doc_id=263779}}
# {{note|soren3}} {{Ensign1|author=John L. Sorenson|article=Silk and Linen in the Book of Mormon - Book of Mormon Update|date=April 1992|start=62}} {{link|url=http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/1992.htm/ensign%20april%201992%20.htm/research%20and%20perspectives%20book%20of%20mormon%20update.htm?fn=document-frame.htm$f=templates$3.0}}
# {{note|soren4}} Sorenson, "Zaputo," 338; citing Robert F. Smith, "Some 'Neologisms' from the Mormon Canon," Conference on the Language of the Mormons 1973, Brigham Young University Language Research Center, 1973, 66.]{{link|url=http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=review&id=142}}
# {{note|roper1}} Matt Roper, "Right on Target: Boomerang Hits and the Book of Mormon," FAIR Presentation, 2001. {{fairlink|url=http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/conf/2001RopM.html}}
#{{note|soren5}} {{Aas1|start=232}}{{GL1|url=http://gospelink.com/library/doc?doc_id=263779}}
# {{note|soren6}} Sorenson, ''Ensign'' (April 1992): 62.{{link|url=http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/1992.htm/ensign%20april%201992%20.htm/research%20and%20perspectives%20book%20of%20mormon%20update.htm?fn=document-frame.htm$f=templates$3.0}}
#{{note|soren7}} Sorenson, "Zaputo," 335-336.

==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===

*{{GermanWiki|http://de.fairmormon.org/index.php/Anachronismen_im_Buch_Mormon:Pflanzen}}
{{Book of Mormon anachronisms}}

===FAIR web site===
*{{tg|topic=Plants|url=http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai158.html}}
* Matthew Roper, "Right on Target: Boomerang Hits and the Book of Mormon" {{fairlink|url=http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/conf/2001RopM.html}}

===External links===
*{{Ensign1|author=John L. Sorenson|article=Silk and Linen in the Book of Mormon - Book of Mormon Update|date=April 1992|start=62}} {{link|url=http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/1992.htm/ensign%20april%201992%20.htm/research%20and%20perspectives%20book%20of%20mormon%20update.htm?fn=document-frame.htm$f=templates$3.0}}

===Printed material===
* John L. Sorenson, "Plants and Animals," in {{FR-6-1-10}}{{GL1|url=http://gospelink.com/library/doc?doc_id=288327}}{{GL1|url=http://gospelink.com/library/doc?doc_id=288327}}
*{{reexploring|author=John L. Sorenson and Robert F. Smith|article=Barley in Ancient America|start=130|end=132}}{{GL1|url=http://gospelink.com/library/doc?doc_id=296829}}
*{{reexploring|author=John W. Welch|article=Possible 'Silk' and 'Linen' in the Book of Mormon|start=162|end=164}}{{GL1|url=http://gospelink.com/library/doc?doc_id=296838}}

[[de:Anachronismen_im_Buch_Mormon/Pflanzen]]

Book of Mormon/Names

2008-07-05T03:47:47Z

Pwellauer:

{{BoMPortal}}
{{draft}}
==Criticism==
Critics claim some Book of Mormon names are used improperly or in an inappropriate context.
Examples include:
*using "Alma" as a man's name, rather than a woman's name
*using names of Greek origin, such as "Timothy"

===Source(s) of the Criticism===
*"That Man Alma," ''Utah Evangel'' 33:3 (April 1986): 2.
*Walter Martin, ''The Maze of Mormonism'' (Santa Ana, California: Vision House, 1978), 327.
*Robert McKay, "A Mormon Name," ''Utah Evangel'' 31:8 (August 1984): 4.
*John L. Smith, editorial comment on Robert McKay, "A Mormon Name," ''Utah Evangel'' 31:8 (August 1984): 4.
*{{AntiBook:Tanner:Changing World|pages=124}}

===Key===
Hugh Nibley did considerable work on Book of Mormon names. References to his work will be marked as follows to avoid multiple, repetitive footnotes:

* {{NibleyLehiDesertLabel}} {{Nibley5|start=23|end=32}}{{GL1|url=http://gospelink.com/library/doc?doc_id=271998}} Nibley marks Old World names as (OW) and Book of Mormon names as (BM).

==Response==

===General treatments on Book of Mormon names===
*{{FR-8-2-5}}
*{{JBMS-3-1-2}}
*{{JBMS-6-2-15}}
*{{JBMS-7-1-11}}

===Aha===
:"Aha (OW), a name of the first Pharaoh; it means "warrior" and is a common word." {{NibleyLehiDesertLabel}}
*{{JBMS-8-2-11}}

===Alma===

"Alma is supposed to be a prophet of God and of Jewish ancestry in the Book of Mormon. In Hebrew Alma means a betrothed virgin maiden-hardly a
fitting name for a man." - "Dr." Walter Martin, ''The Maze of Mormonism'' (Santa Ana, California: Vision House, 1978), 327.

Despite claims into the 1980s by anti-Mormon critics, the name "Alma" has been known since the 1960s as a male Hebrew name. It occurs in contexts from 2200 B.C. to the second century B.C.{{ref|roper1}}

* Matthew Roper, ''Right on Target: Boomerang Hits and the Book of Mormon''2001 FAIR Conference.{{fairlink|url=http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/conf/2001RopM.html}}
*{{JBMS-8-1-14}}
*{{JBMS-9-1-10}}

===Ammon===
:"Ammon (Amon, Amun) (OW), the commonest name in the Egyptian Empire: the great universal God of the Empire."{{NibleyLehiDesertLabel}}

===Ammonihah===

:"Ammoni-hah (BM), name of a country and city. [compare with]
:Ammuni-ra (OW), prince of Beyrut under Egyptian rule. The above might stand the same relationship to this name as Khamuni-ra (OW), Amarna personal name, perhaps equivalent of Ammuni-ra."{{NibleyLehiDesertLabel}}

===Corihor===

''See:''[[Book_of_Mormon_anachronisms:Names#Korihor|Korihor]]

===Cumorah===
* {{JBMS-6-2-15}}

===Helaman===
:"Helaman (BM), great Nephite prophet. [compare with]
:Her-amon (OW), "in the presence of Amon," as in the Egyptian proper name Heri-i-her-imn. Semitic "l" is always written "r" in Egyptian, which has no "l." Conversely, the Egyptian "r" is often written "l" in Semitic languages.{{NibleyLehiDesertLabel}}

===Hem===

:"Hem (BM), brother of the earlier Ammon."
:"Hem (OW), means "servant," specifically of Ammon, as in the title Hem tp n 'Imn, "chief servant of Ammon" held by the high priest of Thebes."{{NibleyLehiDesertLabel}}

===Himni===
:"Himni (BM), a son of King Mosiah.
:Hmn (OW), a name of the Egyptian hawk-god, symbol of the emperor."{{NibleyLehiDesertLabel}}

===Jaredite Names===
''See'': [[Book_of_Mormon_anachronisms:Names#Less well supported examples|below]].

===Jershon===
* Matthew Roper, ''Right on Target: Boomerang Hits and the Book of Mormon''2001 FAIR Conference.{{fairlink|url=http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/conf/2001RopM.html}}
* {{JBMS-6-2-15}}

===Korihor===

:"Korihor (BM), a political agitator who was seized by the people of Ammon.
:Kherihor (also written Khurhor, etc.) (OW), great high priest of Ammon who seized the throne of Egypt at Thebes, cir. 1085 B.C."{{NibleyLehiDesertLabel}}

:The twenty-first [Egyptian] dynasty was founded by a person called Korihor whose son was Piankhi. That's a very funny name; you don't invent a thing like that. It wasn't discovered until the 1870s that Piankhi is a name that we have in the Book of Mormon. Korihor was a priest of Amon who usurped the power of the state. His son Piankhi became king.{{ref|korihor1}}
''Compare'': [[Book_of_Mormon_anachronisms:Names#Paanchi|Paanchi]]

===Lachoneus===

Wrote Hugh Nibley of this Old World name:

:The occurrence of the names Timothy and Lachoneus in the Book of Mormon is strictly in order, however odd it may seem at first glance. Since the fourteenth century B.C. at latest, Syria and Palestine had been in constant contact with the Aegean world, and since the middle of the seventh century Greek mercenaries and merchants, closely bound to Egyptian interests (the best Egyptian mercenaries were Greeks), swarmed throughout the Near East. Lehi's people...could not have avoided considerable contact with these people in Egypt and especially in Sidon, which Greek poets even in that day were celebrating as the great world center of trade. It is interesting to note in passing that Timothy is an Ionian name, since the Greeks in Palestine were Ionians (hence the Hebrew name for Greeks: "Sons of Javanim"), and—since "Lachoneus" means "a Laconian"—that the oldest Greek traders were Laconians, who had colonies in Cyprus (BM Akish) and of course traded with Palestine.{{ref|lach1}}

Lehi or Mulek's group would have then known—or even contained—people named "Lachoneus," a proper Greek name of the proper sort in the proper timeframe.

''Compare'': [[Book_of_Mormon_anachronisms:Names#Timothy|Timothy]]

===Lehi and Sariah===
*{{JBMS-9-1-4}}
*{{JBMS-2-2-13}}
*{{JBMS-9-1-6}}
*{{JBMS-1-1-12}}
*{{JBMS-9-1-5}}
*{{JBMS-9-1-9}}
*{{JBMS-9-1-7}}
*{{JBMS-9-1-8}}

===Manti===
:"Manti (BM), the name of a Nephite soldier, a land, a city, and a hill.
:Manti (OW), Semitic form of an Egyptian proper name, e.g., Manti-mankhi, a prince in Upper Egypt cir. 650 B.C. It is a late form of Month, god of Hermonthis."{{NibleyLehiDesertLabel}}

===Mosiah===

*John Sawyer, "What Was a Mosiaʿ?" ''Vetus Testamentum'' 15 (1965): 475–486 [FARMS Reprint in 1989]; cited and applied by {{reexploring|author=John W. Welch|article=What Was A 'Mosiah'?|start=105|end=107}}

===Mulek===

*{{reexploring|author=Anonymous|article=New Information About Mulek, Son of the King|start=142|end=144}}{{GL1|url=http://gospelink.com/library/doc?book_doc_id=296833}}
*{{JBMS-12-2-9}}
*{{BYUS|author=John L. Sorenson|article=The Mulekites|vol=30|num=?|date=Summer 1990|start=6|end=22}} {{link|url=http://byustudies.byu.edu/Products/MoreInfoPage/MoreInfo.aspx?Type=7&ProdID=620}}

===Nahom===
* Matthew Roper, ''Right on Target: Boomerang Hits and the Book of Mormon''2001 FAIR Conference.{{fairlink|url=http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/conf/2001RopM.html}}
* See also [[Book_of_Mormon_geography:Old_World#Nahom| Nahom]] in geography section.

===Nephi===
:"Nephi (BM), founder of the Nephite nation.
:Nehi, Nehri (OW), famous Egyptian noblemen. Nfy was the name of an Egyptian captain. Since BM insists on "ph," Nephi is closer to Nihpi, original name of the god Pa-nepi, which may even have been Nephi."{{NibleyLehiDesertLabel}}

*{{JBMS-1-1-12}}
*{{JBMS-9-2-10}}

===Paanchi===
:"Paanchi (BM), son of Pahoran, Sr., and pretender to the chief-judgeship.
:Paanchi (OW), son of Kherihor, a) chief high priest of Amon, b) ruler of the south who conquered all of Egypt and was high priest of Amon at Thebes."{{NibleyLehiDesertLabel}}

''Compare'': [[Book_of_Mormon_anachronisms:Names#Korihor|Korihor]]

===Pahoran===
:Pahoran (BM), a) great chief judge, b) son of the same.
:Pa-her-an (OW), ambassador of Egypt in Palestine, where his name has the "reformed" reading Pahura; in Egyptian as Pa-her-y it means "the Syrian" or Asiatic."{{NibleyLehiDesertLabel}}

===Pacumeni===
:"Pacumeni (BM), son of Pahoran.
:Pakamen (OW), Egyptian proper name meaning "blind man"; also Pamenches (Gk. Pachomios), commander of the south and high priest of Horus."{{NibleyLehiDesertLabel}}

===Pachus===
:"Pachus (BM), revolutionary leader and usurper of the throne.
:Pa-ks and Pach-qs (OW), Egyptian proper name. Compare Pa-ches-i, "he is praised.""{{NibleyLehiDesertLabel}}

===Rameumpton===

:Rameumptom was the name given by the Zoramites to the elevated place in their synagogues whence they offered up their vain-glorious and hypocritical prayers. Alma states that the word means a holy stand. It resembles, in its roots, Hebrew and also Egyptian in a remarkable manner. Ramoth, high (as Ramoth Gilead), elevated, a place where one can see and be seen; or, in a figurative sense, sublime or exalted. Mptom has probably its roots in the Hebrew word translated threshold, as we are told that the Philistines' god, Dagon, has a threshold in Ashdod (See {{s|1|Samuel|5|4-5}}). Words with this root are quite common in the Bible. Thus we see how Rameumptom means a high place to stand upon, a holy stand.{{ref|reynolds1}}

:While many words and names found in the Book of Mormon have exact equivalents in the Hebrew Bible, certain others exhibit Semitic characteristics, though their spelling does not always match known Hebrew forms. For example, "Rabbanah" as "great king" (Al{{s||Alma|18|13}}) may have affinities with the Hebrew root /rbb/, meaning "to be great or many." "Rameumptom" ({{s||Alma|31|21}}), meaning "holy stand," contains consonantal patterns suggesting the stems /rmm/ramah/, "to be high," and /tmm/tam/tom/, "to be complete, perfect, holy.{{ref|ramy2}}

===Rabbanah===

:While many words and names found in the Book of Mormon have exact equivalents in the Hebrew Bible, certain others exhibit Semitic characteristics, though their spelling does not always match known Hebrew forms. For example, "Rabbanah" as "great king" ({{s||Alma|18|13}}) may have affinities with the Hebrew root /rbb/, meaning "to be great or many." "Rameumptom" ({{s||Alma|31|21}}), meaning "holy stand," contains consonantal patterns suggesting the stems /rmm/ramah/, "to be high," and /tmm/tam/tom/, "to be complete, perfect, holy.{{ref|rab1}}

===Sam===
:"Sam (BM), brother of Nephi.
:Sam Tawi (OW), Egyptian "uniter of the lands," title taken by the brother of Nehri upon mounting the throne."{{NibleyLehiDesertLabel}}

===Sheum===
* Matthew Roper, ''Right on Target: Boomerang Hits and the Book of Mormon''2001 FAIR Conference.{{fairlink|url=http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/conf/2001RopM.html}}

===Shilum===
* Matthew Roper, ''Right on Target: Boomerang Hits and the Book of Mormon''2001 FAIR Conference.{{fairlink|url=http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/conf/2001RopM.html}}

===Timothy===
Critics have argued that "Timothy" is an unlikely Nephite name, since it is of Greek origin.

Hugh Nibley pointed out:

:[R]emember...that in Lehi's day Palestine was swarming with Greeks, important Greeks. Remember, it was Egyptian territory [prior to being seized by Babylon] at that time and Egyptian culture. The Egyptian army, Necho's army, was almost entirely Greek mercenaries. We have inscriptions from that very time up the Nile at Aswan-inscriptions from the mercenaries of the Egyptian army, and they're all in Greek. So Greek was very common, and especially the name Timotheus.{{ref|tim1}}

''Compare:'' [[Book_of_Mormon_anachronisms:Names#Lachoneus|Lachoneus]]

It would thus not be at all surprising for Lehites or Mulekites to be familiar with the name "Timothy" (or a derivative), or even for a "Timothy" to have accompanied Mulek's party of immigrants.

===Zarahemla===
* {{JBMS-6-2-15}}

===Zenoch===
:"Zenoch (BM), according to various Nephite writers, an ancient Hebrew prophet.
:Zenekh (OW), Egyptian proper name; once a serpent-god."{{NibleyLehiDesertLabel}}

==Less well supported examples==

Linguistics is a complex subject, and it is all too common for zealous but mistaken defenders of the Church to use parallels in names or language which cannot be sustained. Since most Church members have no training in ancient American languages, evaluating such claims can be difficult.

Mesoamerican scholars consulted by FAIR have recommended that the following sources, while superficially persuasive, should be used with caution (if at all):

* Bruce W. Warren, "Surviving Jaredite Names in Mesoamerica," ''Meridian Magazine'' (26 May 2005){{link|url=http://www.ldsmag.com/ancients/050526mesoamerica.html}}; citing {{NewEvidencesOfChrist|start=17|end=22}}
* Bruce W. Warren, "'Kish'—A personal Name" ''Meridian Magazine'' (17 February 2005){{link|url=http://www.meridianmagazine.com/articles/050217kish.html}}; citing {{NewEvidencesOfChrist|start=19|end=22}}

These comments are not intended to disparage the individuals involved, but to encourage rigor and restraint in claims made. As Elder Dallin H. Oaks cautioned, "When attacked by error, truth is better served by silence than by a bad argument."{{ref|oaks1}}

==Conclusion==

Many Book of Mormon names are not found in the Bible, and were unknown to Joseph Smith. Yet, these names have meaning in ancient languages and/or have been found as actual names from ancient history. These "hits" provide additional evidence that the Book of Mormon is indeed an ancient record.

==Endnotes==
#{{note|roper1}} Matthew Roper, ''Right on Target: Boomerang Hits and the Book of Mormon''2001 FAIR Conference.{{fairlink|url=http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/conf/2001RopM.html}}
#{{note|korihor1}} Hugh Nibley, ''Ancient Documents and the Pearl of Great Price'', edited by Robert Smith and Robert Smythe (n.p., n.d.), 11.
#{{note|lach1}} {{Nibley5_1|start=31}}
#{{note|tim1}} {{NibleyTeachingsBoM1_1||article=Lecture 27: Omni; Words of Mormon; Mosiah 1: The End of the Small Plates and The Coronation of Mosiah|start=430}}
#{{note|reynolds1}} {{CommentaryBoM1|vol=4|start=80}}
#{{note|ramy2}} {{EoM1|vol=1|start=181|author=Brian D. Stubbs|article=Book of Mormon Language}}
#{{note|rab1}} {{EoM1|vol=1|start=181|author=Brian D. Stubbs|article=Book of Mormon Language}}
#{{note|oaks1}} {{Ensign1|author=Dallin H. Oaks|article=Alternative Voices|date=May 1989|start=27}} {{link|url=http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/1989.htm/ensign%20may%201989.htm/alternate%20voices%20.htm?fn=document-frame.htm$f=templates$3.0}}

==Further reading==

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


[[de:Anachronismen_im_Buch_Mormon/Namen]]

Book of Mormon/Money

2008-07-05T03:43:44Z

Pwellauer:

==Criticism==
Critics claim that Book of Mormon references to Nephite coins is an anachronism, as coins were not used either in ancient America or Israel during Lehi's day.

===Source(s) of the Criticism===
*Duwayne R. Anderson, ''Farewell to Eden: Coming to Terms with Mormonism and Science'' (Bloomington, IN: 1st Books Library, 2003), 240, note 125.
*John Ankerberg and John Weldon, ''Everything You Ever Wanted to Know about Mormonism'' (Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 1992), 285–86.
*John L. Smith, "What about those Gold Plates?" ''The Utah Evangel'' 33:6 (September 1986): 8.
* {{SearchForTheTruthDVD}}

==Video==
{{VideoBoM1}}
<videoflash>UNt2aE_UM8g</videoflash>

==Response==
The text of the Book of Mormon does not mention coins. The pieces of gold and silver described in {{s||Alma|11|1-20}} are not coins, but a surprisingly sophisticated{{ref|welch1}} system of weights and measures that is consistent with Mesoamerican proto-monetary practices.{{ref|hatch1}}

The mention of "Nephite coinage" in the chapter heading of Alma 11 in the 1981 LDS Book of Mormon is in error. The chapter headings are not part of the inspired text. Elder Bruce R. McConkie, who composed the chapter headings for the new edition of the LDS scriptures, said:

:[As for the] Joseph Smith Translation items, the chapter headings, Topical Guide, Bible Dictionary, footnotes, the Gazetteer, and the maps. None of these are perfect; they do not of themselves determine doctrine; there have been and undoubtedly now are mistakes in them. Cross-references, for instance, do not establish and never were intended to prove that parallel passages so much as pertain to the same subject. They are aids and helps only.{{ref|mcconkie1}}

==Endnotes==
# {{note|welch1}} See "The Numerical Elegance of the Nephite System": [http://farms.byu.edu/jbms/8_2_1999_chart2.html Table 1] and [http://farms.byu.edu/jbms/8_2_1999_chart1.html Table 2], ''Journal of Book of Mormon Studies'' 8/2 (1999); {{JBMS-8-2-6}}; {{JBMS-8-2-5}}
# {{note|hatch1}}Marion Popenoe de Hatch, ''Kaminaljuyú/San Jorge: Evidencia Arqueológica de la Actividad Económica en el Valle de Guatemala, 300 a.C. a 300 d.C'' (Guatemala: Universidad del Valle de Guatemala, 1997), 100.
# {{note|mcconkie1}} {{DoR|start=289|end=290}}

==Further reading==

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

===FAIR web site===
*{{tg|url=http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai156.html|topic=Book of Mormon Anachronisms}}
*Michael Ash, "Book of Mormon Anachronisms Part 6: Compass, Coins, and Other Miscellaneous" {{pdflink|url=http://www.fairlds.org/apol/brochures/anach6.pdf }}

===External links===
*Michael Ash, "Coins in the Book of Mormon"] (MormonFortress.com) {{link|url=http://www.mormonfortress.com/coins1.html }}
*Jeff Lindsay, "Why Are 'Coins' Mentioned in the Book of Mormon Before The Invention of Coins?" (LightPlanet.com) {{link|url=http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/response/qa/bom_coins.htm }}
*{{FR-5-1-2}}, see especially p. 55.
*{{JBMS-8-2-6}}
*{{JBMS-8-2-5}}
*"The Numerical Elegance of the Nephite System": [http://farms.byu.edu/jbms/8_2_1999_chart2.html Table 1] and [http://farms.byu.edu/jbms/8_2_1999_chart1.html Table 2], ''Journal of Book of Mormon Studies'' 8/2 (1999).



[[de:Anachronismen_im_Buch_Mormon/M%C3%BCnzen]]
[[es:Anacronismos del Libro de Mormón: Monedas]]

Metal plates in ancient Israel

2008-07-05T03:39:50Z

Pwellauer:

==Criticism==
Critics claim that Joseph's report of finding a record on metal plates is not plausible.

===Source(s) of the Criticism===
* Anthony A. Hoekema, ''Mormonism'' (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1963), 89–90.
* John Hyde, Jr., ''Mormonism: Its Leaders and Designs'' (New York: Fetridge, 1857), 217–218.
* M.T. Lamb, ''The Golden Bible'' (New York: Ward and Drummond, 1887), 11.
* Stuart Martin, ''The Mystery of Mormonism'' (London: Odhams Press, 1920), 27.
* Brent Lee Metcalfe, "Apologetic and Critical Assumptions about Book of Mormon Historicity," ''Dialogue'' 26/3 (1993): 156–157

===Response===

''See also:'' article on [[Book_of_Mormon_anachronisms:Gold plates|"Gold" plates]]

In the past critics of the Book of Mormon have attacked the alleged absurdity of the Book of Mormon having been written on golden plates and its claim of the existence of an early sixth century B.C. version of the Hebrew Bible written on brass plates. Today, however, critics almost universally admit that there are numerous examples of ancient writing on metal plates. Ironically, some critics now claim instead that knowledge of such plates was readily available in Joseph Smith's day. Hugh Nibley's 1952 observation seems quite prescient: "it will not be long before men forget that in Joseph Smith's day the prophet was mocked and derided for his description of the plates more than anything else." {{ref|fn2}}

Recent reevaluation of the evidence now points to the fact that the Book of Mormon's description of sacred records written on bronze plates fits quite nicely in the cultural milieu of the ancient eastern Mediterranean.

One of the earliest known surviving examples of writing on "copper plates" are the Byblos Syllabic inscriptions (eighteenth century B.C.), from the city of Byblos on the Phoenician coast. The script is described as a "syllabary [which] is clearly inspired by the Egyptian hieroglyphic system, and in fact is the most important link known between the hieroglyphs and the Canaanite alphabet."{{ref|fn3}}

It would not be unreasonable to describe the Byblos Syllabic texts as eighteenth century B.C. Semitic "bronze plates" written in "reformed Egyptian characters."{{ref|fn4}}

Walter Burkert, in his study of the cultural dependence of Greek civilization on the ancient Near East, refers to the transmission of the practice of writing on bronze plates (Semitic root dlt) from the Phoenicians to the Greeks. "The reference to 'bronze deltoi [plates, from dlt ]' as a term [among the Greeks] for ancient sacral laws would point back to the seventh or sixth century [B.C.]" as the period in which the terminology and the practice of writing on bronze plates was transmitted from the Phoenicians to the Greeks.{{ref|fn5}}

Students of the Book of Mormon will note that this is precisely the time and place in which the Book of Mormon claims that there existed similar bronze plates which contained the "ancient sacred laws" of the Hebrews, the close cultural cousins of the Phoenicians.

Burkert also maintains that "the practice of the ''subscriptio'' in particular connects the layout of later Greek books with cuneiform practice, the indication of the name of the writer/author and the title of the book right at the end, after the last line of the text; this is a detailed and exclusive correspondence which proves that Greek literary practice is ultimately dependent upon Mesopotamia. It is necessary to postulate that Aramaic leather scrolls formed the connecting link."{{ref|fn6}}

Joseph Smith wrote that "the title page of the Book of Mormon is a literal translation, ''taken from the very last leaf'', on the left hand side of the collection or book of plates, which contained the record which has been translated."{{ref|fn7}}

This idea would have been counterintuitive in the early nineteenth century when "Title Pages" appeared at the beginning, not the end, of books.

Why, then, did Joseph claim the Book of Mormon practiced ''subscriptio''—writing the name of the author and title at the end of the book? If the existence of the practice of ''subscriptio'' among the Greeks represents "a detailed and exclusive correspondence which proves that Greek literary practice is ultimately dependent upon Mesopotamia [via Syria]," as Burkert claims, cannot the same thing be said of the Book of Mormon—that the practice of subscriptio represents "a detailed and exclusive correspondence" which offers proof that the Book of Mormon is "ultimately dependent" on the ancient Near East?

==Endnotes==

# {{note|fn2}}{{Nibley5_1|start=107}}
# {{note|fn3}}See {{ABD|vol=4|start=178|end=180}} Byblos is only about 170 miles north of Jerusalem.
# {{note|fn4}}{{Nibley5|start=105|end=6}} Nibley mentions these plates, which were not deciphered until 1985.
# {{note|fn5}}Walter Burkert, translated by Walter Burkert and Margaret E. Pinder, ''The Orientalizing Revolution: Near Eastern Influence on Greek Culture in the Early Archaic Age'' (Cambridge, Mass. : Harvard University Press, 1992), 30. ISBN 0674643631.
# {{note|fn6}}Walter Burkert, ''The Orientalizing Revolution: Near Eastern Influence on Greek Culture in the Early Archaic Age'', 32.
# {{note|fn7}}{{HoC1|vol=1|start=71}} (Emphasis added)

==Best articles to read next==
{{LearnMore}}
#{{FR-19-1-7}}
#{{FR-6-1-14}}

==Further Reading==
===FAIR wiki articles===

{{PlatesWiki}}
'''Book of Mormon "Anachronisms"'''
{{Book_of_Mormon_Anachronisms}}

===FAIR web site===
{{PlatesFAIR}}

===External links===
{{PlatesLinks}}

===Printed material===
{{PlatesPrint}}

[[de:Anachronismen_im_Buch_Mormon/Metallplatten]]

Book of Mormon/Windows

2008-07-03T19:49:22Z

Pwellauer:

{{question}}

==Question==
The mention of windows that could be "dashed in pieces" in {{s||Ether|2|23}} seems to be anachronistic, since glass windows were not invented until the late Middle Ages?

==Answer==

The term window originally referred to an opening through which the wind could enter. It is found 42 times in the Bible, where it does not refer to glass windows as we know them. In one passage ({{s|2|Kings|13|17}}), we read that a window in the palace was opened. So windows sometimes had doors or shutters. The same is true of the window that Noah built into the ark ({{s||Genesis|6|16}}; {{s||Genesis|8|6}}).

It seems likely that {{s||Ether|2|23}} means that the barges themselves would break if they had windows or openings built into them. In the next verse, the Lord explains that this is because they would go through extremely turbulent conditions at sea, sometimes being buried beneath the waves. Windows would mean weakening the wooden structure, by creating openings, making it more fragile and thus liable to be "dashed in pieces." If we read only the sentence containing the word "windows" and read it out of context, then the antecedent of "they" would, indeed, be "windows." But it is probable that the antecedent is "vessels," the last word in the preceding sentence.{{ref|farms1}}

==Endnotes==

# {{note|farms1}} FARMS "Question of the Week," ''farms.byu.edu''{{link|url=http://farms.byu.edu/questionday.php?id=16}}

==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===

{{Book_of_Mormon_anachronisms}}



[[de:Anachronismen_im_Buch_Mormon/Fenster]]

Book of Mormon/Windows

2008-07-03T19:48:57Z

Pwellauer:

Book of Mormon/Language/"Adieu"

2008-07-03T19:45:19Z

Pwellauer:

==Criticism==
{{s||Jacob|7|27}} ends with the phrase, "Brethren, adieu." Critics claim that because ''adieu'' is French, it shows that Joseph Smith composed the Book of Mormon, and not an ancient author.

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

==Response==

There are at least three problems with the ''adieu'' argument against the Book of Mormon.

# Critics often overlook the fact that the word ''adieu'' was not on the plates.
# The translator of a work can use words from any language he chooses in order to convey the meaning of the text to his readers, so that even if ''adieu'' had been a foreign word (e.g., French) to Joseph Smith, there is nothing either unusual or problematic with his choosing that word in his translation.
# Critics mistakenly think the word ''adieu'' is not an English word.

===Neither English nor French was on the plates===

The English Book of Mormon is a ''translation''. This means that it is no more likely that the word ''adieu'' appeared on the plates than did the words ''yea'', ''beginning'', or ''sword''. Except for proper nouns and a few other possibly transliterated nouns, no word that appears in the English version of the Book of Mormon can be said to have been on the ancient Nephite plates. Similarly, the phrase "and it came to pass" never appeared anywhere on the Nephite plates. Whatever character, word, or phrase that had been engraved on the plates was translated by Joseph Smith into what he felt was an approximate equivalent in English.

Despite the fact that the word ''adieu'' appears in the English translation of the Book of Mormon, the word ''adieu'' was certainly not known to any Book of Mormon writer, the word ''adieu'' was never used by any Book of Mormon writer, and the word ''adieu'' did not appear anywhere on the Nephite plates.

===A translation can legitimately use words from many languages===

The goal of a translation is to take a text written in one language and to make it understandable to someone who does not understand that language. Anyone who has had the need to translate knows that frequently there is no way to convey all of the meanings, nuances, and subtleties of the original text in the new language. Translators are free to select words and phrases that they feel best convey the original meaning and will best be understood by the readers of the translation.

For example, it would be perfectly acceptable for a translation from Japanese to English to include the non-English phrases ''ad hoc'', ''hoi polloi'', or ''savoir faire'' if those phrases seem to properly convey the original meaning and if the translator believes that readers will understand them.

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

The appearance of non-English words (if there are any) in the Book of Mormon has absolutely no bearing on whether the Book of Mormon is authentic or whether the translation was properly done, and the presence of non-English words in the translated text would not imply that those non-English words appeared in the original text on the Nephite plates.

===''Adieu'' is an English word===

There is a common misunderstanding among some critics of the Book of Mormon that the word ''adieu'' is not an English word. This is not true. The problem stems from the fact that ''adieu'' is both an English word and a French word, and most English speakers are more familiar with its use in a French context.

''Adieu'' is a perfectly good English word that has appeared in English dictionaries, English literature, and in common English usage from long before Joseph Smith to the present. ''Adieu'' entered the English language in the 14th century. It entered from Middle French, not modern French, and it has been part of English for approximately 800 years. ''Adieu'' has been part of the English language longer than the word ''banquet,'' which is also a word in modern French, but ''banquet'' entered the English language only in the 15th century. ''Adieu'' is no less English than ''commence'', ''nation'', ''psychology'', ''Bible'', ''vision'', or any other word that can be traced back to Latin, Greek, German, French, Spanish, or any other language.

The presence of ''adieu'' is no more a challenge to the historicity and authenticity of the Book of Mormon than the 36 uses of ''banquet'' in the NIV is a challenge to the historicity and authenticity of the Bible.

====French at the time of Christ?====

In 1737, William Whiston (1667-1752) produced a translation of ''The Life of Flavius Josephus'', written by a Jew born in Jerusalem in A.D. 37. Whiston's translation reads, in part:

:Thus have I set down the genealog of my family as I have found it described in the public records, and so bid adieu to those who calumniate me...{{link|url=http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext01/lfjos10.txt}}

Presumably, the critics would have us believe that Whiston is claiming that Josephus, a first century Jew, spoke French (a language not yet invented) because he uses the term ''adieu''?

====Shakespeare====
William Shakespeare is nothing if not an English writer. He uses ''adieu'' frequently in his plays:

;Hamlet, Act 1, Scene 5:GHOST:Adieu, adieu! Hamlet, remember me.{{link|url=http://www-tech.mit.edu/Shakespeare/hamlet/hamlet.1.5.html}}
;The Merchant of Venice, Act 2, Scene 3: LAUNCELOT Adieu! tears exhibit my tongue. Most beautiful/ pagan, most sweet Jew!{{link|url=http://www-tech.mit.edu/Shakespeare/merchant/merchant.2.3.html}}
;Romeo and Juliet, Act 3, Scene 5: ROMEO: Dry sorrow drinks our blood. Adieu, adieu!{{link|url=http://www-tech.mit.edu/Shakespeare/romeo_juliet/romeo_juliet.3.5.html}}
;The Merry Wives of Windsor, Act 2, Scene 1: NYM: Adieu. I love not the humour of bread and cheese,/ and there's the humour of it. Adieu.

There are over a hundred other examples.{{link|url=http://www.google.ca/search?as_q=adieu&num=10&hl=en&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=http%3A%2F%2Fwww-tech.mit.edu%2F&safe=images}}

====The Declaration of Independence====
[[Image:Declar_independ_rough_p4.JPG |left|frame|A segment of the fourth page of Thomas Jefferson's rough draft of the Declaration of Independence (original in Library of Congress). The red line indicates where Jefferson has written "everlasting Adieu," which he later struck out and replaced with the text underlined in green, "eternal separation." [http://www.princeton.edu/~tjpapers/declaration/declaration4.gif *]]]

Thomas Jefferson's original draft of the Declaration of Independence read, in part (beginning shown in image by blue underline):
:...be it so, since they will have it: the road to glory & happiness is open to us too; we will climb it in a separate state, and acquiesce in the necessity which pronounces our everlasting Adieu!{{ref|jefferson1}}

Jefferson later crossed out "everlasting Adieu," and replaced it with "eternal separation."{{ref|jefferson2}}

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

It should be noted that the word ''adieu'' appears in nearly every modern English dictionary, and that although its etymology may be listed as being from Middle French, the word itself is not indicated as being a non-English word.

====John and Charles Wesley====

The Wesley brothers, founders of Methodism, used ''adieu'' in some of their hymns:
;Hymn 285: I'll bid this world of noise and show/ With all its glittering snares, adieu! {{link|url=http://www.ccel.org/w/wesley/hymn/jwg02/jwg0285.html}}
;Hymn 809: VAIN, delusive world, adieu...{{link|url=http://www.ccel.org/w/wesley/hymn/jwg08/jwg0809.html}}{{ref|wesley1}}

Furthermore, John Wesley was fond of ''adieu'', using it many times in his personal letters. A few examples follow; more are available{{link|url=http://www.google.com/custom?q=adieu&btnG=Search&safe=vss&cof=GL%3A0%3BT%3A%23000000%3BLC%3A%230000FF%3B&domains=wesley.nnu.edu&sitesearch=wesley.nnu.edu}}
;5 January 1763 to Charles Wesley:"We join in love to you both. My wife gains ground. She is quite peaceable and loving to all. Adieu!"{{link|url=http://wesley.nnu.edu/john_wesley/letters/1763.htm}}
;17 May 1742 to Charles Wesley:Let all the brethren pray for me. Adieu!{{link|url=http://wesley.nnu.edu/john_wesley/letters/1742.htm}}
;15 December 1772 to Charles Wesley:My love to all. Adieu!{{link|url=http://wesley.nnu.edu/john_wesley/letters/1772b.htm}}
; 16 December 1772 to Mrs. Bennis:My dear sister, adieu{{link|url=http://wesley.nnu.edu/john_wesley/letters/1772b.htm}}

====Irenaeus - French in the 1st Century?====

Speaking after quoting {{s||Deuteronomy|33|9}}, the early Christian author Irenaeus (A.D. 115–202) had ''his'' ancient writings translated as follows:

:But who are they that have left father and mother, and have said adieu to all their neighbours, on account of the word of God and His covenant, unless the disciples of the Lord?{{ref|irenaeus1}}

Is this a legitimate translation, or was Irenaeus non-existent and the translator a fraud for using "adieu"?

====Use Among LDS Members====
[[Image:Emma_hymn_book_2.jpg |right|frame|Index page from the 1835 book of hymns chosen by Emma Smith for use in the Church. Original from BYU library.{{link|url=http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/cgi-bin/docitemview.exe?CISOROOT=/NCMP1820-1846&CISOPTR=533}}]]

Closer to home, hymn #52 (penned by a non-LDS author) was collected by Emma Smith for the use of the Church. In this hymn, ''adieu'' is used twice in the first line:

:Adieu, my dear brethren adieu,
:Reluctant we give you the hand,
:No more to assemble with you,
:Till we on mount Zion shall stand.{{ref|hymn1}}

Clearly, this was a word familiar to Joseph and his contemporaries. The Church's ''Times and Seasons'' periodical used the word 19 times.

====Use Among Non-LDS Contemporaries====

Emma Smith's second husband, Lewis Bidamon, was certainly not LDS. His letters reveal that his spelling is not terribly sophisticated. Yet, even he was very comfortable using the phrase "adieu," as in this letter to Emma:

:''Adeau'', dear Emma, for the present. Give my warmest affections to the children and all inquireing friends, and curses to my enmeys!{{ref|bidamon1}}

(''For further examples of 19th century use of the word, see [[/Further examples|here]]).

==Conclusion==
''Adieu'' is simply one English word among many in the Book of Mormon translation. It was in common use among Latter-day Saints and others in Joseph's era. Critics hope to cause confusion simply because the word's French associations are more familiar to the general reader and because the critics can misrepresent the nature of translated works to people who don't carefully consider what the critics are asserting. In the final analysis, the presence of the word "adieu" in the English translation of the Book of Mormon cannot be construed to indicate anything beyond the fact that Jacob intended to communicate "farewell forever, or until we meet God."

==Endnotes==
#{{note|jefferson1}} Thomas Jefferson, "original Rough draght," ''The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, Volume 1:1760-1776'' (Princeton University Press, 1950), 423–428. {{link|url=http://www.princeton.edu/~tjpapers/declaration/declaration.html}}
#{{note|jefferson2}} Editorial Note, "Jefferson's 'original Rough draught,' of the Declaration of Independence," (Princeton University Press, 2004), 6, footnote 16. {{link|url=http://www.princeton.edu/~tjpapers/declaration/declaration.html}}
#{{note|wesley1}} John Wesley, ''A Collection of Hymns for the Use of the People Called Methodists'' (London: Wesleyan-Methodist Book Room, 1889 [1780]), #285, #809.
#{{note|irenaeus1}} {{Anf1|author=Irenaeus|article=Against Heresies|citation=book 4 chap. 8|vol=1|start=471}}
#{{note|hymn1}}Emma Smith, ''A Collection of Sacred Hymns, for the Church of the Latter Day Saints'' Hymn 52, (Kirtland, Ohio: F. G. Williams & co., 1835), 68.
#{{note|bidamon1}} Lewis Bidamon to Emma Smith Bidamon, 20 April 1850, RLDS Archives; cited in {{ME2_1|start=257}} Spelling as original, italics added.

==Best articles to read next==
{{LearnMore}}
#"How is it that the Book of Mormon prophet Jacob ends his account with the French word 'adieu'?", ''farms.byu.edu'' (accessed 14 June 2006).{{link|url=http://farms.byu.edu/questionday.php?id=1 }}
#Jeff Lindsay, "Why does the Book of Jacob end with a French word?", ''lightplanet.com'' (accessed 14 June 2006).{{link|url=http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/response/qa/bom_french.htm}}
#{{Ensign1|author=Edward J. Brandt|article=Why are the words ''adieu, bible,'' and ''baptize'' in the Book of Mormon? These words weren't known in Book of Mormon times|date=October 1985|start=17}} {{link|url=http://library.lds.org/library/lpext.dll/ArchMagazines/Ensign/1985.htm/ensign%20october%201985%20.htm/i%20have%20a%20question.htm?fn=document-frame.htm&f=templates&2.0#LPTOC1}}

==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===
{{Book_of_Mormon_Anachronisms}}
===FAIR web site===
*{{Tg|topic=Book of Mormon Textual Issues|url=http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai111.html}}

===External links===
*"How is it that the Book of Mormon prophet Jacob ends his account with the French word 'adieu'?", ''farms.byu.edu'' (accessed 14 June 2006).{{link|url=http://farms.byu.edu/questionday.php?id=1 }}
*Jeff Lindsay, "Why does the Book of Jacob end with a French word?", ''lightplanet.com'' (accessed 14 June 2006).{{link|url=http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/response/qa/bom_french.htm}}
*{{Ensign1|author=Edward J. Brandt|article=Why are the words ''adieu, bible,'' and ''baptize'' in the Book of Mormon? These words weren't known in Book of Mormon times|date=October 1985|start=17}} {{link|url=http://library.lds.org/library/lpext.dll/ArchMagazines/Ensign/1985.htm/ensign%20october%201985%20.htm/i%20have%20a%20question.htm?fn=document-frame.htm&f=templates&2.0#LPTOC1}}

===Printed material===
*{{revisited1|author=Daniel C. Peterson|article=Is the Book of Mormon True? Notes on the Debate|start=Chapter 6}} {{GL1|url=http://gospelink.com/library/doc?doc%5fid=264962}}

[[de:Anachronismen_im_Buch_Mormon:Adieu]]
[[es:Anacronismos del Libro de Mormón: "Adieu"]]

Book of Mormon/Basics

2008-07-03T19:39:44Z

Pwellauer:

{{BoMPortal}}

==Book of Mormon Overview==

The Book of Mormon is one of four books considered to be scripture by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the other three being the Holy Bible, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price. These four books are referred to as the “standard works” by Latter-day Saints, who consider them to be God’s word and equal in authority.

The Book of Mormon is an ancient text that was written in the western hemisphere in the late 4th and early 5th centuries A.D. It is an account of a specific group of people whose ancestors came from Jerusalem in the early 6th century B.C. Although the Book of Mormon is sometimes referred to as a history of that society, it is really a religious text with historical events used to teach and explain religious principles. The Book of Mormon was engraved on gold plates and buried in a stone box around the year 421 A.D. In 1827, Joseph Smith, a young man living in the state of New York in the United States, uncovered these plates and translated them into English.

The Book of Mormon is a little less than half the size of the Old Testament and is larger than the New Testament. The English editions of the Book of Mormon published today generally result in a book of over 500 pages. The Book of Mormon has been translated from English into over 105 languages. Approximately 130 million copies of the Book of Mormon have been printed since 1830.

==Book of Mormon Synopsis==

Lehi, a wealthy and faithful Israelite of the tribe of Manasseh, lives in Jerusalem in the late 7th century B.C. Having heard the preaching of Jeremiah and other prophets, he prays to God and receives a vision. Lehi is told by God that Jerusalem will be destroyed and the Lehi should take his family and flee into the wilderness and that they will be led to a promised land.

Lehi, his wife Sariah, and their children leave Jerusalem and travel southward. Lehi’s four oldest sons, Laman, Lemuel, Sam, and Nephite, are sent back to Jerusalem to obtain the Hebrew scriptures and other writings, as well as to bring Ishmael and his family to join Lehi’s group. Lehi’s group travels south through what is now Saudi Arabia and then east to the shore of the Arabian Sea. There they build boats and travel to the western hemisphere.

After arriving in the Americas, Lehi dies and the family group splits into two factions: the Lamanites (those following the eldest son Laman) and the Nephites (those following the righteous, younger son Nephi).

The Lamanites quickly fall into idolatry and reject their religious heritage and culture. The Nephites, however, generally follow the religious traditions of Abraham and Moses, though they often fall into idolatry, materialism, and other sins. A series of prophets are sent to the Nephites to keep them faithful to the god of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and to the teachings of Moses. These prophets also teach that the Messiah will be sent to the Israelites in Jerusalem, and that after He is crucified at Jerusalem He will appear to the Nephites and bring peace.

These two groups remain in a state of near constant warfare, with the Lamanites being significantly more numerous than the Nephites. The Nephites migrate north several times, and during the 3rd century B.C. they come into contact with a civilization descended from a group of Jews that had fled Jerusalem at the time of its destruction (the Mulekites). The Mulekites and Nephites combine and are thereafter referred to as Nephites.

The climax of the Book of Mormon is a cataclysmic destruction of much of the Nephite and Lamanite civilizations at the time of the crucifixion of Jesus in Jerusalem. Shortly after this destruction the resurrected Jesus Christ appears to the surviving righteous people. Christ establishes a church among the people and delivers to them many of the teachings that appear in the New Testament gospel.

There follows a period of about 200 years of peace and harmony, after which the people begin again to break apart into factions. By the mid 4th century A.D., the people are again divided into Lamanites and Nephites, but both having rejected Christ and His teachings. There is a major battle around the year A.D. 385 which destroys nearly all of the Nephites. The book ends with the writings of Mormon and his son Moroni, the two last Nephite prophets. They create the Book of Mormon by abridging the records of their civilization and writing the text on gold plates. The final entry in the Book of Mormon is written around A.D. 421 by Moroni and indicates that God instructed him to bury the plates and that they will be found and translated in the future.

There is one additional civilization that is discussed in the Book of Mormon. The Jaredites were a group that left the Old World around the time of the Tower of Babel and were led by God to the Americas. This culture lasted from approximately 2200 B.C. until the 4th or 5th century B.C. The Mulekites had met a survivor of the Jaredites, and the Nephites found a written history of that people as recorded by a Jaredite prophet named Ether. Moroni’s abridgement of, and commentary on, this record appears within the Book of Mormon as the Book of Ether.

==Book of Mormon Authors==

The Book of Mormon was primarily written and assembled by Mormon, a Nephite who lived in the Americas during the 4th century A.D. Mormon created the Book of Mormon by abridging the records of his people as they had been kept from approximately 600 B.C. until his day. The books of Mosiah, Alma, Helaman, Third Nephi, Fourth Nephi, and the first seven chapters of Mormon were all written by Mormon and are his selection and abridgement of the historical records kept by the “kings” of his people. These books cover a period from about 130 B.C. to about A.D. 385. The first part of Mormon’s abridgement, which covered the period from 600 B.C. to 130 B.C., was lost by Joseph Smith and Martin Harris during the translation process in 1827, which is why Mormon’s existing abridgement in our Book of Mormon only covers the records beginning in about 130 B.C.

The books of First Nephi, Second Nephi, Jacob, Enos, Jarom, and Omni are the writings of various Nephite religious leaders from about 600 B.C. to about 200 B.C. Each of these books is named after the author, except that Jarom and Omni include brief writings by people in addition to Jarom and Omni. All of these books were written on what was called the “small plates of Nephi.” Mormon had attached these plates (apparently without editing) to the end of his own writings, which made it possible for the modern translation of the Book of Mormon to contain some of the earlier history and prophecies. After the first part of the record had been lost, Joseph Smith was instructed to translate the “small plates” from the end of the record and to place that translation where the earlier part of Mormon’s record had been.

The Words of Mormon is a short book by Mormon that was written to connect the narrative of the small plates, which end with the book of Omni, to the rest of the book, beginning with Mosiah. The Words of Mormon were written by Mormon in around A.D. 385 but deal with the events between Omni and Mosiah during the 2nd century B.C.

After Mormon died, his son Moroni completed the Book of Mormon as we have it today by adding four pieces. First, Moroni finished his father’s record (the Book of Mormon section within the overall Book of Mormon) by adding what are now chapters 8 and 9. Second, Moroni added the Book of Ether, his condensed summary of, and his commentary on, an ancient record from an earlier civilization, called the Jaredites, that existed from approximately 2200 B.C. to around the 4th or 5th century B.C. Third, Moroni added his own book to the end of the compilation of his father. And finally, Moroni added to the end of the record what is now the title page of the Book of Mormon.

The last recorded date in Moroni’s writings corresponds roughly to A.D. 421.

It should be noted that in the period between the 2nd century B.C. and the 1st century A.D. there were six generations of men who contributed to the books of Mosiah, Alma, Helaman, 3rd Nephi, and 4th Nephi. They were Alma, Alma the Younger (son of Alma), Helaman (son of Alma the Younger), Helaman (son of Helaman), Nephi (son of the second Helaman), and Nephi (son of Nephi). The first Alma’s story is included in the second half of the Book of Mosiah. The Book of Alma is named for Alma the Younger and contains both his record and the record of his son Helaman. The Book of Helaman is a record of Helaman, son of Helaman. The books of 3rd and 4th Nephi refer to the ministries of the two Nephi's respectively, though the Book of 4th Nephi covers a period long beyond the mortal ministry of Nephi son of Nephi.

The following is a flow chart showing who kept the records and how they were passed on throughout the history of the Book of Mormon.

[[Image:Bomrec.jpg]]

==Book of Mormon Textual Divisions==

The Book of Mormon is divided into books, chapters, and verses, similar to how the Bible is now published, but only the division into books is from the original text. The title page and the individual book introductions are part of the original Book of Mormon text. The Book of Mormon introduction, chapter headings, footnotes, modern year correspondences, supplementary materials, and the division into chapters and verses were added in the second half of the 19th century and in the 20th century, and those portions are not considered part of the revealed text of the Book of Mormon.

Listed below are the 15 books within the Book of Mormon. The years and number of pages are approximates.

*The Book of First Nephi
**Author: Nephi
**Years covered: 600 B.C. – 580 B.C.
**Year written: mid 6th century B.C.
**Number of pages: 52
*The Book of Second Nephi
**Author: Nephi
**Years covered: 580 B.C. – 544 B.C.
**Year written: 544 B.C.
**Number of pages: 64
*The Book of Jacob
**Author: Jacob (brother of Nephi)
**Years covered: 544 B.C. – 530 B.C.
**Year written: 530 B.C.
**Number of pages: 19
*The Book of Enos
**Author: Enos (son of Jacob)
**Years covered: 530 B.C.
**Year written: early 5th century B.C.
**Number of pages: 2
*The Book of Jarom
**Author: Jarom (son of Enos) and others
**Years covered: 420 B.C.
**Year written:
**Number of pages: 2
*The Book of Omni
**Author: Omni (descendant of Jarom) and others
**Years covered: 323 B.C.
**Year written: late 4th century and 3rd century B.C.
**Number of pages: 3
*Words of Mormon
**Author: Mormon
**Years covered: mid 4th century A.D. and 2nd century B.C.
**Year written: 4th century A.D.
**Number of pages: 2
*The Book of Mosiah
**Author: Mormon (using records of Mosiah)
**Years covered: 130 B.C. – 91 B.C.
**Year written: 4th century A.D.
**Number of pages: 62
*The Book of Alma
**Author: Mormon (using records of Alma and Helaman)
**Years covered: 91 B.C. – 52 B.C.
**Year written: 4th century A.D.
**Number of pages: 161
*The Book of Helaman
**Author: Mormon (using records of Helaman and Nephi)
**Years covered: 52 B.C. – 1 B.C.
**Year written: 4th century A.D.
**Number of pages: 38
*The Book of Third Nephi
**Author: Mormon (using records of Nephi)
**Years covered: A.D. 1 – A.D. 36
**Year written: 4th century A.D.
**Number of pages: 59
*The Book of Fourth Nephi
**Author: Mormon (using records of Nephi and others)
**Years covered: A.D. 36 – A.D. 322
**Year written: 4th century A.D.
**Number of pages: 4
*The Book of Mormon
**Author: Mormon and Moroni (son of Mormon)
**Years covered: A.D. 322 – A.D. 385
**Year written: A.D. 385
**Number of pages: 18
*The Book of Ether
**Author: Moroni (using records of Ether)
**Years covered: 2200 B.C. – 400 B.C.
**Year written: late 4th or early 5th century A.D.
**Number of pages: 31
*The Book of Moroni
**Author: Moroni (son of Mormon)
**Years covered: late 4th and early 5th century A.D.
**Year written: A.D. 421
**Number of pages: 14

==Book of Mormon Location==

The Book of Mormon begins in Jerusalem, and the [[Book_of_Mormon_geography:Old_World|route of the group]] to the shore of the Arabian Sea has been identified and is generally accepted by Book of Mormon scholars. However, the site of their landing in the western hemisphere is not known. Based on a variety of internal evidences, most Book of Mormon scholars today believe that the Book of Mormon narrative takes place near Guatemala and the Yucatan peninsula.

The Jaredite culture existed somewhere to the north of the Lehite cultures, but close enough so that the Nephites found some of the ruins of the Jaredite civilization within a few days or weeks of traveling by foot from the Nephite lands. ({{s||Mosiah|8|&-11}}; compare with {{s||Mosiah|23|1-3}} and {{s||Mosiah|24|25}}.)

Historically, most Book of Mormon readers, including most LDS leaders, assumed that the Book of Mormon civilizations extended far into both North and South America. The primary textual support for this view has been the Book of Mormon statements regarding a “land northward” and a “land southward” separated by a “narrow neck of land.” LDS Church leaders have also frequently used Book of Mormon statements about a promised land to include the United States specifically. This view of the Book of Mormon is called the “Hemispheric Geography Theory” ([[Book_of_Mormon_geography:New_World:HGT|HGT]]).

An alternate opinion of where the Book of Mormon lands are located is that the entire narrative takes place within a relatively small area, probably little more than a few hundred miles between the furthest points. This view, called the “Limited Geography Theory” ([[Book_of_Mormon_geography:New_World:LGT|LGT]]) was first proposed during the lifetime of Joseph Smith, but remained a minority opinion until the second half of the 20th century. Today, nearly all Book of Mormon scholars believe the textual evidence for the LGT is overwhelming.

It should be noted that both the HGT and the LGT can either accept or reject the assumption that non-Lehite peoples and cultures existed before, during, and after the Book of Mormon cultures. Both theories can also either accept or reject the idea that all, or nearly all, of pre-Columbian Native Americans could have been descended, at least in part, from Lehi. And finally, neither the HGT nor the LGT imply that it should be possible to determine Lehi ancestry from modern Native American [[Book_of_Mormon_and_DNA_evidence|DNA]].

Although many Book of Mormon scholars see references to non-Lehite cultures and peoples within the text of the Book of Mormon, the Book of Mormon does not overtly reference non-Lehite civilizations or peoples. This fact, combined with the paucity of written material from New World antiquity and the discontinuities of New World civilizations, languages, and occupations, makes it difficult to identify existing ancient ruins and artifacts as being of Lehite origin or to confidently place Lehite culture within a specific ancient American context. A commonly held view of many Book of Mormon scholars is that the Jaredites were associated with the Olmec culture and the Nephites and Lamanites were associated with the Mayan culture.

==Book of Mormon Translation==

Joseph Smith, who was born in 1805 in the state of Vermont in the United States, was visited by an angel several times one night in 1823. The angel identified himself as the ancient Nephi prophet Moroni, and he told Joseph about the existence of an ancient record of his people. Moroni told Joseph that the record was written on gold plates and that in time Joseph would be allowed to retrieve the plates and translate them. The following day Joseph went to a nearby hill as directed by the angel, and there under a large rock he saw a stone box and the ancient plates within it.

Joseph was not permitted to remove the plates until 1827. Almost immediately after Joseph Smith retrieved the plates, enemies became aware of them and tried to steal them. Joseph and his wife Emma were forced to move as persecution increased.

Joseph Smith, who had very little education, said that he had been able to translate the Book of Mormon through the power of God. His translation process involved his receiving direct revelation from God, often through the medium of the Urim and Thummim or through a seerstone. Joseph Smith dictated the Book of Mormon while a scribe wrote down what was said. The entire translation process took approximately 60 days and involved at least three scribes: Emma Smith, Martin Harris, and Oliver Cowdery.

At one point during the translation process, Martin Harris pressured Joseph into letting Martin take the transcript to show to his wife, who had been upset with Martin over his involvement with the Book of Mormon translation. These pages, which covered over 300 years of Nephite history and religious discourse, were lost and never recovered. This event had been foreseen by God, and when the plates had been originally assembled, Mormon had been inspired to include a separate set of plates that covered some of the time period as covered by the lost manuscript.

The gold plates were taken by the angel after the translation, but a number of witnesses were allowed to see and feel them. Martin Harris, David Whitmer, and Oliver Cowdery (the “Three Witnesses”) were visited by an angel, who showed them the plates, and these witnesses heard the voice of God declaring the translation to be correct (note that many critics of the Church unjustifiably assume this means the original manuscript was perfect and thus no changes of any kind should have been needed or made in the published Book of Mormon). Another eight men were allowed to see, handle, and lift the plates, though there was no spiritual or supernatural event associated with it. The written testimonies of the three and eight witnesses appears at the front of the printed editions of the Book of Mormon.

In addition to the testimony of the twelve official witnesses (Joseph Smith, the Three Witnesses, and the Eight Witnesses), a number of other people also were witnesses to the existence of the plates. Most of these experiences occurred under natural circumstances, such as Emma moving them and hearing the metallic sound of their rustling under their covering while she was doing housecleaning. Others had miraculous experiences, such as Mary Whitmer being shown the plates by Moroni after she had sacrificed so much to support Joseph while he translated the plates in her home.

The original manuscript of the Book of Mormon consisted of a stream of words without punctuation and with inconsistent spelling. The manuscript was recopied for use by the printer, and this manuscript is called the printer’s manuscript. About one third of the original manuscript and all of the printer’s manuscript are still extant. The printer had to add all of the punctuation, and he did so based on his own reading of the text.

The Book of Mormon was first published in 1829. Over the years, Joseph Smith occasionally corrected errors that had appeared in the first printing, and he also made a few changes to the Book of Mormon text that he felt better expressed what had been on the plates. Nearly every edition of the Book of Mormon since then has involved some minor changes as scholars analyze the various manuscripts to try to determine the original translation of the Book of Mormon plates.

==Book of Mormon Teachings==
* [[Plain_and_Precious_Book_of_Mormon_doctrines | Plain and precious Book of Mormon doctrines]]

==Book of Mormon Resources==

===Complete Text===
* [http://www.mormon.org/freeoffers/1,17785,2071-1-1,00.html?src=tv Click here] for free copy of the Book of Mormon, with no obligation
* [http://www.lds.org/mp3/display/0,18692,5297-41,00.html?src=tv# Click here] to listen to or download Book of Mormon in audio format
* [http://scriptures.lds.org/bm/contents Click here] for an on-line searchable Book of Mormon

===Study Aids===
* [[Online_textual_sources_and_materials#Scripture_study | FAIRWiki scripture study links]]

===Bibliography===
The ''FARMS Review'' often produces a yearly bibliography on the Book of Mormon:

*{{FR-1-1-19}}
*{{FR-2-1-31}}
*{{FR-3-1-23}}
*{{FR-4-1-32}}
*{{FR-5-1-21}}
*{{FR-6-2-17}}
*{{FR-7-2-12}}
*{{FR-8-2-17}}
*{{FR-9-2-7}}
*{{FR-9-2-18}}
*{{FR-10-2-16}}
*{{FR-11-2-9}}
*{{FR-12-2-21}}
*{{FR-13-2-18}}
*{{FR-15-2-21}}

==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===
{{BoMWiki}}
 {{OtherLang}}
*{{GermanWiki|http://www.de.fairmormon.org/index.php/Buch_Mormon_Grundlagen}}

===FAIR web site===
{{BoMFAIR}}

===External links===
{{BoMLinks}}

===Printed material===
{{BoMPrint}}

[[de:Buch_Mormon_Grundlagen]]

The Bible/Open canon vs. closed canon

2008-07-03T19:38:13Z

Pwellauer:

{{BiblePortal}}

==Criticism==
Critics claim that the Church is in error because Christianity requires a "closed canon" (no more authoritative revelation) instead of the Church's "open canon" (potential for more binding revelation).

===Source(s) of the Criticism===
*Luke P. Wilson, “Lost Books & Latter-Day Revelation: A Response to Mormon Views of the New Testament Canon,” ''Christian Research Journal'' (Fall 1996): 27–33.

==Response==

===God is superior even to His Word===

The Bible is an important record of God's message to humanity. However, the Bible—or any other written text—cannot be the focus of the Christian's life or faith. Only One deserves that place: God.

One non-LDS Christian author cautioned believers from placing the Bible 'ahead' of God:

:It is possible, however, to stress the Bible so much and give it so central a place that the sensitive Christian conscience must rebel. We may illustrate such overstress on the Bible by the often-used (and perhaps misused) quotation from Chillingworth: “The Bible alone is the religion of Protestantism.” Or we may recall how often it has been said that the Bible is the final authority for the Christian. If it will not seem too facetious, I would like to put in a good word for God. It is God and not the Bible who is the central fact for the Christian. When we speak of “the Word of God” we use a phrase which, properly used, may apply to the Bible, but it has a deeper primary meaning. It is God who speaks to man. But he does not do so only through the Bible. He speaks through prophets and apostles. He speaks through specific events. And while his unique message to the Church finds its central record and written expression in the Bible, this very reference to the Bible reminds us that Christ is the Word of God in a living, personal way which surpasses what we have even in this unique book. Even the Bible proves to be the Word of God only when the Holy Spirit working within us attests the truth and divine authority of what the Scripture says. Faith must not give to the aids that God provides the reverence and attention that Belong only to God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. Our hope is in God; our life is in Christ; our power is in the Spirit. The Bible speaks to us of the divine center of all life and help and power, but it is not the center. The Christian teaching about the canon must not deify the Scripture.{{ref|floyd1}}

To argue that the canon is closed effectively seeks to place God's written word (the Bible) above God Himself. Some have even called this practice "bibolatry" or "bibliolatry." Critics are effectively ordering God not to reveal anything further, or refusing to even consider that He might choose to speak again.

===Closed canon is not a Biblical doctrine===

The idea of a closed canon is not a Biblical doctrine. The Bible bears record that God called prophets in the past. Why could He not—indeed, why ''would'' He not—continue to do so?

Ironically, it would seem that the only way to know that there can be no extra-Biblical revelation is via revelation: otherwise, decisions about God's Word are being made by human intellect alone. Yet, since the Bible does not claim that it is the sole source of revealed truth, the only potential source of a revelation to close the canon would be extra-Biblical. Thus, those who insist on a closed canon are in the uncomfortable position of requiring extra-Biblical revelation to rule out extra-Biblical revelation!{{ref|tpjs1}}

Throughout Biblical history, the canon was clearly ''not'' closed. New prophets were called, and new authoritative writing was made. It would seem strange for this to cease without revelatory notice being given that God's practices were about to change.

===Scriptural interpretation requires revelation===

Even if one were to grant that the Bible contains all ''necessary'' teachings, it is clear from Christian history that the Bible can be interpreted in many different ways by sincere readers. What else but additional, on-going revelation can settle legitimate questions of interpretation and application of God's word? Are we to rely on human reason alone to do so? Does this not in essence turn to an extra-Biblical source for information about divine matters?

==Conclusion==
The doctrine of a closed canon and the end of authoritative revelation is not found in the Bible. To insist upon this doctrine is to place a non-Biblical doctrine in a place of pre-eminence, and insist that God must be bound by it. Such a doctrine would require the very revelation it denies to be authoritative. Even the proper interpretation of Biblical teachings requires authoritative revelation, which are necessarily extra-Biblical.

Critics are free to hold these beliefs if they wish, but they ought not to criticize the LDS for believing extra-Biblical doctrines when they themselves insist upon the non-Biblical closed canon.

==Endnotes==
#{{note|floyd1}} Floyd V. Filson, ''Which Books Belong in the Bible?'' (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1957), 20–21.
#{{note|tpjs1}} Joseph Smith made this observation in {{TPJS1|start=61}}

==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===
{{biblewiki}}

===FAIR web site===
{{BibleFAIR}}

===External links===
*{{FR-11-2-6}}
*{{FR-11-2-8}}
{{BibleLinks}}

===Printed material===
{{BiblePrint}}

[[de:Offener_oder_geschlossener_Kanon%3F]]
[[es:Canon abierto vs. canon cerrado]]

The Bible/Lost scripture

2008-07-03T19:36:28Z

Pwellauer:

{| style="margin: 0em 0em 0em 0em; border: 0px; align="right" cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0
|-
| {{BiblePortal}}
|-
| {{EarlyChristianityPortal}}
|}

{{question}}

==Question==

I've heard about "lost scripture" mentioned in the Bible. What is this about, and what implications does it have for the doctrine of Biblical [[Biblical_inerrancy|inerrancy]] and [[Biblical_completeness|sufficiency]]?

==Answer==

So called "lost scripture" is in reference to writings mentioned or cited within the present Biblical record, but which are not in the Bible itself. Some of these writings are known from other sources, and some are not.

===Examples of "lost scripture"===

{| valign="top" border="1"
!Lost writing!!Biblical citation to the lost writing
|-
| style="width:50%" valign="top"| Book of the Wars of the Lord ||{{s||Numbers|21|14}}
|-
|Book of Jasher||{{s||Joshua|10|13}}, {{s|2|Samuel|1|18}}
|-
|Book of the Acts of Solomon||{{s|1|Kings|11|41}}
|-
|Book of Samuel the Seer||{{s|1|Chronicles|29|29}}
|-
|Book of Gad the Seer||{{s|1|Chronicles|29|29}}
|-
|Book of Nathan the Prophet||{{s|1|Chronicles|29|29}}, {{s|2|Chronicles|9|29}}
|-
|Prophecy of of Ahijah||{{s|2|Chronicles|9|29}}
|-
|Visions of Iddo the Seer||{{s|2|Chronicles|9|29}}, {{s|2|Chronicles|12|15}}, {{s|2|Chronicles|13|22}}
|-
|Book of Shemaiah||{{s|2|Chronicles|12|15}}
|-
|Book of Jehu||{{s|2|Chronicles|20|34}}
|-
|Sayings of the Seers||{{s|2|Chronicles|33|19}}
|-
|lament for Josiah||{{s|2|Chronicles|35|25}}
|-
|Paul's epistle to Corinthians before our "1 Corinthians"||{{s|1|Corinthians|5|9}}
|-
|Paul's possible earlier Ephesians epistle||{{s||Ephesians|3|3}}
|-
|Paul's epistle to Church at Laodicea||{{s||Colossians|4|16}}
|-
|1 Enoch 1:19 and The Assumption of Moses||{{s||Jude|1|14-15}}
|-
|1 Enoch||"It influenced Matthew, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Ephesians, Colossians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, Hebrews, 1 John, Jude (which quotes it directly) and Revelation (with numerous points of contact)…in molding New Testament doctrines concerning the nature of the Messiah, the Son of Man, the messianic kingdom, demonology, the future, resurrection, the final judgment, the whole eschatological theater, and symbolism."{{ref|enochwide1}}
|}

===Examples of canonical differences among Bibles===

The picture is further complicated by the fact that Christians have not always agreed on the "canon"—that is, they have not always agreed upon which writings were "scripture" and which were not.

Some examples of these variations:

{| valign="top" border="1"
!Christian Person or Group!!Difference in canon from Protestant Bible (eg KJV)
|-
|Catholics||Apocrypha is canonical
|-
|Orthodox||Apocrypha is canonical
|-
|Clement of Alexanderia (A.D. 200)|| Included in canon:
* Epistle of Barnabas
* Epistle of Clement
* The Preaching of Peter{{ref|pr2}}
|-
|Roman Christians (circa A.D. 200)||Included in canon:
*Revelation of Peter
*Wisdom of Solomon
Excluded from canon:
*Hebrews
*1 Peter
*2 Peter
*3 John{{ref|ash1}}
|-
|Origen (''date'')||Included in canon:
* Epistle of Barnabas
* Shepherd of Hermas{{ref|pr3}}
Excluded from canon: 
*James
*Jude
*2 John
*Those disputed by Rome(see above){{ref|ash2}}
|-
|Syriac Peshitta||Excluded from the canon:
* 2 Peter
* 2 John
* 3 John
* Jude
* Revelation of St. John{{ref|syriac1}}
|-
|Armenian Church||Included in canon:
* 3 Corinthians
Excluded from canon: 
* Revelation of St. John prior to 12th century{{ref|armenian11}}
|-
|Ethiopian Church||Included in canon:
*Sinodos
* Clement
* Book of the Covenant
* Didascalia{{ref|ethiopian1}}
|-
|Martin Luther||Considered Epistle of James "a right strawy epistle."{{ref|straw1}} Also didn't agree with Sermon on the Mount because didn't match his "grace only" theology.
|-
|}

===Implications for inerrancy and sufficiency doctrine of the Bible===

All these canons cannot be correct. Why must we accept that the critic's Bible is complete and inerrant? By what authority is this declared? Such an authority would have to be ''outside'' the Bible, thus demonstrating that there is some other source for the Word of God besides the Bible.

Furthermore, one should remember that Biblical writers were not aware of the Bible canon, because the Bible was not compiled until centuries later. Thus, Biblical writers cannot have referred to completeness and sufficiency of the canon, because the canon did not exist.

==Conclusion==

1. Biblical writers considered writings not in the present canon to be scriptural writings. 
2. Christian groups do not agree on what constitutes the Biblical canon—any claim that the canon is closed, complete, and sufficient must answer:
: a) ''which'' canon?
: b) what establishes this canon as authoritative and not some other?
3. Differences in canon between Christian groups ''and'' Biblical authors' clear belief in the scriptural status of other non-Biblical texts argue against a coherent doctrine of Biblical sufficiency and inerrancy drawn from the Bible itself. Such a claim must come from outside the Bible.

==Endnotes==

#{{note|enochwide1}} E. Isaac, "1 (Ethiopic Apocalypse of) Enoch," in ''The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha'', ed. J. H. Charlesworth, 2 vols, (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1983), 1:10; cited in {{ComparingLDSBeliefs}}
#{{note|pr2}} {{ComparingLDSBeliefs}}
#{{note|ash1}} Mike Ash, "Is the Bible Complete?": 1. {{pdflink|url=http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Brochures/Is_the_Bible_Complete.pdf}}
#{{note|pr3}} {{ComparingLDSBeliefs}}; citing Clyde L. Manschreck, ''A History of Christianity in the World'', 2d. ed. (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1985), 52.
#{{note|ash2}} Mike Ash, "Is the Bible Complete?": 1. {{pdflink|url=http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Brochures/Is_the_Bible_Complete.pdf}}
#{{note|syriac1}} {{FR-11-2-4}}; citing Kurt Aland, ''Nestle-Aland Greek-English New Testament'', 5th ed. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1990), 769–75; see also Craig A. Evans, ''Noncanonical Writings and New Testament Interpretation'' (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1992), 190–219, who provides almost 1,500 quotations, allusions, and parallels between noncanonical sources and the New Testament.
#{{note|armenian1}}{{FR-11-2-4}}
#{{note|ethiopian1}}{{FR-11-2-4}}
#{{note|straw1}} Timothy George, "'A Right Strawy Epistle': Reformation Perspectives on James," ''The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology'' (Fall 2000), 20–31.{{pdflink|url=http://www.sbts.edu/pdf/sbjt_2000Fall3.pdf}}

==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===
{{BibleWiki}}

===FAIR web site===
{{BibleFAIR}}

===External links===
{{BibleLinks}}

===Printed material===
{{BiblePrint}}
[[de:Verlorene_Schriften]]
[[es:Escrituras_perdidas]]

The Bible/Lost scripture

2008-07-03T19:30:36Z

Pwellauer:

{| style="margin: 0em 0em 0em 0em; border: 0px; align="right" cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0
|-
| {{BiblePortal}}
|-
| {{EarlyChristianityPortal}}
|}

{{question}}

==Question==

I've heard about "lost scripture" mentioned in the Bible. What is this about, and what implications does it have for the doctrine of Biblical [[Biblical_inerrancy|inerrancy]] and [[Biblical_completeness|sufficiency]]?

==Answer==

So called "lost scripture" is in reference to writings mentioned or cited within the present Biblical record, but which are not in the Bible itself. Some of these writings are known from other sources, and some are not.

===Examples of "lost scripture"===

{| valign="top" border="1"
!Lost writing!!Biblical citation to the lost writing
|-
| style="width:50%" valign="top"| Book of the Wars of the Lord ||{{s||Numbers|21|14}}
|-
|Book of Jasher||{{s||Joshua|10|13}}, {{s|2|Samuel|1|18}}
|-
|Book of the Acts of Solomon||{{s|1|Kings|11|41}}
|-
|Book of Samuel the Seer||{{s|1|Chronicles|29|29}}
|-
|Book of Gad the Seer||{{s|1|Chronicles|29|29}}
|-
|Book of Nathan the Prophet||{{s|1|Chronicles|29|29}}, {{s|2|Chronicles|9|29}}
|-
|Prophecy of of Ahijah||{{s|2|Chronicles|9|29}}
|-
|Visions of Iddo the Seer||{{s|2|Chronicles|9|29}}, {{s|2|Chronicles|12|15}}, {{s|2|Chronicles|13|22}}
|-
|Book of Shemaiah||{{s|2|Chronicles|12|15}}
|-
|Book of Jehu||{{s|2|Chronicles|20|34}}
|-
|Sayings of the Seers||{{s|2|Chronicles|33|19}}
|-
|lament for Josiah||{{s|2|Chronicles|35|25}}
|-
|Paul's epistle to Corinthians before our "1 Corinthians"||{{s|1|Corinthians|5|9}}
|-
|Paul's possible earlier Ephesians epistle||{{s||Ephesians|3|3}}
|-
|Paul's epistle to Church at Laodicea||{{s||Colossians|4|16}}
|-
|1 Enoch 1:19 and The Assumption of Moses||{{s||Jude|1|14-15}}
|-
|1 Enoch||"It influenced Matthew, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Ephesians, Colossians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, Hebrews, 1 John, Jude (which quotes it directly) and Revelation (with numerous points of contact)…in molding New Testament doctrines concerning the nature of the Messiah, the Son of Man, the messianic kingdom, demonology, the future, resurrection, the final judgment, the whole eschatological theater, and symbolism."{{ref|enochwide1}}
|}

===Examples of canonical differences among Bibles===

The picture is further complicated by the fact that Christians have not always agreed on the "canon"—that is, they have not always agreed upon which writings were "scripture" and which were not.

Some examples of these variations:

{| valign="top" border="1"
!Christian Person or Group!!Difference in canon from Protestant Bible (eg KJV)
|-
|Catholics||Apocrypha is canonical
|-
|Orthodox||Apocrypha is canonical
|-
|Clement of Alexanderia (A.D. 200)|| Included in canon:
* Epistle of Barnabas
* Epistle of Clement
* The Preaching of Peter{{ref|pr2}}
|-
|Roman Christians (circa A.D. 200)||Included in canon:
*Revelation of Peter
*Wisdom of Solomon
Excluded from canon:
*Hebrews
*1 Peter
*2 Peter
*3 John{{ref|ash1}}
|-
|Origen (''date'')||Included in canon:
* Epistle of Barnabas
* Shepherd of Hermas{{ref|pr3}}
Excluded from canon: 
*James
*Jude
*2 John
*Those disputed by Rome(see above){{ref|ash2}}
|-
|Syriac Peshitta||Excluded from the canon:
* 2 Peter
* 2 John
* 3 John
* Jude
* Revelation of St. John{{ref|syriac1}}
|-
|Armenian Church||Included in canon:
* 3 Corinthians
Excluded from canon: 
* Revelation of St. John prior to 12th century{{ref|armenian11}}
|-
|Ethiopian Church||Included in canon:
*Sinodos
* Clement
* Book of the Covenant
* Didascalia{{ref|ethiopian1}}
|-
|Martin Luther||Considered Epistle of James "a right strawy epistle."{{ref|straw1}} Also didn't agree with Sermon on the Mount because didn't match his "grace only" theology.
|-
|}

===Implications for inerrancy and sufficiency doctrine of the Bible===

All these canons cannot be correct. Why must we accept that the critic's Bible is complete and inerrant? By what authority is this declared? Such an authority would have to be ''outside'' the Bible, thus demonstrating that there is some other source for the Word of God besides the Bible.

Furthermore, one should remember that Biblical writers were not aware of the Bible canon, because the Bible was not compiled until centuries later. Thus, Biblical writers cannot have referred to completeness and sufficiency of the canon, because the canon did not exist.

==Conclusion==

1. Biblical writers considered writings not in the present canon to be scriptural writings. 
2. Christian groups do not agree on what constitutes the Biblical canon—any claim that the canon is closed, complete, and sufficient must answer:
: a) ''which'' canon?
: b) what establishes this canon as authoritative and not some other?
3. Differences in canon between Christian groups ''and'' Biblical authors' clear belief in the scriptural status of other non-Biblical texts argue against a coherent doctrine of Biblical sufficiency and inerrancy drawn from the Bible itself. Such a claim must come from outside the Bible.

==Endnotes==

#{{note|enochwide1}} E. Isaac, "1 (Ethiopic Apocalypse of) Enoch," in ''The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha'', ed. J. H. Charlesworth, 2 vols, (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1983), 1:10; cited in {{ComparingLDSBeliefs}}
#{{note|pr2}} {{ComparingLDSBeliefs}}
#{{note|ash1}} Mike Ash, "Is the Bible Complete?": 1. {{pdflink|url=http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Brochures/Is_the_Bible_Complete.pdf}}
#{{note|pr3}} {{ComparingLDSBeliefs}}; citing Clyde L. Manschreck, ''A History of Christianity in the World'', 2d. ed. (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1985), 52.
#{{note|ash2}} Mike Ash, "Is the Bible Complete?": 1. {{pdflink|url=http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Brochures/Is_the_Bible_Complete.pdf}}
#{{note|syriac1}} {{FR-11-2-4}}; citing Kurt Aland, ''Nestle-Aland Greek-English New Testament'', 5th ed. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1990), 769–75; see also Craig A. Evans, ''Noncanonical Writings and New Testament Interpretation'' (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1992), 190–219, who provides almost 1,500 quotations, allusions, and parallels between noncanonical sources and the New Testament.
#{{note|armenian1}}{{FR-11-2-4}}
#{{note|ethiopian1}}{{FR-11-2-4}}
#{{note|straw1}} Timothy George, "'A Right Strawy Epistle': Reformation Perspectives on James," ''The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology'' (Fall 2000), 20–31.{{pdflink|url=http://www.sbts.edu/pdf/sbjt_2000Fall3.pdf}}

==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===
{{BibleWiki}}

===FAIR web site===
{{BibleFAIR}}

===External links===
{{BibleLinks}}

===Printed material===
{{BiblePrint}}
[[de:Verlorene_Schriften]]

The Bible/Inerrancy

2008-07-03T19:28:27Z

Pwellauer:

{| style="margin: 0em 0em 0em 0em; border: 0px; align="right" cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0
|-
| {{BiblePortal}}
|-
| {{EarlyChristianityPortal}}
|}
==Criticism==
Critics claim the [[Bible_basics |Bible]] texts, at least in their pristine form, were inerrant. Therefore, it is incorrect for Joseph Smith to teach that the Bible contains errors, mistakes, or omissions.
===Source(s) of the Criticism===
*{{QuestionsMormonsShouldAsk}}
* Norman L. Geisler, "Scripture," in ''The Conterfeit Gospel of Momonism'' (Eugene, Ore.: Harvest House, 1998), 9–49.
* {{50Questions}}

==Response==

===Unbiblical assertion===
The Bible nowhere makes the claim that it is inerrant.

As Blake Ostler observed of the "Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy":{{ref|chicago1}}

:''The doctrine of inerrancy is internally incoherent''. In my opinion, numerous insuperable problems dictate the rejection of inerrancy in general and inerrancy as promulgated in the Chicago Statement in particular. First, the Chicago Statement is self-referentially incoherent. One cannot consistently assert that the Bible is the basis of his or her beliefs and then assert that one must nevertheless accept biblical inerrancy as asserted in the Chicago Statement...This statement contains a number of assertions, propositions if you will, that are not biblical. Inerrancy, at least as recently asserted by evangelicals, is not spelled out in the Bible. Nowhere do the words ''inerrant'' or ''infallible'' appear in the Bible. Such theoretical views are quite alien to the biblical writers. Further, inerrancy is not included in any of the major creeds. Such a notion is of rather recent vintage and rather peculiar to American evangelicalism. Throughout the history of Christian thought, the Bible has been a source rather than an object of beliefs. The assertion that the Bible is inerrant goes well beyond the scriptural statements that all scripture is inspired or "God-breathed." Thus inerrancy, as a faith commitment, is inconsistent with the assertion that one's beliefs are based on what the Bible says. The doctrine of inerrancy is an extrabiblical doctrine about the Bible based on nonscriptural considerations. It should be accepted only if it is reasonable and if it squares with what we know from scripture itself, and not as an article of faith... However, it is not and it does not. 

:The Chicago Statement can function only as a statement of belief and not as a reasonable observation of what we find in the Bible. The Chicago Statement itself acknowledges that we do not find inerrant statements in the Bible, for it is only "when all facts are known" that we will see that inerrancy is true. It is very convenient to propose a theory that cannot be assessed unless and until we are in fact omniscient. That is why the Chicago Statement is a useless proposition. It cannot be a statement of faith derived from the Bible because it is not in the Bible. It cannot be a statement about what the evidence shows because the evidence cannot be assessed until we are omniscient.{{ref|ostler1}}

===Textual witness===

The current evidence of Biblical manuscripts demonstrates unequivocally that corruption and tampering with Biblical texts is the rule, not the exception.

====Old Testament====

Emmanuel Tov{{ref|tov1}}, J. L. Magnes Professor of Bible at Jerusalem's Hebrew University, and editor-in-chief of the Dead Sea Scrolls publication project wrote:

:* "All of [the] textual witnesses [of the OT] differ from each other to a greater or lesser extent."
:* "There does not exist any one edition [of the OT] which agrees in all of its details with another."
:*"Most of the texts—ancient and modern—which have been transmitted from one generation to the next have been ''corrupted'' in one way or another." (emphasis in original)
:* "A second phenomenon pertains to corrections and changes inserted in the biblical text. . . . Such tampering with the text is evidenced in all textual witnesses."
:*"Therefore, paradoxically, the soferim [scribes] and Masoretes carefully preserved a text that was already corrupted."
:* "One of the postulates of biblical research is that the text preserved in the various representatives (manuscripts, editions) of what is commonly called the Masoretic Text, does not reflect the 'original text' of the biblical books in many details."
:* "These parallel sources [from Kings, Isaiah, Psalms, Samuel, etc.] are based on ancient texts which already differed from each other before they were incorporated into the biblical books, and which underwent changes after they were transmitted from one generation to the next as part of the biblical books."
:* "S[eptuagint] is a Jewish translation which was made mainly in Alexandria. Its Hebrew source differed greatly from the other textual witnesses (M[asoretic], T[argums], S[amaritan], V[ulgate, and many of the Qumran texts]). . . . Moreover, S[eptuagint] is important as a source for early exegesis, and this translation also forms the basis for many elements in the NT."
:* "The importance of S[eptuagint] is based on the fact that it reflects a greater variety of important variants than all the other translations put together."
:* "Textual recensions bear recognizable textual characteristics, such as an expansionistic, abbreviating, harmonizing, Judaizing, or Christianizing tendency."
:* "The theory of the division of the biblical witnesses into three recensions [Masoretic, Septuagint, and Samaritan] cannot be maintained . . . to such an extent that one can almost speak in terms of an unlimited number of texts."
:* "The question of the original text of the biblical books cannot be resolved unequivocally, since there is no solid evidence to help us to decide in either direction."
:* "We still have no knowledge of copies of biblical books that were written in the first stage of their textual transmission, nor even of texts which are close to that time. . . . Since the centuries preceding the extant evidence presumably were marked by great textual fluidity, everything that is said about the pristine state of the biblical text must necessarily remain hypothetical."
:* "M[asoretic] is but one witness of the biblical text, and its original form was far from identical with the original text of the Bible as a whole."
:* "As a rule they [concepts of the nature of the original biblical text] are formulated as 'beliefs,' that is, a scholar, as it were, believes, or does not believe, in a single original text, and such views are almost always dogmatic."
:* "During the textual transmission many complicated changes occurred, making it now almost impossible for us to reconstruct the original form of the text."
:*"many of the pervasive changes in the biblical text, pertaining to whole sentences, sections and books, should not . . . be ascribed to copyists, but to earlier generations of editors who allowed themselves such massive changes in the formative stage of the biblical literature."
:*"It is not that M[asoretic text] triumphed over the other texts, but rather, that those who fostered it probably constituted the only organized group which survived the destruction of the Second Temple [i.e., the rabbinic schools derived from the Pharisees]."

====New Testament====

A similar situations confronts us with the New Testament. Leon Vaganay and Christian-Bernard Amphoux{{ref|nt1}} wrote in ''An Introduction to New Testament Criticism'':

:*"They [ancient methods of rhetorical interpretation] are used to reveal a secret code, only accessible to the learned or initiated. If the 'Western' text is seen from this perspective, it becomes less of a product of a certain theology than of a certain system of meaning. . . . But this sophisticated kind of coded writing is not suitable for general circulation. For wider distribution, the text had to be adapted to the mentality of the people who were going to receive it, it had to be revised and changed so as to make it acceptable to an audience who were not expecting to have to look for hidden meaning."
:*"The wide stylistic gap between the two main New Testament text types, the 'Western' on the one hand and all the other types on the other hand, cannot have arisen by chance."
:*"In AD 178 the secular writer Celsus stated in polemic against the Christians: some of the believers . . . have changed the original text of the Gospels three or four times or even more, with the intention of thus being able to destroy the arguments of their critics.' (quoted in Origen, Contra Celsum, SC 132, 2, 27). Origen does not deny the existence of such changes." Indeed, Origen wrote, "It is an obvious fact today [third century A.D.] that there is much diversity among the manuscripts, due either to the carelessness of the scribes, or to the perverse audacity of some people in correcting the text, or again to the fact that there are those who add or delete as they please, setting themselves up as correctors."
:*"It is therefore not possible to reconstitute with certainty the earliest text, even though there is no doubt about its having existed in written form from a very early date, without a preparatory oral stage."
:*"In the period following AD 135, the recensions proliferated with a resultant textual diversity which reached a peak before the year 200."
:*"Thus between the years 150 and 250, the text of the first recensions acquired a host of new readings. They were a mixture of accidental carelessness, deliberate scribal corrections, involuntary mistakes, a translator's conscious departure from literalness, a reviser's more systematic alterations, and, not least, contamination caused by harmonizing to an extent which varied in strength from place to place. All these things contributed to diversification of the text, to giving it, if one may so put it, a little of the local colour of each country."

====Who made the changes?====

Christian writers often accused heretics (such as Marcion of the second century AD) of altering the Bible text. However, there is another more disturbing finding for those who insist on an inerrant Bible text:

:...recent studies have shown the the evidence of our surviving manuscripts points the finger in the opposite direction. Scribes who were associated with the ''orthodox'' tradition not infrequently changed their texts, sometimes in order to eliminate the possibility of their "misuse" by Christians affirming heretical beliefs and sometimes to make them more amenable to the doctrines being espoused by Christians of their own persuasion.{{ref|ehrman1}}

Thus, the "orthodox" Christian tradition required the original texts to be reworked to support their views or oppose the views of those with whom they disagreed. It seems strange, then, to now accuse those who do not wholly accept the "orthodox" view of "violating scripture," since that very scripture was originally tampered with by those we now label 'orthodox,' which is merely another way of saying that they won the battle to define their view as the 'proper' one.

As Bruce Metzger observed:

:Odd though it may seem, scribes who thought [for themselves] were more dangerous than those who wished merely to be faithful in copying what lay before them. Many of the alterations which may be classified as intentional were no doubt introduced in good faith by copyists who believed that they were correcting an error or infelicity of language which had previously crept into the sacred text and needed to be rectified. A later scribe might even reintroduce an erroneous reading that had been previously corrected. …The manuscripts of the New Testament preserve traces of two kinds of dogmatic alterations: those which involve the elimination or alteration of what was regarded as doctrinally unacceptable or inconvenient; and those which introduce into the Scriptures ‘proof’ for a favorite theological tenet or practice...{{ref|metzger2}}

===What did early Christians think?===

Justin Martyr, a second-century Christian author, complained that the Jews had altered scripture:

: And I wish you to observe, that they [the Jews] have altogether taken away many Scriptures from the translations...{{ref|justin1}}

Origen, a third-century Christian author, bemoaned the problem of poor textual transmission even in his era:

:The differences among the manuscripts have become great, either through the negligence of some copyists or through the perverse audacity of others; they either neglect to check over what they have transcribed, or, in the process of checking, they make additions or deletions as they please.{{ref|origin1}}

Textual scholar Bruce Metzger quoted this passage, and then observed:

:Origen suggests that perhaps all of the manuscripts existing in his day may have become corrupt...{{ref|metzger1}}

The Book of Mormon describes how "plain and precious things" ({{s|1|Nephi|13|28}}) were removed from the Bible—Origen here complains of "deletions," from the scriptures, which would be the hardest changes to detect. An alteration may be detectable, but a deletion is simply gone forever.

Corinthian bishop Dionysius complained in the second century:

:When my fellow-Christians invited me to write letters to them I did so. These the devil's apostles have filled with tares, taking away some things and adding others. For them the woe is reserved. Small wonder then if some have dared to tamper even with the word of the Lord himself, when they have conspired to mutilate my own humble efforts.{{ref|dionysius1}}

==Conclusion==

The textual evidence before us makes an inerrant Bible text untenable. Furthermore, the doctrine of inerrancy is not a Biblical doctrine, and so can only be imposed upon the text from outside, not drawn out of the teachings of the purportedly "inerrant Bible."

The Latter-day Saint stance of honoring the Bible and seeking to understand it, while appreciating that it is the Word of God only insofar as fallible humans have faithfully transmitted that Word to us, is consistent with both Biblical teaching and the evidence available to us.

Insisting on Biblical infallibility is a theological and ideological presupposition, not a natural consequence of Bible teachings.

==Endnotes==
#{{note|chicago1}} On the Chicago Statement, see Norman L. Geisler and William E. Nix, ''A General Introduction to the Bible'', rev. and exp. (Chicago: Moody Press, 1986), 181–185.
#{{note|ostler1}} {{FR-11-2-3}} (italics in original)
#{{note|tov1}} These examples are taken from {{FR-11-2-4}}. References to Tov's original work may be found in footnotes 26–49.
#{{note|nt1}} These examples are taken from {{FR-11-2-4}}. References to Vaganay and Amphoux's original work may be found in footnotes 52–58.
#{{note|ehrman1}} {{MisquotingJesus1|start=53}}
#{{note|metzger2}}Bruce Metzger, ''The Text of the New Testament. Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration ''(second edition 1979; first edition 1964), 195, 201.
#{{note|justin1}} {{Anf1| author=Justin Martyr|article=Dialogue with Trypho|vol=1|citation=Chapter 71|start=234}}
#{{note|origen1}} Origen, ''Commentary on Matthew 15.14'' as quoted in Bruce M. Metzger, "Explicit References in the Works of Origen to Variant Readings in New Testament manuscripts," in ''Biblical and Patristic Studies in Memory of Robert Pierce Casey'', ed. J Neville Birdsall and Robert W. Thomson (Freiburg: Herder, 1968), 78—79; reference from Erhman, 223.
#{{note|metzger1}} Bruce Metzger, ''The Text of the New Testament. Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration ''(second edition 1979; first edition 1964), 152; citing Metzger, “Explicit references in the works of Origen to Variant Readings in New Testament Manuscripts,” in ''Biblical and Patristic Studies in Memory of Robert Pierce Casey'', ed. J.N. Birdsall (1963): 78–95.
#{{note|dionysius1}} Cited in {{MisquotingJesus1|start=53}}

==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===
{{biblewiki}}

===FAIR web site===
{{BibleFAIR}}

===External links===
{{BibleLinks}}

===Printed material===
*{{MisquotingJesus}}
{{BiblePrint}}
[[de:Bibel:_Unfehlbarkeit]]

The Bible/Condemnation of genealogy

2008-07-03T19:26:24Z

Pwellauer:

{{BiblePortal}}

==Criticism==
Critics charge that the Bible condemns genealogy, and therefore the Latter-day Saint practice of compiling family histories is anti-Biblical, often citing [http://scriptures.lds.org/1_tim/1/4#4 1 Timothy 1:4] or [http://scriptures.lds.org/titus/3/9#9 Titus 3:9].

===Source(s) of the criticism===
*{{QuestionsMormonsShouldAsk}}

==Response==
The Bible clearly does not reject all uses of genealogy. This can be seen through its many genealogical lists, including two such lists for Jesus Christ Himself. (See [http://scriptures.lds.org/matt/1/1#24 Matthew 1:1–24] and [http://scriptures.lds.org/luke/3/23#38 Luke 3:23–38].)

The condemnation of "genealogies" in Timothy and Titus likely came because:

*the Christians perceived a Jewish tendency to be pre-occupied by "pure descent" as a qualification for holding the priesthood. Since only pure descendents of Levi could hold the priesthood, there was endless wrangling about one's pedigree—since Paul considers the Aaronic Priesthood to have been superceded by Christ, the great High Priest like Melchizedek (see [http://scriptures.lds.org/heb/5/1#1 Hebrews 5]), this probably strikes him as pointless.
* some Jewish scribes and other teachers claimed that their "traditions" were directly descended from Moses, Joshua, or some other prominent leader, and thus superior to the Christian gospel.{{ref|fudge1}}
* some gnostic sects had involved accounts of the descent of the Aeons (up to 365 "generations" in one scheme) and other mystic or pagan variations thereon.{{ref|gill1}}

Since all these genealogies were either speculative or fabricated, they could cause endless, pointless debate.{{ref|brown1}} Rather Paul wants the faith (in Christ) which builds up ("edifying") testimonies and lives.

==Conclusion==

The Bible does not condemn all genealogy ''per se''. Rather, it rejects the use of genealogy to "prove" one's righteousness, or the truth of one's teachings. It also rejects the apostate uses to which some Christians put genealogy in some varieties of gnosticism.

Latter-day Saints engage in genealogy work so that they can continue the Biblical practice—also endorsed by Paul—of providing vicarious ordinances for the dead, such as baptism (See [http://scriptures.lds.org/1_cor/15/29#29 1 Corinthians 15:29]) so that the atonement of Christ may be available to all who would choose it, living or dead. ''See: [[Baptism for the dead]]''

==Endnotes==
#{{note|fudge1}}{{Ensign1|author=George H. Fudge|article=I Have a Question: How do we interpret scriptures in the New Testament that seem to condemn genealogy?|date=March 1986|start=49}}{{link|url=http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/1986.htm/ensign%20march%201986%20.htm/i%20have%20a%20question.htm?fn=document-frame.htm&f=templates&2.0#LPTOC1}}
#{{note|gill1}}John Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible, 1811-1817, New Testament, "1 Timothy 1:4" {{link|url=http://bible.crosswalk.com/Commentaries/GillsExpositionoftheBible/gil.cgi?book=1ti&chapter=001&verse=004&next=005&prev=003}} & "Titus 3:9" {{link|url=http://bible.crosswalk.com/Commentaries/GillsExpositionoftheBible/gil.cgi?book=tit&chapter=003&verse=009&next=010&prev=008}}
#{{note|brown1}}Raymond E. Brown, Joseph A. Fitzmyer, and Roland E. Murphy, eds., ''The Jerome Biblical Commentary'' (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1968), 353.

==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===
*[[Baptism for the dead]]
{{biblewiki}}

===FAIR web site===
*{{tg|url=http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai151.html|topic=Genealogy}}

===External links===
*{{Ensign1|author=George H. Fudge|article=I Have a Question: How do we interpret scriptures in the New Testament that seem to condemn genealogy?|date=March 1986|start=49}}{{link|url=http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/1986.htm/ensign%20march%201986%20.htm/i%20have%20a%20question.htm?fn=document-frame.htm&f=templates&2.0#LPTOC1}}
*Stephen R. Gibson, Why Don't Latter-day Saints Avoid "Endless Genealogy"?{{link|url=http://www.lightplanet.com/response/answers/EndlessGenealogy.htm}}

===Printed material===
*Raymond E. Brown, Joseph A. Fitzmyer, and Roland E. Murphy, eds., ''The Jerome Biblical Commentary'' (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1968), 353.
[[de:Bibel:_Verdammung_von_Genealogie]]

The Bible/Completeness

2008-07-03T19:24:18Z

Pwellauer:

{| style="margin: 0em 0em 0em 0em; border: 0px; align="right" cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0
|-
| {{BiblePortal}}
|-
| {{EarlyChristianityPortal}}
|}
==Criticism==
Critics claim the [[Bible_basics |Bible]] contains all necessary or essential knowledge to assure salvation. Therefore, things like modern prophets or additional scripture (such as the [[Book_of_Mormon_basics |Book of Mormon]]) are unnecessary or even blasphemous.

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

==Response==

The Bible nowhere makes the claim for sufficiency or completeness.

Furthermore, the thousands of Christian sects and groups provide ample testimony that the Bible has not been sufficient to encourage unanimity among Christians about proper authority, doctrine, or practice. Critics would like us to accept that ''their'' reading is the correct one, but this means we must appeal to some other standard—one cannot use their reading of the Bible to prove their reading of the Bible!

There is also no unanimity among Christians concerning what constitutes the "true" Bible canon—once again, some other standard is needed to determine which Bible is the "true" or "inerrant" version.

There are also other writings which the Bible itself refers to as authoritative, and yet these books are not in the present Bible canon. Either the Bible is wrong in referring to these writings as authoritative, or some modern Christians are wrong for arguing that the Bible is a complete record of all God's word to His children.

While the LDS do not like to denigrate the Bible or call attention to its errors, since they consider it an inspired volume of scripture of great value, they also recognize that there are some errors and contradictions in the Bible which are the result of human error or tampering. This does not reduce the Bible's value in their estimation, but it does call into question any claims for "inerrancy."

Said early LDS leader George Q. Cannon:

:This book [the Bible] is of priceless worth; its value cannot estimated by anything that is known among men upon which value is fixed. ... But in the Latter-day Saints it should always be a precious treasure. Beyond any people now upon the face of the earth, they should value it, for the reason that from its pages, from the doctrines set forth by its writers, the epitome of the plan of salvation which is there given unto us, we derive the highest consolation, we obtain the greatest strength. It is, as it were, a constant fountain sending forth streams of living life to satisfy the souls of all who peruse its pages.{{ref|gqc1}}
:{{parabreak}}
:We are not called to teach the errors of translators but the truth of God's word. It is our mission to develop faith in the revelations from God in the hearts of the children, and "How can that best be done?" is the question that confronts us. Certainly not by emphasizing doubts, creating difficulties or teaching negations.... The [http://scriptures.lds.org/a_of_f/1/8#8 clause in the Articles of Faith] regarding mistakes in the translation of the Bible was never intended to encourage us to spend our time in searching out and studying those errors, but to emphasize the idea that it is the truth and the truth only that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints accepts, no matter where it is found.

==Conclusion==
In sum, claiming inerrancy and completeness:
* is not a Biblical doctrine
* has not been sufficient to prevent a vast range of Biblical interpretations and Christian practices, all of which cannot be correct
* ignores that the Biblical canon is not unanimous among Christians, and ignores non-canonical books which the Bible itself cites as being authoritative
* ignores that the Bible contains some errors and internal inconsistencies

However, the LDS cherish the Bible. Those who claim otherwise are mistaken. As Elder Neal A. Maxwell said:

:Occasionally, a few in the Church let the justified caveat about the Bible—“as far as it is translated correctly”—diminish their exultation over the New Testament. Inaccuracy of some translating must not, however, diminish our appreciation for the powerful ''testimony'' and ample ''historicity'' of the New Testament...

:So when we read and turn the pages of the precious New Testament, there is a barely audible rustling like the quiet stirrings of the Spirit, something to be 'spiritually discerned.' ({{s|1|Corinthians|2|14}}). The witnessing words came to us—not slowly, laboriously, or equivocally through the corridors of the centuries, but rather, swiftly, deftly, and clearly. Upon the wings of the Spirit these words proclaim, again and anew, “JESUS LIVED. JESUS LIVES!”

==Endnotes==
#{{note|gqc1}}{{JoD22|start=261|end=262|date=8 May 1881|author=George Q. Cannon|title=The Blessings Enjoyed Through Possessing The Ancient Records, etc.}}
#{{note|gqc2}}{{JInstructor1|author=George Q. Cannon|article=?|date=1 April 1901|vol=36|num=?|start=208}}
#{{note|nam1}} {{Ensign1|author=Neal Maxwell|author=The New Testament—A Matchless Portrait of the Savior|December 1986|start=20}}, italics in original. {{link|url=http://beta.lds.org/portal/site/LDSOrg/menuitem.b12f9d18fae655bb69095bd3e44916a0/?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=26fb67700817b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1}}

==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===
{{BibleWiki}}

===FAIR web site===
{{BibleFAIR}}

===External links===
*{{EoM|author=Robert A. Cloward|article=Lost Scriptures|vol=2|start=845|end=846}}{{link|url=http://ldsfaq.byu.edu/emmain.asp?number=110}}
*{{FR-11-2-3}}
*{{ComparingLDSBeliefs}}
*{{aremormonschristians0}}{{link1|url=http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/response/general/christians/ser5.htm}}
{{BibleLinks}}

===Printed material===
{{BiblePrint}}
[[de:Bibel:_Sonst_nichts%3F_%28Sola_scriptura%29]]

The Bible/"Adding to" or "taking away from"

2008-07-03T19:21:56Z

Pwellauer:

{{BiblePortal}}

==Criticism==
Critics claim that the Book of Mormon cannot be true because nothing should be "added to" or "taken away from" the Holy Bible.

===Source(s) of the criticism===
*"[Joseph] Smith apparently was either oblivious to the expressed warning about adding to or substracting from the Word of God, or willfully disobedient to it (see Rev. 22:18,19)." - "Dr." Walter Martin, ''Mormonism'' (Minneapolis, Minnesota: Bethany House Publishers, 1984), 29.

==Response==

The verse often cited (as by Martin, above) is {{s||Revelation|22|18-19}}:

:For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

Critics claim that this verse states that the Bible is complete, and no other scripture exists or will be forthcoming.

However, the critics ignore that:
* The book of Revelation was written prior to some of the other biblical books, and prior the Bible being assembled into a collection of texts. Therefore, this verse can only apply to the Book of Revelation, and not the Bible as a whole (some of which was unwritten and none of which was yet assembled together into 'the Bible'). While the traditional date of the book of Revelation is A.D. 95 or 96 (primarily based on a statement by Irenaeus), most scholars now date it as early as A.D. 68 or 69. The Gospel of John is generally dated A.D. 95-100. (For more information on the dating of Revelation, see Thomas B. Slater's [http://www.bsw.org/?l=71841&a=Ani04.html Biblica article]).
* The New Testament is made up of first the four Gospels and then second the epistles of the apostles. Since the book of Revelation is neither a gospel nor an epistle, it was placed at the end of the canon in its own category. Therefore, John cannot have intended the last few sentences of Revelation to apply to the entire Bible, since he was not writing a 'final chapter' for the New Testament and since the Bible would not be completed and canonized for some centuries later.
* Other scriptures (such as [http://scriptures.lds.org/deut/4/2#2 Deuteronomy 4:2], [http://scriptures.lds.org/deut/12/32#32 Deuteronomy 12:32], and [http://scriptures.lds.org/prov/30/6#6 Proverbs 30:6]) likewise forbid additions; were the critics' arguments to be self-consistent, they would have to then discard everything in the New Testament and much of the Old, since these verses predate "other scripture" added by God through later prophets.
* Further evidence that Rev. 22:19 is not referring to the entire bible when it reads "words of the book of this prophecy" is found if one reads {{s||Revelation|1|3,11}}:

:Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of '''this prophecy''', and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand...Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, '''write in a book''', and send [it] unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea.

It is self evident that the book referred to at the very beginning of Revelation is the same book being referred to at the very end of Revelation. Everything that John saw and heard in between these two statements are the contents of that book.

* Even if the passage in Revelation meant that no '''man''' could add to scripture; it does not forbid that '''God''' may, through a prophet, add to the Word of God. If this were not possible, then the Bible could never have come into existence.

Noted Biblical scholar Bart Ehrman wrote:

:The very real danger that [New Testament] texts could be modified at will, by scribes who did not approve of their wording, is evident in other ways as well. We need always to remember that the copyists of the early Christian writings were reproducing their texts in a world in which there were not only no printing presses or publishing houses but also no such thing as copyright law. How could authors guarantee that their texts were not modified once put into circulation? The short answer is that they could not. That explains why authors would sometimes call curses down on any copyists who modified their texts without permission. We find this kind of imprecation already in one early Christian writing that made it into the New Testament, the book of Revelation, whose author, near the end of his text, utters a dire warning [quotes Revelation 22:18–19].

:This is not a threat that the reader has to accept or believe everything written in this book of prophecy, as it is sometimes interpreted; rather, it is a typical threat to copyists of the book, that they are not to add to or remove any of its words. Similar imprecations can be found scattered throughout the range of early Christian writings.{{ref|ehrman}}

This threat was a real threat in John's eyes. Unfortunately, it appears that the threat went unheeded. The Book of Mormon prophet Nephi saw the same things that John the Beloved saw, but was not authorized to write them (1 Nephi 14:21-25). He made this interesting prophesy.

:Wherefore, thou seest that after the book [the Bible] hath gone forth through the hands of the great and abominable church, that there are many plain and precious things taken away from the book, which is the book of the Lamb of God (1 Nephi 13:28).

Nephi is later promised that the Lord would send forth other books such as the Book of Mormon to restore those precious and plain things that were taken away.

:These last records [The Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, etc], which thou hast seen among the Gentiles, shall establish the truth of the first [The Bible], which are of the twelve apostles of the Lamb, and shall make known the plain and previous things which have been taken away from them... ([http://scriptures.lds.org/en/1_ne/13 1 Nephi 13:40])

==Conclusion==

The critics misuse Revelation, misunderstand the process by which the Bible cannon was formed, and must ignore other, earlier scriptures to maintain their position. Their use of this argument is a form of [[Logical_fallacies#Begging_the_question |begging the question]] whereby they presume at the outset that the Book of Mormon and other scriptures are not the Word of God, which is precisely the point under debate. In its proper context, the passage in Revelation actually supports the teachings of the Book of Mormon that many plain and precious things would be taken away from the Bible. It also shows clearly the need for another book of scripture like the Book of Mormon to restore those lost and sacred teachings. If the Book of Mormon and other modern scriptures are the work of uninspired men or the arm of flesh, then of course one ought not to trust them. If, however, they are indeed the word of the Lord to prophets, then all who desire to be saved ought to carefully heed them.

The ancient Book of Mormon prophet Nephi understood how critics would respond to the Book of Mormon. His answer for the critics is thus:

:Yea, wo be unto him that hearkeneth unto the precepts of men, and denieth the power of God, and the gift of the Holy Ghost!Yea, wo be unto him that saith: We have received, and we need no more! And in fine, wo unto all those who tremble, and are angry because of the truth of God! For behold, he that is built upon the rock receiveth it with gladness; and he that is built upon a sandy foundation trembleth lest he shall fall. Wo be unto him that shall say: We have received the word of God, and we need no more of the word of God, for we have enough! For behold, thus saith the Lord God: I will give unto the children of men line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little; and blessed are those who hearken unto my precepts, and lend an ear unto my counsel, for they shall learn wisdom; for unto him that receiveth I will give more; and from them that shall say, We have enough, from them shall be taken away even that which they have. Cursed is he that putteth his trust in man, or maketh flesh his arm, or shall hearken unto the precepts of men, save their precepts shall be given by the power of the Holy Ghost. ([http://scriptures.lds.org/en/2_ne/28 2 Nephi 28:26-31])

==Endnotes==
#{{note|ehrman}}{{MisquotingJesus|start=54|end=55}}

==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===
{{biblewiki}}

===FAIR web site===
*{{tg|url=http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai104.html|topic=Bible Complete?}}
*Scott Gordon, "To Add To or To Take From," (Mesa, Arizona: FAIR, April 2002){{pdflink|url=http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/AddOrTake.pdf}}

===External links===
*Ben Spackman, "Revelation 22, Curses, and Copy Protection: Something You Probably Haven't Heard Before" (''millennialstar.org'') {{link|url=http://www.millennialstar.org/index.php/2006/02/09/p1461}}
*{{Ensign1|author=Howard W. Hunter|article=No Man Shall Add to or Take Away|date=May 1981|start=64}} {{link|url=http://library.lds.org/library/lpext.dll/ArchMagazines/Ensign/1981.htm/ensign%20may%201981.htm/no%20man%20shall%20add%20to%20or%20take%20away.htm?fn=document-frame.htm&f=templates&2.0}}
*{{aremormonschristians0}}{{link|url=http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/response/general/christians/ser5.htm}}

===Printed material===
*Alan Denison & D.L. Barksdale, ''Gues Who Wants To Have You For Lunch?'', 2nd edition, (Redding, California: FAIR, 2002[1999]), 37–57. ISBN 1893036057. {{fairlink|url=http://www.fair-lds.org/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?page=FOS/PROD/A/FAIR-LCH-02}}

[[es:«Si alguno añadiere a» o «si alguno quitare de» la Biblia?]]
[[de:Bibel:_Hinzuf%C3%BCgen_oder_Wegnehmen]]

The Bible/"Adding to" or "taking away from"

2008-07-03T19:21:33Z

Pwellauer:

{{BiblePortal}}

{{GermanWiki|http://www.de.fairmormon.org/index.php/Bibel:_Hinzuf%C3%BCgen_oder_Wegnehmen}}
==Criticism==
Critics claim that the Book of Mormon cannot be true because nothing should be "added to" or "taken away from" the Holy Bible.

===Source(s) of the criticism===
*"[Joseph] Smith apparently was either oblivious to the expressed warning about adding to or substracting from the Word of God, or willfully disobedient to it (see Rev. 22:18,19)." - "Dr." Walter Martin, ''Mormonism'' (Minneapolis, Minnesota: Bethany House Publishers, 1984), 29.

==Response==

The verse often cited (as by Martin, above) is {{s||Revelation|22|18-19}}:

:For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

Critics claim that this verse states that the Bible is complete, and no other scripture exists or will be forthcoming.

However, the critics ignore that:
* The book of Revelation was written prior to some of the other biblical books, and prior the Bible being assembled into a collection of texts. Therefore, this verse can only apply to the Book of Revelation, and not the Bible as a whole (some of which was unwritten and none of which was yet assembled together into 'the Bible'). While the traditional date of the book of Revelation is A.D. 95 or 96 (primarily based on a statement by Irenaeus), most scholars now date it as early as A.D. 68 or 69. The Gospel of John is generally dated A.D. 95-100. (For more information on the dating of Revelation, see Thomas B. Slater's [http://www.bsw.org/?l=71841&a=Ani04.html Biblica article]).
* The New Testament is made up of first the four Gospels and then second the epistles of the apostles. Since the book of Revelation is neither a gospel nor an epistle, it was placed at the end of the canon in its own category. Therefore, John cannot have intended the last few sentences of Revelation to apply to the entire Bible, since he was not writing a 'final chapter' for the New Testament and since the Bible would not be completed and canonized for some centuries later.
* Other scriptures (such as [http://scriptures.lds.org/deut/4/2#2 Deuteronomy 4:2], [http://scriptures.lds.org/deut/12/32#32 Deuteronomy 12:32], and [http://scriptures.lds.org/prov/30/6#6 Proverbs 30:6]) likewise forbid additions; were the critics' arguments to be self-consistent, they would have to then discard everything in the New Testament and much of the Old, since these verses predate "other scripture" added by God through later prophets.
* Further evidence that Rev. 22:19 is not referring to the entire bible when it reads "words of the book of this prophecy" is found if one reads {{s||Revelation|1|3,11}}:

:Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of '''this prophecy''', and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand...Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, '''write in a book''', and send [it] unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea.

It is self evident that the book referred to at the very beginning of Revelation is the same book being referred to at the very end of Revelation. Everything that John saw and heard in between these two statements are the contents of that book.

* Even if the passage in Revelation meant that no '''man''' could add to scripture; it does not forbid that '''God''' may, through a prophet, add to the Word of God. If this were not possible, then the Bible could never have come into existence.

Noted Biblical scholar Bart Ehrman wrote:

:The very real danger that [New Testament] texts could be modified at will, by scribes who did not approve of their wording, is evident in other ways as well. We need always to remember that the copyists of the early Christian writings were reproducing their texts in a world in which there were not only no printing presses or publishing houses but also no such thing as copyright law. How could authors guarantee that their texts were not modified once put into circulation? The short answer is that they could not. That explains why authors would sometimes call curses down on any copyists who modified their texts without permission. We find this kind of imprecation already in one early Christian writing that made it into the New Testament, the book of Revelation, whose author, near the end of his text, utters a dire warning [quotes Revelation 22:18–19].

:This is not a threat that the reader has to accept or believe everything written in this book of prophecy, as it is sometimes interpreted; rather, it is a typical threat to copyists of the book, that they are not to add to or remove any of its words. Similar imprecations can be found scattered throughout the range of early Christian writings.{{ref|ehrman}}

This threat was a real threat in John's eyes. Unfortunately, it appears that the threat went unheeded. The Book of Mormon prophet Nephi saw the same things that John the Beloved saw, but was not authorized to write them (1 Nephi 14:21-25). He made this interesting prophesy.

:Wherefore, thou seest that after the book [the Bible] hath gone forth through the hands of the great and abominable church, that there are many plain and precious things taken away from the book, which is the book of the Lamb of God (1 Nephi 13:28).

Nephi is later promised that the Lord would send forth other books such as the Book of Mormon to restore those precious and plain things that were taken away.

:These last records [The Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, etc], which thou hast seen among the Gentiles, shall establish the truth of the first [The Bible], which are of the twelve apostles of the Lamb, and shall make known the plain and previous things which have been taken away from them... ([http://scriptures.lds.org/en/1_ne/13 1 Nephi 13:40])

==Conclusion==

The critics misuse Revelation, misunderstand the process by which the Bible cannon was formed, and must ignore other, earlier scriptures to maintain their position. Their use of this argument is a form of [[Logical_fallacies#Begging_the_question |begging the question]] whereby they presume at the outset that the Book of Mormon and other scriptures are not the Word of God, which is precisely the point under debate. In its proper context, the passage in Revelation actually supports the teachings of the Book of Mormon that many plain and precious things would be taken away from the Bible. It also shows clearly the need for another book of scripture like the Book of Mormon to restore those lost and sacred teachings. If the Book of Mormon and other modern scriptures are the work of uninspired men or the arm of flesh, then of course one ought not to trust them. If, however, they are indeed the word of the Lord to prophets, then all who desire to be saved ought to carefully heed them.

The ancient Book of Mormon prophet Nephi understood how critics would respond to the Book of Mormon. His answer for the critics is thus:

:Yea, wo be unto him that hearkeneth unto the precepts of men, and denieth the power of God, and the gift of the Holy Ghost!Yea, wo be unto him that saith: We have received, and we need no more! And in fine, wo unto all those who tremble, and are angry because of the truth of God! For behold, he that is built upon the rock receiveth it with gladness; and he that is built upon a sandy foundation trembleth lest he shall fall. Wo be unto him that shall say: We have received the word of God, and we need no more of the word of God, for we have enough! For behold, thus saith the Lord God: I will give unto the children of men line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little; and blessed are those who hearken unto my precepts, and lend an ear unto my counsel, for they shall learn wisdom; for unto him that receiveth I will give more; and from them that shall say, We have enough, from them shall be taken away even that which they have. Cursed is he that putteth his trust in man, or maketh flesh his arm, or shall hearken unto the precepts of men, save their precepts shall be given by the power of the Holy Ghost. ([http://scriptures.lds.org/en/2_ne/28 2 Nephi 28:26-31])

==Endnotes==
#{{note|ehrman}}{{MisquotingJesus|start=54|end=55}}

==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===
{{biblewiki}}

===FAIR web site===
*{{tg|url=http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai104.html|topic=Bible Complete?}}
*Scott Gordon, "To Add To or To Take From," (Mesa, Arizona: FAIR, April 2002){{pdflink|url=http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/AddOrTake.pdf}}

===External links===
*Ben Spackman, "Revelation 22, Curses, and Copy Protection: Something You Probably Haven't Heard Before" (''millennialstar.org'') {{link|url=http://www.millennialstar.org/index.php/2006/02/09/p1461}}
*{{Ensign1|author=Howard W. Hunter|article=No Man Shall Add to or Take Away|date=May 1981|start=64}} {{link|url=http://library.lds.org/library/lpext.dll/ArchMagazines/Ensign/1981.htm/ensign%20may%201981.htm/no%20man%20shall%20add%20to%20or%20take%20away.htm?fn=document-frame.htm&f=templates&2.0}}
*{{aremormonschristians0}}{{link|url=http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/response/general/christians/ser5.htm}}

===Printed material===
*Alan Denison & D.L. Barksdale, ''Gues Who Wants To Have You For Lunch?'', 2nd edition, (Redding, California: FAIR, 2002[1999]), 37–57. ISBN 1893036057. {{fairlink|url=http://www.fair-lds.org/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?page=FOS/PROD/A/FAIR-LCH-02}}

[[es:«Si alguno añadiere a» o «si alguno quitare de» la Biblia?]]
[[de:Bibel:_Hinzuf%C3%BCgen_oder_Wegnehmen]]

The Bible/Basics

2008-07-03T19:19:51Z

Pwellauer:

{{BiblePortal}}
==The Holy Bible==

Latter-day Saints consider the Bible to be holy scripture. The 8th Article of Faith states:

:"We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God."

The proviso that the LDS believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly seems to shake some persons' confidence in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as a Bible-believing church. There is no reason that this should be, for it is hardly a matter of dispute that when men translate words from one language to another they can easily err, and have often done so. Simply comparing different English-language versions of the Bible should demonstrate conclusively that some people understand ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek (the source languages of the Old and New Testaments) quite differently in some cases.

But let no one doubt: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints reveres the Bible and uses it extensively in its teaching and practice. The late Elder James E. Talmage, a member of the Quorum of the Twelve, had this to say about the Bible in his classic book about the Articles of Faith:

:''The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints accepts the Holy Bible as the foremost of her standard works, first among the books which have been proclaimed as her written guides in faith and doctrine. In the respect and sanctity with which the Latter-day Saints regard the Bible they are of like profession with Christian denominations in general, but differ from them in the additional acknowledgment of certain other scriptures as authentic and holy, which others are in harmony with the Bible, and serve to support and emphasize its facts and doctrines.''

:''The historical and other data upon which is based the current Christian faith as to the genuineness of the Biblical record are accepted as unreservedly by the Latter-day Saints as by the members of any sect; and in literalness of interpretation this Church probably excels.''

:''Nevertheless, the Church announces a reservation in the case of erroneous translation, which may occur as a result of human incapacity; and even in this measure of caution we are not alone, for Biblical scholars generally admit the presence of errors of the kind -- both of translation and of transcription of the text. The Latter-day Saints believe the original records to be the word of God unto man, and, as far as these records have been translated correctly, the translations are regarded as equally authentic. The English Bible professes to be a translation made through the wisdom of man; in its preparation the most scholarly men have been enlisted, yet not a version has been published in which errors are not admitted. However, an impartial investigator has cause to wonder more at the paucity of errors than that mistakes are to be found at all.''

:''There will be, there can be, no absolutely reliable translation of these or other scriptures unless it be effected through the gift of translation, as one of the endowments of the Holy Ghost. The translator must have the spirit of the prophet if he would render in another tongue the prophet's words; and human wisdom alone leads not to that possession. Let the Bible then be read reverently and with prayerful care, the reader ever seeking the light of the Spirit that he may discern between truth and the errors of men.'' (James E. Talmage, Articles of Faith, Ch.13, p.236 - p.237)

===External Links===

* [http://www.mormon.org/freeoffers/1,17785,3708-1-2,00.html?src=tv Click here] for a free copy of the King James Version (KJV) Holy Bible
* [http://scriptures.lds.org/ot/contents Old Testament] - KJV, with LDS footnotes and cross-references on-line
* [http://scriptures.lds.org/nt/contents New Testament] - KJV, with LDS footnotes and cross-references on-line
* [[Online_textual_sources_and_materials#Scripture_study | FAIRWiki scripture study links]]
[[de:Bibel%2C_Grundlagen]]

The Bible/Basics

2008-07-03T19:19:23Z

Pwellauer:

The Kirtland Egyptian Papers

2008-06-29T04:52:20Z

Pwellauer: interwiki

{{BofAPortal}}{{question}}

==Question==

What are the Kirtland Egyptian Papers and how do they relate to the Book of Abraham? Some critics of the Book of Abraham have claimed that these papers are evidence that Joseph Smith made up the Book of Abraham; on what grounds do they make that claim, and how strong is it?

===Source(s) of criticism===
*Edward H. Ashment, "Reducing Dissonance: The Book of Abraham as a Case Study." In ''The Word of God: Essays on Mormon Scripture,'' edited by Dan Vogel (Salt Lake City: Signature, 1990), 221–35.
*Brent Lee Metcalfe, "Nibley's Illusory Variants," ''mormonscripturestudies.com.''

==Answer==

The Kirtland Egyptian Papers (KEP) are a collection of documents written by various individuals, mostly dating to the Kirtland period of Church history (early- to mid-1830s), constituting some sort of study documents relating to the [[Book of Abraham papyri|Joseph Smith Egyptian Papyri]].

The KEP comprise 16 documents encompassing a total of about 120 pages. They are typically divided into two categories:
*so-called Egyptian alphabet and grammar documents (KEPE), and
*Book of Abraham manuscript documents (KEPA).

The following table{{ref|table1}} gives a basic description of the KEP:

<table width="100%">
<tr style="font-weight: bold; background-color: #cccccc; text-align: left">
<th>Number</th>
<th>Date</th>
<th>Size</th>
<th>Handwriting</th>
<th>Title and Contents</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">KEPE 1</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">1836 (?)</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">1 volume, 31x20 cm</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">W.W. Phelps & Warren Parrish</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">"Grammar & aphabet [sic] of the Egyptian language"</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">KEPE 2</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">1836 (?)</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">2 leaves, 33x20 cm</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">W.W. Phelps</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">"Egyptian counting"</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">KEPE 3</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">1 October 1835 (?)</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">4 leaves, 32x20 cm</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">W.W. Phelps</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">"Egyptian alphabet"</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">KEPE 4</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">1 October 1835 (?)</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">9 leaves, 32x20 cm</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">Joseph Smith & Oliver Cowdery</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">"Egyptian alphabet"</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">KEPE 5</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">1 October 1835 (?)</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">4 leaves, various sizes</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">Oliver Cowdery</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">[title lost, "Egyptian alphabet" (?)]</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">KEPE 6</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">26 Nov. 1835 (?)</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">1 volume, 20x13 cm</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">Oliver Cowdery</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">"Valuable discovery of hiden [sic] records"</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">KEPE 7</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">1837 (?)</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">1 volume, 20x16 cm</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">Oliver Cowdery</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">"F.G.W." and "William"</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">KEPE 8</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">26 Nov. 1835 (?)</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">1 leaf, 32x40 cm</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">?</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">[no title]</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">KEPE 9</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">26 Nov. 1835 (?)</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">1 leaf, 39x19 cm</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">?</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">[no title]</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">KEPE 10</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">Mounted Feb. 1836 (?)</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">1 leaf, 33x20 cm</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">—</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">[no title] = Joseph Smith Papyrus (JSP) IX</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">KEPA 1</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">1836 (?)</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">10 leaves, 32x20 cm</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">W.W. Phelps & Warren Parrish</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">[no title] [http://scriptures.lds.org/abr/1 Abraham 1:1]–2:18</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">KEPA 2</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">1836 (?)</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">4 leaves, 33x19 cm</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">Frederick G. Williams{{ref|fgw1}}</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">[no title] Abraham 1:4–2:6</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">KEPA 3</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">1836 (?)</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">6 leaves, 32x19 cm</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">Warren Parrish</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">[no title] Abraham 1:4–2:2</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">KEPA 4</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">Feb. 1842 (?)</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">18 leaves, 29x20 cm</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">Willard Richards</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">[no title] Abraham 1:1–3:26 (pages containing 2:19 - 3:17 missing)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">KEPA 5</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">March 1842 (?)</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">4 leaves, various sizes</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">Willard Richards</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">[no title] [http://scriptures.lds.org/abr/fac_2 Facsimile 2]</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">KEPA 6</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">1842</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">Broadside 32x19 cm</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">—</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid thin">[back has a letter to Clyde Williams & Co., signed by Joseph Smith and W.W. Phelps]</td>
</tr>
</table>

The most extensive of these documents is KEPE 1, which is an intact bound book, containing 34 nonconsecutive pages of writing and 186 blank pages (an average of three written pages being followed by 18 to 20 blank pages).

===Provenance===

An inventory of Church records to be taken west from Nauvoo, prepared by Thomas Bullock in 1846, included an entry for "Egyptian Grammar in Jennetta's Trunk." This document presumably was KEPE 1. The Jennetta spoken of was the late wife of Willard Richards, the Prophet Joseph's secretary. The ''Journal History of the Church'' under the date 17 October 1855 lists the "Egyptian Alphabet" in an inventory of items moved into a new fire proof vault. This again appears to be KEPE 1. An 1847 inventory of Church property delivered to Newel K. Whitney for transport included "A small Parchment roll of Hieroglyphics," which may have included some of the loose KEP. It is also possible that some of the other, smaller documents were brought separately to the Great Basin by W.W. Phelps.

Although these documents were brought west from Nauvoo and deposited in the Church Historian's office, they were unused and eventually knowledge of them was lost. The Egyptian Grammar was eventually rediscovered in that office by Sidney Sperry in 1935.

KEPA 1 has a separate provenance. This document was given by Emma Smith to her second husband, Lewis Bidamon, who gave it to his son, Charles Bidamon, from whom the great collector of Mormon artifacts, Wilford Wood, obtained it. Wood presented this document to the Church in 1937.

The various provenances of these documents raise the possibility that the collection we have today may not be complete, with some of the documents having been lost.

===Publication history===

The KEP have never been formally published. Jerald and Sandra Tanner obtained a microfilm copy of most of them and informally published them as ''Joseph Smith's Egyptian Alphabet & Grammar''.{{ref|tanner1}} An improved informal compilation was prepared by H. Michael Marquardt under the title ''The Joseph Smith Egyptian Papers'' in 1981. This informal edition is still available from Marquardt's website. Both of these editions are photocopies made from microfilm.

The late Steven F. Christensen, before he was murdered by [[Mark Hofmann]], commissioned the photographing of the KEP at the LDS Church archives. From those negatives, at least four sets of color prints were made, including copies now in the possession of George D. Smith, Edward Ashment and Brent Metcalfe. Metcalfe has indicated that he intends to formally publish the KEP, with high quality color photographs on the left side of the page and an improved transcription on the right side of the page.

It is also possible that the Maxwell Institute at BYU will do its own critical edition of the KEP as part of its ''Studies in the Book of Abraham'' series, although no formal announcement of such a publication has been made.

===Approaches to the KEP===

The attitude of critics to the KEP is straightforward. They claim that:
#the KEP represent the translation working papers for the Book of Abraham;
#the KEPE demonstrate that Joseph did not understand Egyptian;
#the KEPA demonstrate that the Sensen Papyrus was believed to be the source for the Book of Abraham; and
#since the Sensen Papyrus is in fact not the Book of Abraham but an Egyptian Book of Breathings, whatever else the Book of Abraham may be, it is not an accurate translation of an ancient Egyptian text.

LDS approaches to the KEP have been more varied. The first significant scholarly study of the matter, by John A. Tvedtnes and Richley Crapo, appeared in a series of articles under the auspices of the Society for Early Historic Archaeology from 1968 to 1970. Their theory was that the Sensen Papyrus may have represented a mnemonic device to bring to mind a longer oral tradition — a tradition that corresponded to the narrative of the Book of Abraham as we know it. This theory was grounded in two observations. First, the hieratic symbols copied into the left margin of the KEPA documents were complete morphemes, as opposed to the inappropriate breaks one would expect of someone who could not read Egyptian. Second, in every case the meaning of the hieratic word in the margin shows up in some relevant way in the much longer English text corresponding to the hieratic word. Of course, lots of other words and concepts are present as well, but the meaning of the hieratic word in each case is present in the English text.

While a fascinating study, the Tvedtnes and Crapo mnemonic device theory never really caught on. Hugh Nibley was intrigued by this possibility at first, but then decided to go in a different direction. Nibley authored a seminal, lengthy study of the KEP in ''BYU Studies'' entitled "The Meaning of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers." He did not attempt to defend the KEP as revelatory documents (other than the English portions of the KEPA). Rather, he took the view that the KEP represent either a preliminary "studying it out" stage in the process, or a (failed) attempt to reverse engineer the English translation so as to decipher the Egyptian language. In other words, the English text of the Book of Abraham was received by revelation as opposed to a purely mechanical process. While Joseph was involved in the KEP project, a theme of Nibley's piece is to portray the efforts of Phelps, Cowdery, and Parrish as largely independent of Joseph. Nibley's take has become the dominant LDS view, and has been echoed more recently in several publications by John Gee.

A small minority of LDS commenters on the KEP seeks to defend the supposed revelatory character of these documents, viewing them through the lenses of kabbalism or extreme symbolism. This point of view is characterized by Joe Sampson and Paul Osborne. It has few adherents.

===Directions for further research===

The KEP have been understudied to date. Although preliminary studies have appeared from various perspectives, much more work needs to be done. In many ways, apologetic or polemical approaches to these documents are premature. Rather, they first must be studied rigorously from a scholarly perspective.

An essential tool that is a prerequisite to further progress is a critical edition of the texts. While the microfilm photocopy editions are sufficient for limited purposes and to get a feel for the documents, they are totally inadequate for serious scholarly study. Ideally such scholarship should be grounded in a study of the original documents. To the extent that they are not available for such study, the color photographs that are in existence would be the next best basis for such an edition.

In addition to a careful and clear presentation of the texts, such a study needs to focus on understanding the documents. Too much energy has been devoted to attack and defense, and not enough to basic comprehension of what those involved in the project thought they were doing and how they went about their work. Such a study needs to bring the same standards and attention to detail to these texts as Royal Skousen has brought to his study of the original text of the Book of Mormon.

Some of the contested issues for which such a study could bring enlightenment include the following:

'''Involvement of Joseph Smith.''' That Joseph was involved to some degree in the project is clear. His handwriting appears on two of the documents, and there are references to the project in his journals. The extent of his involvement is a hotly contested issue and needs to be clarified. Nibley tried hard to distance Joseph from the work of the scribes. Edward Ashment has questioned Nibley's position. The extent to which Joseph dominated the process, or the scribes acted independently, or they all acted in a collaborative manner, needs to be clarified.

'''Meaning of technical teminology like "degree" and "part."''' The terms "degree" and "part" seem to be used in the KEPE as some sort of grammatical terms of art. If so, their meaning needs to be divined. Conversely, John Tvedtnes has argued that they are not grammatical terms at all, but refer to locations on the papyri where particular symbols were located; a sort of latitude and longitude system. According to this view, for example, the "first part" is what we call [http://scriptures.lds.org/abr/fac_1 Facsimile 1], and the "first degree" of that part is the first column of the facsimile, while the second degree is the second column. The second part is what Nibley called the Small Sensen Papyrus (JSP XI), and the first degree of the second part is the first of its columns, counting from the right (away from Facsimile 1). Tvedtnes' explanation of the usage of these terms needs to be evaluated; in particular, as to whether his proposed system in fact holds for all uses of the terms.

'''Sequencing issues.''' Although the handwriting of the various scribes on the various texts has been identified, there are numerous sequencing issues that need to be explored. Is there a way to determine in what sequence the documents were created? Were the KEPA documents created at the same time from dictation, or were they visually copied from a single source, and if so, which is the source document? Which was written first on the page, the hieratic symbols in the left margin of the KEPA documents or the English text to the right? Were the hieratic symbols visually copied from the Sensen Papyrus, and if so, can we determine who copied them?

'''Why does the scope of the English text not match the scope of the hieratic symbols in the margins of the KEPA?''' There is a substantial and obvious disproportion between the hieratic symbols in the left margins of the KEPA and the accompanying English text to the right. Critics often trot this fact out as an obvious artifact of Joseph's ignorance. But this begs the question why such a disproportion exists. The disproportion is so marked that surely even Joseph must have been aware of it, and even if he were not, the scribes involved in the project had training in other languages, such that they would have noted and objected to the disproportion. It is not enough merely to observe the disproportion, it must be explained. What did these men think they were doing? Does the juxtaposition of a hieratic symbol and an entire paragraph of English text intend to reflect a translation process, or is some other process at work, and if so, what?

==Conclusion==

When the [[Book of Abraham papyri|Joseph Smith Papyri]] were recovered and the connection to the KEP first noted, Richard Howard, then historian for the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (now the Community of Christ), was quoted in the ''New York Times'' as saying that we now knew the ''modus operandi'' by which the translation of the Book of Abraham was created.{{ref|nytimes1}} But this statement was premature. We do not know the ''modus operandi'' at all. If we were to give the complete KEPE, the Joseph Smith Papyri, and the sequence of hieratic symbols in the left margins of the KEPA to someone and then ask that person to recreate the Book of Abraham from those materials, he could not do it. The KEPE reflect a half-dozen phrases from the Book of Abraham, isolated and without context. But the Book of Abraham is a coherent and readily understood English text, while the KEPE is a mishmash of linguistic gobbledigook. It is completely unclear how one could possibly get the one from the other.

So what is the source of the English Book of Abraham? It would appear that the English text is a revelation to the Prophet Joseph Smith, whatever he thought he was doing in the KEP project. There is ample precedent for the Prophet receiving such coherent revelations before that did not require him to wrestle with deciphering the ancient language of the source text. For example, [[Book of Mormon translation method|Joseph translated the Book of Mormon almost entirely without reference to the gold plates themselves]], and [http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/7 Doctrine and Covenants 7] is a revealed translation of ancient parchment that was never physically given to Joseph.

The coherent words of the Book of Abraham did not really come from an analysis of the Egyptian materials before Joseph or his scribes; rather, they were uttered by the Prophet and recorded by his scribes in much the same way that all of his revelatory translation projects were done. To the critic, this simply means that Joseph made up the coherent text and dictated it; to the believer, it means that Joseph received the text by revelation and dictated it. The difference between these two points of view is a matter of faith, and not something that any amount of wrangling with the KEP can resolve definitively one way or the other.

==Endnotes==
#{{note|table1}}John Gee, "Eyewitness, Hearsay, and Physical Evidence of the Joseph Smith Papyri," p. 196.
#{{note|fgw1}}Until recently this was believed to be W.W. Phelps' handwriting.
#{{note|tanner1}}''Joseph Smith's Egyptian Alphabet & Grammar,'' Salt Lake City: Modern Microfilm Company, 1966.
#{{note|nytimes1}}''New York Times,'' 2 May 1970.

==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===
{{BookofAbrahamWiki}}

===FAIR web site===
{{BookofAbrahamFAIR}}

===External links===

{{BookofAbrahamLinks}}

===Printed material===
{{BookofAbrahamPrint}}
[[de:Kirtland_Egyptian_Papers]]

Joseph Smith's First Vision/Fabricated to give "Godly authority"

2008-04-29T19:33:48Z

Pwellauer:

{{FirstVisionPortal}}
{{GermanWiki|http://www.de.fairmormon.org/index.php/Erste_Vision_erfunden%2C_um_%22g%C3%B6ttliche_Autorit%C3%A4t%22_zu_verleihen}}

==Criticism==

Joseph Smith decided after he released the Book of Mormon to the public that he needed 'authority from God' to justify his claims as a religious minister. He fabricated the First Vision story in order to provide himself with a more prestigious line of authority than that of the "angel" who revealed the golden plates.

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

* Mormon Apologetics and Discussion Board (January 2007).

==Response==

This theory does not stand up to close scrutiny. There are numerous contemporary and reminiscent documents which indicate that before Joseph Smith recorded his 1832 history (September-November 1832) he was claiming - both implicitly and explicitly - to have authority from God to carry out his ministry.

Notice in the citations below that when the angel who revealed the plates is mentioned he is identified as God's messenger. Thus, Joseph Smith's interaction is not simply with a nondescript angel; the angel is an authorized representative of Deity.

'''November 1826'''
* Joseph Smith "told us of '''God’s manifestations to him''', of the discovery and receiving of the plates from which the Book of Mormon was translated"{{ref|fn1}} (Newel Knight).

'''Spring 1827'''
* Joseph Smith specifically identifies the otherworldly messenger with whom he has been dealing as '''the angel of the Lord''' {{ref|fn2}}

'''Fall 1827'''
* Martin Harris states that it was an '''angel of God''' who visited Joseph Smith and revealed the golden plates to him and he also said that Joseph had been '''chosen by the Lord'''.{{ref|fn3}}

'''April 1828'''
* Palmyra townspeople state that "'''an angel of God'''" appeared to Joseph Smith.{{ref|fn4}}

'''1828'''
* Joseph Smith said that he received '''a revelation from God''' to tell him where the plates were concealed.{{ref|fn5}}
*Joseph Smith told his wife’s uncle that he had been '''commanded by God''' to translate the plates.{{ref|fn6}}
*Joseph Smith states that he is '''a prophet sent by God''' to gather Israel.{{ref|fn7}}
*Joseph Smith declares that his ability to translate the plates is '''a gift from God'''.{{ref|fn8}}

'''1829'''
* Joseph Smith wrote to members of his father’s family and told them that '''an angel of the Lord''' had revealed the gold book to him.{{ref|fn9}}
* Believers in Joseph Smith’s mission teach others that he has been visited by '''a messenger from "the Almighty"'''.{{ref|fn10}}
*In the published statement of the Three Witnesses in the Book of Mormon (written ''ca''. June 1829) it is said that it was "'''an angel of God'''" who showed them the golden plates.

'''April 1830'''
* Joseph Smith confirms in an official Church document that he had been "'''called of God'''" and "'''God ministered unto him by an holy angel'''" when the Book of Mormon plates were revealed.{{ref|fn11}}

'''1830'''
* Joseph Smith states that he has been '''entrusted by God'''.{{ref|fn12}}
* According to "the most credible reports" that a non-Mormon minister had heard "the angel indicated to [Joseph Smith] that '''the Lord [had] destined him'''" to carry out a certain work.{{ref|fn13}}

'''November 1830'''
* Joseph Smith had seen God "personally" and received a '''commission from God''' to preach the gospel.{{ref|fn14}}

'''August 1831'''
*Before the Book of Mormon translation was completed "'''the Lord'''" told Joseph Smith that it must be published.{{ref|fn15}}

'''September 1831'''
*The "chief Elders" in Kirtland, Ohio - including Joseph Smith - state that the Prophet had "held communion with '''an angel from God'''" with regard to the golden plates.{{ref|fn16}}

'''November 1831'''
*The Lord declares in the Doctrine and Covenants that He "'''called'''" Joseph Smith to be His servant ({{s||DC|1|17}}).

==Conclusion==

There is no doubt that before Joseph Smith produced his 1832 history of the Restoration he was telling other people that he had a directive from God to carry out a certain work and that he had received instruction directly from one of God's authorized representatives. Joseph Smith had no need to produce some type of authority claim by 'fabricating' the First Vision event in 1832. The line of Divine authority had already been long established.

==Endnotes==

#{{note|fn1}} Newel Knight {{NeedCite}}
#{{note|fn2}} Lucy Mack Smith, Autobiography, Chapter 21.
#{{note|fn3}} Rev. John A. Clark {{NeedCite}}
#{{note|fn4}} David Whitmer{{NeedCite}}
#{{note|fn5}} Henry Harris{{NeedCite}}
#{{note|fn6}} Nathaniel Lewis{{NeedCite}}
#{{note|fn7}} Hezekiah McKune{{NeedCite}}
#{{note|fn8}} Alva Hale{{NeedCite}}
#{{note|fn9}} Jesse Smith{{NeedCite}}
#{{note|fn10}} ''Palmyra Freeman'' (1829), {{NeedCite}}
#{{note|fn11}} {{EMS1|vol=1|num=1|date=June 1832|start=1|author=?|article=?}}
#{{note|fn12}} ''The Fredonia Censor'', 10/10 (2 June 1830): page? {{NeedCite}}
#{{note|fn13}} Letter, Rev. Diedrich Willers to L. Mayer and D. York, 18 June 1830.
#{{note|fn14}} ''The Reflector'' [Palmyra, New York] 2/13 (14 February 1831), page ?
#{{note|fn15}} ''The Sun'' (18 August 1831): page?
#{{note|fn16}} Nancy Towle, ''Vicissitudes Illustrated'', 2d ed., (Portsmouth: John Caldwell, 1833), 150–151; first edition printed in 1832.

==Further reading==

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

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

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

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

The Bible/Condemnation of genealogy

2008-04-19T19:55:18Z

Pwellauer:

{{BiblePortal}}
{{GermanWiki|http://www.de.fairmormon.org/Bibel:_Verdammung_von_Genealogie}}

==Criticism==
Critics charge that the Bible condemns genealogy, and therefore the Latter-day Saint practice of compiling family histories is anti-Biblical, often citing [http://scriptures.lds.org/1_tim/1/4#4 1 Timothy 1:4] or [http://scriptures.lds.org/titus/3/9#9 Titus 3:9].

===Source(s) of the criticism===
*{{QuestionsMormonsShouldAsk}}

==Response==
The Bible clearly does not reject all uses of genealogy. This can be seen through its many genealogical lists, including two such lists for Jesus Christ Himself. (See [http://scriptures.lds.org/matt/1/1#24 Matthew 1:1–24] and [http://scriptures.lds.org/luke/3/23#38 Luke 3:23–38].)

The condemnation of "genealogies" in Timothy and Titus likely came because:

*the Christians perceived a Jewish tendency to be pre-occupied by "pure descent" as a qualification for holding the priesthood. Since only pure descendents of Levi could hold the priesthood, there was endless wrangling about one's pedigree—since Paul considers the Aaronic Priesthood to have been superceded by Christ, the great High Priest like Melchizedek (see [http://scriptures.lds.org/heb/5/1#1 Hebrews 5]), this probably strikes him as pointless.
* some Jewish scribes and other teachers claimed that their "traditions" were directly descended from Moses, Joshua, or some other prominent leader, and thus superior to the Christian gospel.{{ref|fudge1}}
* some gnostic sects had involved accounts of the descent of the Aeons (up to 365 "generations" in one scheme) and other mystic or pagan variations thereon.{{ref|gill1}}

Since all these genealogies were either speculative or fabricated, they could cause endless, pointless debate.{{ref|brown1}} Rather Paul wants the faith (in Christ) which builds up ("edifying") testimonies and lives.

==Conclusion==

The Bible does not condemn all genealogy ''per se''. Rather, it rejects the use of genealogy to "prove" one's righteousness, or the truth of one's teachings. It also rejects the apostate uses to which some Christians put genealogy in some varieties of gnosticism.

Latter-day Saints engage in genealogy work so that they can continue the Biblical practice—also endorsed by Paul—of providing vicarious ordinances for the dead, such as baptism (See [http://scriptures.lds.org/1_cor/15/29#29 1 Corinthians 15:29]) so that the atonement of Christ may be available to all who would choose it, living or dead. ''See: [[Baptism for the dead]]''

==Endnotes==
#{{note|fudge1}}{{Ensign1|author=George H. Fudge|article=I Have a Question: How do we interpret scriptures in the New Testament that seem to condemn genealogy?|date=March 1986|start=49}}{{link|url=http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/1986.htm/ensign%20march%201986%20.htm/i%20have%20a%20question.htm?fn=document-frame.htm&f=templates&2.0#LPTOC1}}
#{{note|gill1}}John Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible, 1811-1817, New Testament, "1 Timothy 1:4" {{link|url=http://bible.crosswalk.com/Commentaries/GillsExpositionoftheBible/gil.cgi?book=1ti&chapter=001&verse=004&next=005&prev=003}} & "Titus 3:9" {{link|url=http://bible.crosswalk.com/Commentaries/GillsExpositionoftheBible/gil.cgi?book=tit&chapter=003&verse=009&next=010&prev=008}}
#{{note|brown1}}Raymond E. Brown, Joseph A. Fitzmyer, and Roland E. Murphy, eds., ''The Jerome Biblical Commentary'' (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1968), 353.

==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===
*[[Baptism for the dead]]
{{biblewiki}}

===FAIR web site===
*{{tg|url=http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai151.html|topic=Genealogy}}

===External links===
*{{Ensign1|author=George H. Fudge|article=I Have a Question: How do we interpret scriptures in the New Testament that seem to condemn genealogy?|date=March 1986|start=49}}{{link|url=http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/1986.htm/ensign%20march%201986%20.htm/i%20have%20a%20question.htm?fn=document-frame.htm&f=templates&2.0#LPTOC1}}
*Stephen R. Gibson, Why Don't Latter-day Saints Avoid "Endless Genealogy"?{{link|url=http://www.lightplanet.com/response/answers/EndlessGenealogy.htm}}

===Printed material===
*Raymond E. Brown, Joseph A. Fitzmyer, and Roland E. Murphy, eds., ''The Jerome Biblical Commentary'' (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1968), 353.

Joseph Smith/Seer stones

2008-02-16T16:40:15Z

Pwellauer: /* Endnotes */

{{JosephSmithPortal}}
{{question}}
==Question==
What can you tell me about Joseph's seer stone? What is its relation to the "Urim and Thummim"?
==Response==

===How many seer stones were there?===

Joseph first used a neighbor's seer stone (probably Sally Chase, on the balance of historical evidence, though there are other possibilities) to discover the location of a brown, baby's foot-shaped stone. The vision of this stone likely occured in about 1819–1820, and he obtained his first seer stone in about 1821–1822.{{ref|mcgee1}}

Joseph then used this first stone to find a second stone (a white one). The colour and sequence of obtaining these stones has often been confused,{{ref|confused1}} and readers interested in an in-depth treatment are referred to the endnotes.{{ref|mcgee2}}

Joseph would later discover at least two more seers stones in Nauvoo, on the banks of the Mississippi. These stones seem to have been collected more for their appearance, and there is little evidence of Joseph using them at that late date in his prophetic career.{{ref|mcgee3}}

===How did Joseph obtain his second seer stone?===

The seer stone was reportedly found on the property of William Chase in 1822 as Chase described it:

:In the year 1822, I was engaged in digging a well. I employed Alvin and Joseph Smith to assist me.... After digging about twenty feet below the surface of the earth, we discovered a singularly appearing stone, which excited my curiosity. I brought it to the top of the well, and as we were examining it, Joseph put it into his hat, and then his face into the top of his hat.... The next morning he came to me, and wished to obtain the stone, alleging that he could see in it; but I told him I did not wish to part with it on account of its being a curiosity, but I would lend it.{{ref|chase1}}

Martin Harris and Wilford Woodruff were to later confirm this account after Joseph's death.{{ref|confirmchase}}

===What did the stones look like?===
One witness reported (of the first, brown stone), from 1826:

:It was about the size of a small hen's egg, in the shape of a high-instepped shoe. It was composed of layers of different colors passing diagonally through it. It was very hard and smooth, perhaps by being carried in the pocket.{{ref|stonesize}}

The second stone:

: [the] Seer Stone was the shape of an egg though not quite so large, of a gray cast something like granite but with white stripes running around it. It was transparent but had no holes, neither on the end or in the sides.{{ref|secondstoneappear}}

===For what purpose(s) did Joseph use the stones prior to the restoration?===

As noted above, Joseph used the first stone to find the second.

Martin Harris recounted that Joseph could find lost objects with the second, white stone:

:: I was at the house of his father in Manchester, two miles south of Palmyra village, and was picking my teeth with a pin while sitting on the bars. The pin caught in my teeth and dropped from my fingers into shavings and straw. I jumped from the bars and looked for it. Joseph and Northrop Sweet also did the same. We could not find it. I then took Joseph on surprise, and said to him--I said, "Take your stone." I had never seen it, and did not know that he had it with him. He had it in his pocket. He took it and placed it in his hat--the old white hat--and placed his face in his hat. I watched him closely to see that he did not look to one side; he reached out his hand beyond me on the right, and moved a little stick and there I saw the pin, which he picked up and gave to me. I know he did not look out of the hat until after he had picked up the pin.{{ref|pin}}

Joseph's mother also indicated that Joseph was sought out by some, including Josiah Stoal, to use the stone to find hidden valuables. He

:came for Joseph on account of having heard that he possessed certain keys by which he could discern things invisible to the natural eye.{{ref|lucymack1}}

Joseph referred to this incident in {{scripture||JS-H|1|55-56}}.

Stoal eventually joined the Church; some of his family, however, charged Joseph in court for events related to this treasure seeking. Stoal testified in Joseph's defense. (See ''FAIRwiki'' article on the trial [[Joseph_Smith's_1826_glasslooking_trial|here]].)

Joseph Knight also said that, at the command of the angel Moroni, Joseph looked into his seer stone to learn who he should marry. He "looked in his glass and found it was Emma Hale."{{ref|marryemma1}}

===How were the stone(s) involved in the translation of the Book of Mormon?===

There is considerable evidence that the location of the plates and Nephite interpreters (Urim and Thummim) were revealed to Joseph via his second, white seer stone. In 1859, Martin Harris recalled that "Joseph had a stone which was dug from the well of Mason Chase...It was by means of this stone he first discovered the plates."{{ref|stoneplates1}}

Some critics have sought to create a contradiction here, since Joseph's history reported that Moroni revealed the plates to him ({{s||JS-H|1|34-35,42}}). This is an example of a false dichotomy: Moroni could easily have told Joseph about the plates and interpreters. The vision to Joseph may well have then come through the seer stone, as some of the sections of the Doctrine and Covenants (e.g., Section X) would later be revealed. One account matches this theory well:

:I had a conversation with [Joseph], and asked him where he found them [the plates] and how he come to know where they were. he said he had a revelation from God that told him they were hid in a certain hill and he looked in his [seer] stone and saw them in the place of deposit."{{ref|henryharris1}}

Joseph Knight recalled that Joseph was more excited about the Nephite interpreters than the gold plates:

:After breakfast Joseph called me into the other room, set his foot on the bed, and leaned his head on his hand and said, "Well I am disappointed."
:"Well, I said, "I am sorry."
:"Well, he said, "I am greatly disappointed. It is ten times better than I expected."
:Then he went on to tell the length and width and thickness of the plates and, said he, they appear to be gold. But, he seemed to think more of the glasses or the Urim and thummim than he did of the plate for, said he, "I can see anything. They are marvelous."{{ref|knight1}}

Martin Harris later described the Nephite interpreters as

:about two inches in diameter, perfectly round, and about five-eighths of an inch thick at the centre.... They were joined by a round bar of diver, about three-eights of an inch in diameter, and about four inches long, which with the two stones, would make eight inches.{{ref|harris1}}

Despite having the Nephite interpreters, Joseph Smith often used the seer stone to translate. This led to an episode in which Martin tested the veracity of Joseph's claim to use the second, white stone to translate:{{ref|harriswhite1}}

:Once Martin found a rock closely resembling the seerstone Joseph sometimes used in place of the interpreters and substituted it without the Prophet’s knowledge. When the translation resumed, Joseph paused for a long time and then exclaimed, “Martin, what is the matter, all is as dark as Egypt.” Martin then confessed that he wished to “stop the mouths of fools” who told him that the Prophet memorized sentences and merely repeated them.{{ref|mouthoffools}}

Joseph also seems to have sometimes removed the Nephite stones from the "silver bows" which held them like spectacles, and used them as individual seer stones. Joseph used his white seer stone sometimes "for convenience" during the translation of the 116 pages with Martin Harris; later witnesses reported him using his brown seer stone.{{ref|variousstones1}}

===Did Joseph lose the seer stone(s) and/or the Urim and Thummim?===

Following the loss of the 116 pages, the Lord told Joseph:

:1 NOW, behold, I say unto you, that because you delivered up those writings which you had power given unto you to translate by the means of the Urim and Thummim, into the hands of a wicked man, you have lost them.
:2 And you also lost your gift at the same time, and your mind became darkened.
:3 Nevertheless, it is now restored unto you again; therefore see that you are faithful and continue on unto the finishing of the remainder of the work of translation as you have begun.
:4 Do not run faster or labor more than you have strength and means provided to enable you to translate; but be diligent unto the end. ({{s||DC|10|1-4}})

Thus, "it" (Joseph's gift) was restored to him, but there is no indication that the Nephite interpreters (Urim and Thummim) were also returned, Joseph having also lost "them." That is, after repenting, Joseph would recover his seer stones, but apparently not the the Urim and Thummim. Some Church sources have seen this as the point at which Joseph received the seer stone for the first time, but this is likely incorrect:

:As a chastisement for this carelessness [loss of the 116 pages], the Urim and Thummim was taken from Smith. But by humbling himself, he again found favor with the Lord and was presented a strange oval-shaped, chocolate colored stone, about the size of an egg, but more flat which it was promised should answer the same purpose. With this stone all the present book was translated.{{ref|hr1}}

This source is clearly somewhat confused, since it sees Joseph as getting his dark stone ''after'' the 116 pages, when it likely dates to 1822 at the latest (see above).

David Whitmer, who only came in contact with the translation after the loss of the 116 pages, indicated through a friend that

:With the sanction of David Whitmer, and by his authority, I now state that he does not say that Joseph Smith ever translated in his presence by aid of Urim and Thummim; but by means of one dark colored, opaque stone, called a 'Seer Stone,' which was placed in the crown of a hat, into which Joseph put his face, so as to exclude the external light. Then, a spiritual light would shine forth, and parchment would appear before Joseph, upon which was a line of characters from the plates, and under it, the translation in English; at least, so Joseph said.{{ref|sh1}}

Joseph also used the seer stone to keep himself and the plates safe, as his mother recorded:

:That of which I spoke, which Joseph termed a key, was indeed, nothing more nor less than the Urim and Thummim, and it was by this that the angel showed him many things which he saw in vision; by which also he could ascertain, at any time, the approach of danger, either to himself or the Record, and on account of which he always kept the Urim and Thummim about his person.{{ref|lucymack2}}

We see here the tendency to use the term "Urim and Thummim" to refer to Joseph's seer stone (or to the Nephite interpreters, which would have been too large for Joseph to carry on his person undetected). This lack of precision in terminology has, on occasion, confused some members who have not understood that either or both may be referred to by early LDS authors as "Urim and Thummim." To Joseph and his contemporaries, they were all the same type of thing, and merely differed in the strength of their power and ability. Clearly, devices from the Lord when directed by an angelic messenger (such as the Nephite interpreters) would outrank a seer stone found on one's own.

===What is the relation between Urim and Thummim and seer stones?===

As seen above, members of the Church tended to conflate the seer stone with the Nephite interpreters (never called "Urim and Thummim" by the Book of Mormon text; the label is a modern application).

The Book of Mormon makes reference to a stone that likely has reference to Joseph Smith's seer stone (as distinct from the Nephite interpreters):

: And the Lord said: I will prepare unto my servant Gazelem, a stone, which shall shine forth in darkness unto light, that I may discover unto my people who serve me, that I may discover unto them the works of their brethren, yea, their secret works, their works of darkness, and their wickedness and abominations.{{s||Alma|37|23}}

Joseph Smith's "code name," used for the publication of some sections of the Doctrine and Covenants to hide the recipients from their enemies, was "Gazalem." And, at his funeral, W.W. Phelps also applied this name to Joseph.{{ref|gazalem1}}

Alma's account then goes on to speak of the Nephite interpreters:

:24 And now, my son, these interpreters were prepared that the word of God might be fulfilled, which he spake, saying:
:25 I will bring forth out of darkness unto light all their secret works and their abominations; and except they repent I will destroy them from off the face of the earth; and I will bring to light all their secrets and abominations, unto every nation that shall hereafter possess the land.{{s||Alma|37|24-25}}

Thus, "stone" (singular) may well be distinct from the "interpreters" (plural) possessed by the Nephites. The Book of Mosiah makes clear that the interpreters consisted of "two stones":

: 13 Now Ammon said unto him: I can assuredly tell thee, O king, of a man that can translate the records; for he has wherewith that he can look, and translate all records that are of ancient date; and it is a gift from God. And the things are called interpreters, and no man can look in them except he be commanded, lest he should look for that he ought not and he should perish. And whosoever is commanded to look in them, the same is called seer.
:14 And behold, the king of the people who are in the land of Zarahemla is the man that is commanded to do these things, and who has this high gift from God.{{s||Mosiah|8|13-14}}
:…
:13 And now he translated them by the means of those two stones which were fastened into the two rims of a bow.
:14 Now these things were prepared from the beginning, and were handed down from generation to generation, for the purpose of interpreting languages;
:15 And they have been kept and preserved by the hand of the Lord, that he should discover to every creature who should possess the land the iniquities and abominations of his people;
:16 And whosoever has these things is called seer, after the manner of old times. .{{s||Mosiah|28|13-16}}

The first use in print of "Urim and Thummim" to refer to the interpreters was in January 1833:

:[The Book of Mormon] was translated by the gift and power of God, by an unlearned man, through the aid of a pair of Interpreters, or spectacles--(known, perhaps in ancient days as Teraphim, or Urim and Thummim).{{ref|wwphelps1}}

Members of the Church seem to have used the term interchangeably on many occasions.{{ref|interchange1}}

===Why did Joseph tend to use the seer stone more than the Nephite interpreters?===

The size of the interpreters may have been a significant barrier to their use. William Smith, Joseph's brother, described the Nephite instruments as

:too large for Joseph's eyes; they must have been used by larger men.{{ref|williamsmith1}}

Charles Anthon agreed when he later recalled Martin Harris' description and wrote:

:These spectacles were so large that if a person attempted to look through them, his two eyes would have to be turned towards one of the glasses merely, the spectacles in question being altogether too large for the breadth of the human face.{{ref|anthon1}}

===Why did use of the seer stones subside?===

The Urim and Thummim were the means of receiving most of the formal revelations until June 1829. That was the time of completing the Book of Mormon, which was translated through the Urim and Thummim and also the seer stone. After this, no stones were generally not used while receiving revelation or translation. (The JST and the Book of Abraham translations both began with seer stone usage, but Joseph soon quit using them.{{ref|JSTandBoA}}) Following his baptism, receipt of the Holy Ghost, and ordination to the Melchizedek priesthood, Joseph seems have felt far less need to resort to the stones.{{ref|priesthood1}} He had learned, through divine tutoring, how to receive unmediated revelation—the Lord had taken him "line upon line" from where he was (surrounded with beliefs about seeing and divining) and brought him to further light, knowledge, and power.

This perspective was reinforced by Orson Pratt, who watched the New Testament revision (JST) and wondered why the use of seer stones/interpreters (as with the Book of Mormon) was not continued:

:While this thought passed through the speaker's mind, Joseph, as if he read his thoughts, looked up and explained that the Lord gave him the Urim and Thummim when he was inexperienced in the Spirit of inspiration. But now he had advanced so far that he understood the operations of that Spirit and did not need the assistance of that instrument.{{ref|prattuandt}}

===Are there any Biblical parallels to Joseph's seer stone understanding?===

The idea of sacred stones acting as revelators to believers is present in the Bible, and Joseph Smith embraced a decidedly "non-magical" and "pro-religious" view of them:

:In Revelation, John incorporates past religious symbols into his message. Thus the most internally consistent interpretation of the "white stone" combines with the book's assurance that the faithful will become "kings and priests" to the Most High (Rev. 1:6). These eternal priests will be in tune with God's will, like the High Priest with the breastplate of shining stones and the Urim. In Hebrew that term means "light," corresponding to the "white" stone of John's Revelation. This correlation should be obvious, but Joseph Smith is virtually alone in confidence that John sees the redeemed as full High Priests: "Then the white stone mentioned in Rev. 2:17 is the Urim and Thummim, whereby all things pertaining to a higher order of kingdoms, even all kingdoms, will be made know." As for genuine religion, Joseph Smith perceived the stone of John's vision not as a stone of chance but as a conduit of enlightenment and a reward of worthiness of character.{{ref|revelationjohn1}}

===What happened to the seer stones?===

As noted above, the Nephite interpreters were apparently reclaimed by Moroni following the loss of the 116 pages, and were only seen again by the Three Witnesses ([http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bm/thrwtnss Testimony of Three]).

Van Wagoner and Walker write:
: David Whitmer indicated that the seer stone was later given to Oliver Cowdery: "After the translation of the Book of Mormon was finished early in the spring of 1830 before April 6th, Joseph gave the Stone to Oliver Cowdery and told me as well as the rest that he was through with it, and he did not use the Stone anymore.” Whitmer, who was Cowdery's brother-in-law, stated that on Oliver's death in 1848, another brother-in-law, "Phineas Young, a brother of Brigham Young, and an old-time and once intimate friend of the Cowdery family came out from Salt Lake City, and during his visit he contrived to get the stone from its hiding place, through a little deceptive sophistry, extended upon the grief-stricken widow. When he returned to Utah he carried it in triumph to the apostles of Brigham Young's 'lion house.'"...

[Van Wagoner and Walker here confuse the two seer stones, so this section is not included here, given that better information has since come to light.]

:...Joseph Fielding Smith, as an apostle, made clear that "the Seer Stone which was in the possession of the Prophet Joseph Smith in early days . . . is now in the possession of the Church." Elder Joseph Anderson, Assistant to the Council of the Twelve and long-time secretary to the First Presidency, clarified in 1971 that the "Seer Stone that Joseph Smith used in the early days of the Church is in possession of the Church and is kept in a safe in Joseph Fielding Smith's office.... [The stone is] slightly smaller than a chicken egg, oval, chocolate in color."{{ref|fatestone}} (This would be Joseph's first, "shoe-shaped stone," which was given to Oliver Cowdery, and then to his brother-in-law Phineaus Young, brother of Brigham Young.{{ref|fatestone1}})

Joseph's second (white) stone is also in the possession of the LDS First Presidency.{{ref|2ndstonefate}}

===Has the Church tried to hide Joseph's use of a seer stone?===

The Church has been very frank about the seer stone's use, though the ''product'' of the translation of the Book of Mormon is usually given much more attention that the ''process''.

Text translated with the Nephite interpreters was lost with the 116 pages given to Martin Harris—see {{s||DC|3||}}. The Church's ''Historical Record'' records Joseph's use of the seer stone to translate all of our current Book of Mormon text:

:As a chastisement for this carelessness [loss of the 116 pages], the Urim and Thummim was taken from Smith. But by humbling himself, he again found favor with the Lord and was presented a strange oval-shaped, chocolate colored stone, about the size of an egg, but more flat which it was promised should answer the same purpose. With this stone all the present book was translated. [Note that the chronology of Joseph's acquisition of the stone is here somewhat confused. The use of the stone, however, is clearly indicated.]{{ref|hr1}}

References to the stone are not confined to the distant past. Elder Russell M. Nelson of the Twelve Apostles described the process clearly in an ''Ensign'' article:

:Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine. A piece of something resembling parchment would appear, and on that appeared the writing. One character at a time would appear, and under it was the interpretation in English. Brother Joseph would read off the English to Oliver Cowdery, who was his principal scribe, and when it was written down and repeated to Brother Joseph to see if it was correct, then it would disappear, and another character with the interpretation would appear. Thus the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God, and not by any power of man.{{ref|nelson1}}

It would be strange to try to hide something by having an apostle talk about it, and then send the account to every LDS home in the official magazine!

====Other mentions in Church materials====
Similar material is also found in other Church publications, some of which are included below:

* {{Ensign1|author=Richard Lloyd Anderson|article=‘By the Gift and Power of God’|date=Sepember 1977|start=79}}{{link|url=http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=5a921f26d596b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1}}
* Hyrum Andrus, ''Joseph Smith, the Man, the Seer'' (Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book Company, 1960), 102. {{GL1|url=http://gospelink.com/library/doc?doc_id=271098}}
* {{FR-6-1-14}}
* {{BYUS|author=Marvin S. Hill|article=Money-Digging Folklore and the Beginnings of Mormonism: An Interpretative Suggestion|vol=24|num=4|date=Fall 1984|start=?|end=??}}{{GL|url=http://gospelink.com/library/doc?doc_id=282646}}
* {{IE1|author=Francis W. Kirkham|article=The Manner of Translating The BOOK of MORMON|date=1939}} {{GL1|url=http://gospelink.com/library/doc?doc_id=242545}}
* Joseph Fielding McConkie, Craig J. Ostler, ''Revelations of the Restoration: A Commentary on the Doctrine and Covenants and Other Modern Revelations'' (Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book Co., 2000), D&C 9. {{GL1|url=http://gospelink.com/library/doc?doc_id=352684}}
* {{JBMS-2-2-14}}
* {{DFS1|article=A Brief Debate on the Book of Mormon|vol=1|start=350}}{{GL1|url=http://gospelink.com/library/doc?doc_id=205446}}
* {{BYUS1|author=Royal Skousen|article=Towards a Critical Edition of the Book of Mormon|start=52|date=Winter 1990|vol=30|num=1}}{{GL1|url=http://gospelink.com/library/doc?doc_id=282960}}

The charge that the Church is "hiding" or "suppressing" this material cannot be sustained.

==Conclusion==

{{nw}}

==Endnotes==

#{{note|mcgee1}} {{Ashurst-McGee-Thesis|start=200|end=215}}
#{{note|confused1}} See, for example, {{CHC1|vol=1|start=129}}; Roberts was followed by Richard S. Van Wagoner, Dan Vogel, Ogden Kraut, Jerald and Sandra Tanner, and D. Michael Quinn. See discussion in Ashurst-McGee, 247n317.
#{{note|mcgee2}} {{Ashurst-McGee-Thesis|start=200|end=283}}
#{{note|mcgee3}} {{Ashurst-McGee-Thesis|start=200|end=201}}

#{{note|chase1}} Eber Dudley Howe, ''Mormonism Unvailed'' (Painesville, Ohio: Telegraph Press, 1834), 241-242; cited in {{Dialogue|author=Richard Van Wagoner and Steven Walker|article=Joseph Smith: 'The Gift of Seeing|vol=15|num=2|date=Summer 1982|start=48|end=68}}
#{{note|chaseconfirm}} See Van Wagoner and Walker, 54.

#{{note|stonesize}} W. D. Purple, ''The Chenango Union'' (3 May 1877); cited in {{NewWitnessForChrist1|vol=2|start=365}} (See Van Wagoner and Walker, 54.)
#{{note|secondstoneappear}} Richard Marcellas Robinson, "The History of a Nephite Coin," manuscript, 20 December 1834, LDS Church archives; cited in {{Ashurst-McGee-Thesis1|start=264}}

#{{note|refpin}} Joel Tiffany, ''Tiffany's Monthly'' (June 1859): 164;cited in Van Wagoner and Walker, 55.
#{{note|lucymack1}} {{biosketch|start=91|end=92}}
#{{note|marryemma1}} {{BYUS1|author=Dean C. Jesse|article=Joseph Knight's Recollection of Early Mormon History|vol=17|date=August 1976|num=1|page=31}}; cited in {{Ashurst-McGee-Thesis1|start=281}}

#{{note|stoneplates1}} Mormonism—II," ''Tiffany's Monthly'' (June 1859): 163, see also 169; cited in Ashurst-McGee (2000), 286.
#{{note|henryharris1}} Henry Harris, statement in E.D. Howe ''Mormonism Unvailed'' (1833), 252; cited in Ashurst-McGee (2000), 290.
#{{note|knight1}} Joseph Knight, cited in Leonard J. Arrington and Davis Bitton, ''Saints Without Halos: The Human Side of Mormon History'' (Salt Lake City, Signature Books, 1981), 6. Spelling and punctuation have been modernized. The original text reads: "After Brackfist Joseph Cald me in to the other Room and he sit his foot on the Bed and leaned his head on his hand and says, well I am Dissopented. Well, say I, I am sorrey. Well, says he, I am grateley Dissopnted. It is ten times Better then I expected. Then he went on to tell the length and width and thickness of the plates and, said he, they appear to be gold. But he seamed to think more of the glasses or the urim and thummim than he Did of the plates for says he, I can see anything. They are Marvelous."
#{{note|harris1}} Joel Tiffany, "Mormonism—No. II," ''Tiffany's Monthly'' (June 1859): 165–166; cited in VanWagoner and Walker, footnote 27.
#{{note|harriswhite1}} Tiffany, 163.
#{{note|mouthoffools}} Told in ''Millennial Star'' 44:87; quotation from {{Ensign1|author=Kenneth W. Godfrey|article=A New Prophet and a New Scripture: The Coming Forth of the Book of Mormon|date=January 1988|start=6}}{{link|url=http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/1988.htm/ensign%20january%201988.htm/a%20new%20prophet%20and%20a%20new%20scripture%20the%20coming%20forth%20of%20the%20book%20of%20mormon.htm}}
#{{note|variousstones1}} See {{Ashurst-McGee-Thesis|start=320|end=326}}

#{{note|hr1}} ''The Historical Record. Devoted Exclusively to Historical, Biographical, Chronological and Statistical Matters'', (LDS Church Archives), 632,; cited in Van Wagoner and Walker, 54. Note that Van Wagoner and Walker contain inaccurate information about the stones, their provenance, and order of discovery.
#{{note|recoverurim}} See Joseph Smith's 1838/9 history in {{EarlyMormonDocs1|vol=1|num=73}} and {{LucyMackSmith-Anderson1| start=428}}
#{{note|sh1}} ''Saints' Herald'' 26 (15 November 1879): 341.

#{{note|gazalem1}} The material on "gazelem" is derived from Van Wagoner and Walker, 56.
#{{note|wwphelps1}} {{EMS1|vol=1|num=8|date=January 1833|author=William W. Phelps (uncredited)|article=The Book of Mormon|start=58}}; cited in Van Wagoner and Walker, 53. {{link|url=http://www.centerplace.org/history/ems/v1n08.htm Direct}}
#{{note|interchange1}} See discussion in Van Wagoner and Walker, 59–63.

# {{note|williamsmith1}} William Smith interview by J. W. Peterson and W. S. Pender, 4 July 1891, reported in ''The Rod of Iron'' 3 (February 1924): 6-7; ''Saints' Herald'' 79 (9 March 1932): 238; cited in VanWagoner and Walker, footnote 27.
#{{note|anthon1}} Charles Anthon letter to E. D. Howe, 17 Feb. 1834, published in E.D. Howe, ''Mormonism Unvailed'', 17; cited in VanWagoner and Walker, footnote 27.

#{{note|JSTandBoA}} {{Ashurst-McGee-Thesis|start=334|end=337}}
#{{note|priesthood1}} {{Ashurst-McGee-Thesis|start=332|end=333}}
#{{note|prattuandt}} {{MatureJS}} ; citing Orson Pratt, "Discourse at Brigham City," 27 June 1874, Ogden (Utah) Junction, cited in {{MS|author=Orson Pratt|article=Two Days´ Meeting at Brigham City|vol=36|date=11 August 1874|start=498|end=499}}

#{{note|revelationjohn1}} {{MatureJS}}

#{{note|fatestone}} Van Wagoner and Walker, 58–59 (citations removed).
#{{note|fatestone}} {{Ashurst-McGee-Thesis|start=230|231}}
#{{note|2ndstonefate}} Quinn, ''Early Mormonism and the Magic World View'' 242–247.
#{{note|hr1}} ''The Historical Record. Devoted Exclusively to Historical, Biographical, Chronological and Statistical Matters'' (LDS Church Archives), 632.
#{{note|nelson1}} David Whitmer, ''An Address to All Believers in Christ'' (Richmond, Mo.: n.p., 1887), 12; cited in {{Ensign1|author=Russell M. Nelson|article=A Treasured Testament|date=July 1993|start=61}}{{link|url=http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=05169209df38b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1}}



===FAIR wiki articles===
{{MagicWiki}}

===FAIR web site===
{{MagicFAIR}}

===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}}

Joseph Smith/Seer stones

2008-02-16T16:24:52Z

Pwellauer: /* What is the relation between Urim and Thummim and seer stones? */

{{JosephSmithPortal}}
{{question}}
==Question==
What can you tell me about Joseph's seer stone? What is its relation to the "Urim and Thummim"?
==Response==

===How many seer stones were there?===

Joseph first used a neighbor's seer stone (probably Sally Chase, on the balance of historical evidence, though there are other possibilities) to discover the location of a brown, baby's foot-shaped stone. The vision of this stone likely occured in about 1819–1820, and he obtained his first seer stone in about 1821–1822.{{ref|mcgee1}}

Joseph then used this first stone to find a second stone (a white one). The colour and sequence of obtaining these stones has often been confused,{{ref|confused1}} and readers interested in an in-depth treatment are referred to the endnotes.{{ref|mcgee2}}

Joseph would later discover at least two more seers stones in Nauvoo, on the banks of the Mississippi. These stones seem to have been collected more for their appearance, and there is little evidence of Joseph using them at that late date in his prophetic career.{{ref|mcgee3}}

===How did Joseph obtain his second seer stone?===

The seer stone was reportedly found on the property of William Chase in 1822 as Chase described it:

:In the year 1822, I was engaged in digging a well. I employed Alvin and Joseph Smith to assist me.... After digging about twenty feet below the surface of the earth, we discovered a singularly appearing stone, which excited my curiosity. I brought it to the top of the well, and as we were examining it, Joseph put it into his hat, and then his face into the top of his hat.... The next morning he came to me, and wished to obtain the stone, alleging that he could see in it; but I told him I did not wish to part with it on account of its being a curiosity, but I would lend it.{{ref|chase1}}

Martin Harris and Wilford Woodruff were to later confirm this account after Joseph's death.{{ref|confirmchase}}

===What did the stones look like?===
One witness reported (of the first, brown stone), from 1826:

:It was about the size of a small hen's egg, in the shape of a high-instepped shoe. It was composed of layers of different colors passing diagonally through it. It was very hard and smooth, perhaps by being carried in the pocket.{{ref|stonesize}}

The second stone:

: [the] Seer Stone was the shape of an egg though not quite so large, of a gray cast something like granite but with white stripes running around it. It was transparent but had no holes, neither on the end or in the sides.{{ref|secondstoneappear}}

===For what purpose(s) did Joseph use the stones prior to the restoration?===

As noted above, Joseph used the first stone to find the second.

Martin Harris recounted that Joseph could find lost objects with the second, white stone:

:: I was at the house of his father in Manchester, two miles south of Palmyra village, and was picking my teeth with a pin while sitting on the bars. The pin caught in my teeth and dropped from my fingers into shavings and straw. I jumped from the bars and looked for it. Joseph and Northrop Sweet also did the same. We could not find it. I then took Joseph on surprise, and said to him--I said, "Take your stone." I had never seen it, and did not know that he had it with him. He had it in his pocket. He took it and placed it in his hat--the old white hat--and placed his face in his hat. I watched him closely to see that he did not look to one side; he reached out his hand beyond me on the right, and moved a little stick and there I saw the pin, which he picked up and gave to me. I know he did not look out of the hat until after he had picked up the pin.{{ref|pin}}

Joseph's mother also indicated that Joseph was sought out by some, including Josiah Stoal, to use the stone to find hidden valuables. He

:came for Joseph on account of having heard that he possessed certain keys by which he could discern things invisible to the natural eye.{{ref|lucymack1}}

Joseph referred to this incident in {{scripture||JS-H|1|55-56}}.

Stoal eventually joined the Church; some of his family, however, charged Joseph in court for events related to this treasure seeking. Stoal testified in Joseph's defense. (See ''FAIRwiki'' article on the trial [[Joseph_Smith's_1826_glasslooking_trial|here]].)

Joseph Knight also said that, at the command of the angel Moroni, Joseph looked into his seer stone to learn who he should marry. He "looked in his glass and found it was Emma Hale."{{ref|marryemma1}}

===How were the stone(s) involved in the translation of the Book of Mormon?===

There is considerable evidence that the location of the plates and Nephite interpreters (Urim and Thummim) were revealed to Joseph via his second, white seer stone. In 1859, Martin Harris recalled that "Joseph had a stone which was dug from the well of Mason Chase...It was by means of this stone he first discovered the plates."{{ref|stoneplates1}}

Some critics have sought to create a contradiction here, since Joseph's history reported that Moroni revealed the plates to him ({{s||JS-H|1|34-35,42}}). This is an example of a false dichotomy: Moroni could easily have told Joseph about the plates and interpreters. The vision to Joseph may well have then come through the seer stone, as some of the sections of the Doctrine and Covenants (e.g., Section X) would later be revealed. One account matches this theory well:

:I had a conversation with [Joseph], and asked him where he found them [the plates] and how he come to know where they were. he said he had a revelation from God that told him they were hid in a certain hill and he looked in his [seer] stone and saw them in the place of deposit."{{ref|henryharris1}}

Joseph Knight recalled that Joseph was more excited about the Nephite interpreters than the gold plates:

:After breakfast Joseph called me into the other room, set his foot on the bed, and leaned his head on his hand and said, "Well I am disappointed."
:"Well, I said, "I am sorry."
:"Well, he said, "I am greatly disappointed. It is ten times better than I expected."
:Then he went on to tell the length and width and thickness of the plates and, said he, they appear to be gold. But, he seemed to think more of the glasses or the Urim and thummim than he did of the plate for, said he, "I can see anything. They are marvelous."{{ref|knight1}}

Martin Harris later described the Nephite interpreters as

:about two inches in diameter, perfectly round, and about five-eighths of an inch thick at the centre.... They were joined by a round bar of diver, about three-eights of an inch in diameter, and about four inches long, which with the two stones, would make eight inches.{{ref|harris1}}

Despite having the Nephite interpreters, Joseph Smith often used the seer stone to translate. This led to an episode in which Martin tested the veracity of Joseph's claim to use the second, white stone to translate:{{ref|harriswhite1}}

:Once Martin found a rock closely resembling the seerstone Joseph sometimes used in place of the interpreters and substituted it without the Prophet’s knowledge. When the translation resumed, Joseph paused for a long time and then exclaimed, “Martin, what is the matter, all is as dark as Egypt.” Martin then confessed that he wished to “stop the mouths of fools” who told him that the Prophet memorized sentences and merely repeated them.{{ref|mouthoffools}}

Joseph also seems to have sometimes removed the Nephite stones from the "silver bows" which held them like spectacles, and used them as individual seer stones. Joseph used his white seer stone sometimes "for convenience" during the translation of the 116 pages with Martin Harris; later witnesses reported him using his brown seer stone.{{ref|variousstones1}}

===Did Joseph lose the seer stone(s) and/or the Urim and Thummim?===

Following the loss of the 116 pages, the Lord told Joseph:

:1 NOW, behold, I say unto you, that because you delivered up those writings which you had power given unto you to translate by the means of the Urim and Thummim, into the hands of a wicked man, you have lost them.
:2 And you also lost your gift at the same time, and your mind became darkened.
:3 Nevertheless, it is now restored unto you again; therefore see that you are faithful and continue on unto the finishing of the remainder of the work of translation as you have begun.
:4 Do not run faster or labor more than you have strength and means provided to enable you to translate; but be diligent unto the end. ({{s||DC|10|1-4}})

Thus, "it" (Joseph's gift) was restored to him, but there is no indication that the Nephite interpreters (Urim and Thummim) were also returned, Joseph having also lost "them." That is, after repenting, Joseph would recover his seer stones, but apparently not the the Urim and Thummim. Some Church sources have seen this as the point at which Joseph received the seer stone for the first time, but this is likely incorrect:

:As a chastisement for this carelessness [loss of the 116 pages], the Urim and Thummim was taken from Smith. But by humbling himself, he again found favor with the Lord and was presented a strange oval-shaped, chocolate colored stone, about the size of an egg, but more flat which it was promised should answer the same purpose. With this stone all the present book was translated.{{ref|hr1}}

This source is clearly somewhat confused, since it sees Joseph as getting his dark stone ''after'' the 116 pages, when it likely dates to 1822 at the latest (see above).

David Whitmer, who only came in contact with the translation after the loss of the 116 pages, indicated through a friend that

:With the sanction of David Whitmer, and by his authority, I now state that he does not say that Joseph Smith ever translated in his presence by aid of Urim and Thummim; but by means of one dark colored, opaque stone, called a 'Seer Stone,' which was placed in the crown of a hat, into which Joseph put his face, so as to exclude the external light. Then, a spiritual light would shine forth, and parchment would appear before Joseph, upon which was a line of characters from the plates, and under it, the translation in English; at least, so Joseph said.{{ref|sh1}}

Joseph also used the seer stone to keep himself and the plates safe, as his mother recorded:

:That of which I spoke, which Joseph termed a key, was indeed, nothing more nor less than the Urim and Thummim, and it was by this that the angel showed him many things which he saw in vision; by which also he could ascertain, at any time, the approach of danger, either to himself or the Record, and on account of which he always kept the Urim and Thummim about his person.{{ref|lucymack2}}

We see here the tendency to use the term "Urim and Thummim" to refer to Joseph's seer stone (or to the Nephite interpreters, which would have been too large for Joseph to carry on his person undetected). This lack of precision in terminology has, on occasion, confused some members who have not understood that either or both may be referred to by early LDS authors as "Urim and Thummim." To Joseph and his contemporaries, they were all the same type of thing, and merely differed in the strength of their power and ability. Clearly, devices from the Lord when directed by an angelic messenger (such as the Nephite interpreters) would outrank a seer stone found on one's own.

===What is the relation between Urim and Thummim and seer stones?===

As seen above, members of the Church tended to conflate the seer stone with the Nephite interpreters (never called "Urim and Thummim" by the Book of Mormon text; the label is a modern application).

The Book of Mormon makes reference to a stone that likely has reference to Joseph Smith's seer stone (as distinct from the Nephite interpreters):

: And the Lord said: I will prepare unto my servant Gazelem, a stone, which shall shine forth in darkness unto light, that I may discover unto my people who serve me, that I may discover unto them the works of their brethren, yea, their secret works, their works of darkness, and their wickedness and abominations.{{s||Alma|37|23}}

Joseph Smith's "code name," used for the publication of some sections of the Doctrine and Covenants to hide the recipients from their enemies, was "Gazalem." And, at his funeral, W.W. Phelps also applied this name to Joseph.{{ref|gazalem1}}

Alma's account then goes on to speak of the Nephite interpreters:

:24 And now, my son, these interpreters were prepared that the word of God might be fulfilled, which he spake, saying:
:25 I will bring forth out of darkness unto light all their secret works and their abominations; and except they repent I will destroy them from off the face of the earth; and I will bring to light all their secrets and abominations, unto every nation that shall hereafter possess the land.{{s||Alma|37|24-25}}

Thus, "stone" (singular) may well be distinct from the "interpreters" (plural) possessed by the Nephites. The Book of Mosiah makes clear that the interpreters consisted of "two stones":

: 13 Now Ammon said unto him: I can assuredly tell thee, O king, of a man that can translate the records; for he has wherewith that he can look, and translate all records that are of ancient date; and it is a gift from God. And the things are called interpreters, and no man can look in them except he be commanded, lest he should look for that he ought not and he should perish. And whosoever is commanded to look in them, the same is called seer.
:14 And behold, the king of the people who are in the land of Zarahemla is the man that is commanded to do these things, and who has this high gift from God.{{s||Mosiah|8|13-14}}
:…
:13 And now he translated them by the means of those two stones which were fastened into the two rims of a bow.
:14 Now these things were prepared from the beginning, and were handed down from generation to generation, for the purpose of interpreting languages;
:15 And they have been kept and preserved by the hand of the Lord, that he should discover to every creature who should possess the land the iniquities and abominations of his people;
:16 And whosoever has these things is called seer, after the manner of old times. .{{s||Mosiah|28|13-16}}

The first use in print of "Urim and Thummim" to refer to the interpreters was in January 1833:

:[The Book of Mormon] was translated by the gift and power of God, by an unlearned man, through the aid of a pair of Interpreters, or spectacles--(known, perhaps in ancient days as Teraphim, or Urim and Thummim).{{ref|wwphelps1}}

Members of the Church seem to have used the term interchangeably on many occasions.{{ref|interchange1}}

===Why did Joseph tend to use the seer stone more than the Nephite interpreters?===

The size of the interpreters may have been a significant barrier to their use. William Smith, Joseph's brother, described the Nephite instruments as

:too large for Joseph's eyes; they must have been used by larger men.{{ref|williamsmith1}}

Charles Anthon agreed when he later recalled Martin Harris' description and wrote:

:These spectacles were so large that if a person attempted to look through them, his two eyes would have to be turned towards one of the glasses merely, the spectacles in question being altogether too large for the breadth of the human face.{{ref|anthon1}}

===Why did use of the seer stones subside?===

The Urim and Thummim were the means of receiving most of the formal revelations until June 1829. That was the time of completing the Book of Mormon, which was translated through the Urim and Thummim and also the seer stone. After this, no stones were generally not used while receiving revelation or translation. (The JST and the Book of Abraham translations both began with seer stone usage, but Joseph soon quit using them.{{ref|JSTandBoA}}) Following his baptism, receipt of the Holy Ghost, and ordination to the Melchizedek priesthood, Joseph seems have felt far less need to resort to the stones.{{ref|priesthood1}} He had learned, through divine tutoring, how to receive unmediated revelation—the Lord had taken him "line upon line" from where he was (surrounded with beliefs about seeing and divining) and brought him to further light, knowledge, and power.

This perspective was reinforced by Orson Pratt, who watched the New Testament revision (JST) and wondered why the use of seer stones/interpreters (as with the Book of Mormon) was not continued:

:While this thought passed through the speaker's mind, Joseph, as if he read his thoughts, looked up and explained that the Lord gave him the Urim and Thummim when he was inexperienced in the Spirit of inspiration. But now he had advanced so far that he understood the operations of that Spirit and did not need the assistance of that instrument.{{ref|prattuandt}}

===Are there any Biblical parallels to Joseph's seer stone understanding?===

The idea of sacred stones acting as revelators to believers is present in the Bible, and Joseph Smith embraced a decidedly "non-magical" and "pro-religious" view of them:

:In Revelation, John incorporates past religious symbols into his message. Thus the most internally consistent interpretation of the "white stone" combines with the book's assurance that the faithful will become "kings and priests" to the Most High (Rev. 1:6). These eternal priests will be in tune with God's will, like the High Priest with the breastplate of shining stones and the Urim. In Hebrew that term means "light," corresponding to the "white" stone of John's Revelation. This correlation should be obvious, but Joseph Smith is virtually alone in confidence that John sees the redeemed as full High Priests: "Then the white stone mentioned in Rev. 2:17 is the Urim and Thummim, whereby all things pertaining to a higher order of kingdoms, even all kingdoms, will be made know." As for genuine religion, Joseph Smith perceived the stone of John's vision not as a stone of chance but as a conduit of enlightenment and a reward of worthiness of character.{{ref|revelationjohn1}}

===What happened to the seer stones?===

As noted above, the Nephite interpreters were apparently reclaimed by Moroni following the loss of the 116 pages, and were only seen again by the Three Witnesses ([http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bm/thrwtnss Testimony of Three]).

Van Wagoner and Walker write:
: David Whitmer indicated that the seer stone was later given to Oliver Cowdery: "After the translation of the Book of Mormon was finished early in the spring of 1830 before April 6th, Joseph gave the Stone to Oliver Cowdery and told me as well as the rest that he was through with it, and he did not use the Stone anymore.” Whitmer, who was Cowdery's brother-in-law, stated that on Oliver's death in 1848, another brother-in-law, "Phineas Young, a brother of Brigham Young, and an old-time and once intimate friend of the Cowdery family came out from Salt Lake City, and during his visit he contrived to get the stone from its hiding place, through a little deceptive sophistry, extended upon the grief-stricken widow. When he returned to Utah he carried it in triumph to the apostles of Brigham Young's 'lion house.'"...

[Van Wagoner and Walker here confuse the two seer stones, so this section is not included here, given that better information has since come to light.]

:...Joseph Fielding Smith, as an apostle, made clear that "the Seer Stone which was in the possession of the Prophet Joseph Smith in early days . . . is now in the possession of the Church." Elder Joseph Anderson, Assistant to the Council of the Twelve and long-time secretary to the First Presidency, clarified in 1971 that the "Seer Stone that Joseph Smith used in the early days of the Church is in possession of the Church and is kept in a safe in Joseph Fielding Smith's office.... [The stone is] slightly smaller than a chicken egg, oval, chocolate in color."{{ref|fatestone}} (This would be Joseph's first, "shoe-shaped stone," which was given to Oliver Cowdery, and then to his brother-in-law Phineaus Young, brother of Brigham Young.{{ref|fatestone1}})

Joseph's second (white) stone is also in the possession of the LDS First Presidency.{{ref|2ndstonefate}}

===Has the Church tried to hide Joseph's use of a seer stone?===

The Church has been very frank about the seer stone's use, though the ''product'' of the translation of the Book of Mormon is usually given much more attention that the ''process''.

Text translated with the Nephite interpreters was lost with the 116 pages given to Martin Harris—see {{s||DC|3||}}. The Church's ''Historical Record'' records Joseph's use of the seer stone to translate all of our current Book of Mormon text:

:As a chastisement for this carelessness [loss of the 116 pages], the Urim and Thummim was taken from Smith. But by humbling himself, he again found favor with the Lord and was presented a strange oval-shaped, chocolate colored stone, about the size of an egg, but more flat which it was promised should answer the same purpose. With this stone all the present book was translated. [Note that the chronology of Joseph's acquisition of the stone is here somewhat confused. The use of the stone, however, is clearly indicated.]{{ref|hr1}}

References to the stone are not confined to the distant past. Elder Russell M. Nelson of the Twelve Apostles described the process clearly in an ''Ensign'' article:

:Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine. A piece of something resembling parchment would appear, and on that appeared the writing. One character at a time would appear, and under it was the interpretation in English. Brother Joseph would read off the English to Oliver Cowdery, who was his principal scribe, and when it was written down and repeated to Brother Joseph to see if it was correct, then it would disappear, and another character with the interpretation would appear. Thus the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God, and not by any power of man.{{ref|nelson1}}

It would be strange to try to hide something by having an apostle talk about it, and then send the account to every LDS home in the official magazine!

====Other mentions in Church materials====
Similar material is also found in other Church publications, some of which are included below:

* {{Ensign1|author=Richard Lloyd Anderson|article=‘By the Gift and Power of God’|date=Sepember 1977|start=79}}{{link|url=http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=5a921f26d596b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1}}
* Hyrum Andrus, ''Joseph Smith, the Man, the Seer'' (Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book Company, 1960), 102. {{GL1|url=http://gospelink.com/library/doc?doc_id=271098}}
* {{FR-6-1-14}}
* {{BYUS|author=Marvin S. Hill|article=Money-Digging Folklore and the Beginnings of Mormonism: An Interpretative Suggestion|vol=24|num=4|date=Fall 1984|start=?|end=??}}{{GL|url=http://gospelink.com/library/doc?doc_id=282646}}
* {{IE1|author=Francis W. Kirkham|article=The Manner of Translating The BOOK of MORMON|date=1939}} {{GL1|url=http://gospelink.com/library/doc?doc_id=242545}}
* Joseph Fielding McConkie, Craig J. Ostler, ''Revelations of the Restoration: A Commentary on the Doctrine and Covenants and Other Modern Revelations'' (Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book Co., 2000), D&C 9. {{GL1|url=http://gospelink.com/library/doc?doc_id=352684}}
* {{JBMS-2-2-14}}
* {{DFS1|article=A Brief Debate on the Book of Mormon|vol=1|start=350}}{{GL1|url=http://gospelink.com/library/doc?doc_id=205446}}
* {{BYUS1|author=Royal Skousen|article=Towards a Critical Edition of the Book of Mormon|start=52|date=Winter 1990|vol=30|num=1}}{{GL1|url=http://gospelink.com/library/doc?doc_id=282960}}

The charge that the Church is "hiding" or "suppressing" this material cannot be sustained.

==Conclusion==

{{nw}}

==Endnotes==

#{{note|mcgee1}} {{Ashurst-McGee-Thesis|start=200|end=215}}
#{{note|confused1}} See, for example, {{CHC1|vol=1|start=129}}; Roberts was followed by Richard S. Van Wagoner, Dan Vogel, Ogden Kraut, Jerald and Sandra Tanner, and D. Michael Quinn. See discussion in Ashurst-McGee, 247n317.
#{{note|mcgee2}} {{Ashurst-McGee-Thesis|start=200|end=283}}
#{{note|mcgee3}} {{Ashurst-McGee-Thesis|start=200|end=201}}

#{{note|chase1}} Eber Dudley Howe, ''Mormonism Unvailed'' (Painesville, Ohio: Telegraph Press, 1834), 241-242; cited in {{Dialogue|author=Richard Van Wagoner and Steven Walker|article=Joseph Smith: 'The Gift of Seeing|vol=15|num=2|date=Summer 1982|start=48|end=68}}
#{{note|chaseconfirm}} See Van Wagoner and Walker, 54.

#{{note|stonesize}} W. D. Purple, ''The Chenango Union'' (3 May 1877); cited in {{NewWitnessForChrist1|vol=2|start=365}} (See Van Wagoner and Walker, 54.)
#{{note|secondstoneappear}} Richard Marcellas Robinson, "The History of a Nephite Coin," manuscript, 20 December 1834, LDS Church archives; cited in {{Ashurst-McGee-Thesis1|start=264}}

#{{note|refpin}} Joel Tiffany, ''Tiffany's Monthly'' (June 1859): 164;cited in Van Wagoner and Walker, 55.
#{{note|lucymack1}} {{biosketch|start=91|end=92}}
#{{note|marryemma1}} {{BYUS1|author=Dean C. Jesse|article=Joseph Knight's Recollection of Early Mormon History|vol=17|date=August 1976|num=1|page=31}}; cited in {{Ashurst-McGee-Thesis1|start=281}}

#{{note|stoneplates1}} Mormonism—II," ''Tiffany's Monthly'' (June 1859): 163, see also 169; cited in Ashurst-McGee (2000), 286.
#{{note|henryharris1}} Henry Harris, statement in E.D. Howe ''Mormonism Unvailed'' (1833), 252; cited in Ashurst-McGee (2000), 290.
#{{note|knight1}} Joseph Knight, cited in Leonard J. Arrington and Davis Bitton, ''Saints Without Halos: The Human Side of Mormon History'' (Salt Lake City, Signature Books, 1981), 6. Spelling and punctuation have been modernized. The original text reads: "After Brackfist Joseph Cald me in to the other Room and he sit his foot on the Bed and leaned his head on his hand and says, well I am Dissopented. Well, say I, I am sorrey. Well, says he, I am grateley Dissopnted. It is ten times Better then I expected. Then he went on to tell the length and width and thickness of the plates and, said he, they appear to be gold. But he seamed to think more of the glasses or the urim and thummim than he Did of the plates for says he, I can see anything. They are Marvelous."
#{{note|harris1}} Joel Tiffany, "Mormonism—No. II," ''Tiffany's Monthly'' (June 1859): 165–166; cited in VanWagoner and Walker, footnote 27.
#{{note|harriswhite1}} Tiffany, 163.
#{{note|mouthoffools}} Told in ''Millennial Star'' 44:87; quotation from {{Ensign1|author=Kenneth W. Godfrey|article=A New Prophet and a New Scripture: The Coming Forth of the Book of Mormon|date=January 1988|start=6}}{{link|url=http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/1988.htm/ensign%20january%201988.htm/a%20new%20prophet%20and%20a%20new%20scripture%20the%20coming%20forth%20of%20the%20book%20of%20mormon.htm}}
#{{note|variousstones1}} See {{Ashurst-McGee-Thesis|start=320|end=326}}

#{{note|hr1}} ''The Historical Record. Devoted Exclusively to Historical, Biographical, Chronological and Statistical Matters'', (LDS Church Archives), 632,; cited in Van Wagoner and Walker, 54. Note that Van Wagoner and Walker contain inaccurate information about the stones, their provenance, and order of discovery.
#{{note|recoverurim}} See Joseph Smith's 1838/9 history in {{EarlyMormonDocs1|vol=1|num=73}} and {{LucyMackSmith-Anderson1| start=428}}
#{{note|sh1}} ''Saints' Herald'' 26 (15 November 1879): 341.

#{{note|gazalem1}} The material on "gazelem" is derived from Van Wagoner and Walker, 56.
#{{ref|wwphelps1}} {{EMS1|vol=1|num=8|date=January 1833|author=William W. Phelps (uncredited)|article=The Book of Mormon|start=58}}; cited in Van Wagoner and Walker, 53. {{link|url=http://www.centerplace.org/history/ems/v1n08.htm Direct}}
#{{note|interchange1}} See discussion in Van Wagoner and Walker, 59–63.

# {{note|williamsmith1}} William Smith interview by J. W. Peterson and W. S. Pender, 4 July 1891, reported in ''The Rod of Iron'' 3 (February 1924): 6-7; ''Saints' Herald'' 79 (9 March 1932): 238; cited in VanWagoner and Walker, footnote 27.
#{{note|anthon1}} Charles Anthon letter to E. D. Howe, 17 Feb. 1834, published in E.D. Howe, ''Mormonism Unvailed'', 17; cited in VanWagoner and Walker, footnote 27.

#{{note|JSTandBoA}} {{Ashurst-McGee-Thesis|start=334|end=337}}
#{{note|priesthood1}} {{Ashurst-McGee-Thesis|start=332|end=333}}
#{{note|prattuandt}} {{MatureJS}} ; citing Orson Pratt, "Discourse at Brigham City," 27 June 1874, Ogden (Utah) Junction, cited in {{MS|author=Orson Pratt|article=Two Days´ Meeting at Brigham City|vol=36|date=11 August 1874|start=498|end=499}}

#{{note|revelationjohn1}} {{MatureJS}}

#{{note|fatestone}} Van Wagoner and Walker, 58–59 (citations removed).
#{{note|fatestone}} {{Ashurst-McGee-Thesis|start=230|231}}
#{{note|2ndstonefate}} Quinn, ''Early Mormonism and the Magic World View'' 242–247.
#{{note|hr1}} ''The Historical Record. Devoted Exclusively to Historical, Biographical, Chronological and Statistical Matters'' (LDS Church Archives), 632.
#{{note|nelson1}} David Whitmer, ''An Address to All Believers in Christ'' (Richmond, Mo.: n.p., 1887), 12; cited in {{Ensign1|author=Russell M. Nelson|article=A Treasured Testament|date=July 1993|start=61}}{{link|url=http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=05169209df38b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1}}



===FAIR wiki articles===
{{MagicWiki}}

===FAIR web site===
{{MagicFAIR}}

===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}}

Joseph Smith and money digging

2008-01-30T17:56:37Z

Pwellauer:

{{JosephSmithPortal}}
{{GermanWiki|http://www.de.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith_als_Schatzsucher}}

==Criticism==
Critics insist that Joseph Smith's engagement in "money digging" or looking for buried treasure shows itself as a blot on his character. Furthermore, critics argue that Joseph's initial religious experiences were related to "treasure seeking," and only later did he "retrofit" a religious explanation. (Critics argue, for example, that Moroni was originally conceived of as a treasure guardian by Joseph, and only later came to be seen as a divine messenger, an angel.)

===Source(s) of the Criticism===
{{MagicCritics}}

==Response==

In the young Joseph Smith's time and place, "money digging" was a popular, and sometimes respected activity. When Joseph was 16, the ''Palmyra Herald'' printed such remarks as:

* "digging for money hid in the earth is a very common thing and in this state it is even considered as honorable and profitable employment"
* "One gentleman...digging...ten to twelve years, found a sufficient quantity of money to build him a commodious house.
* "another...dug up...fifty thousand dollars!"{{ref|herald1}}

And, in 1825 the ''Wayne Sentinel'' in Palmyra reported that buried treasure had been found "by the help of a mineral stone, (which becomes transparent when placed in a hat and the light excluded by the face of him who looks into it)."{{ref|mcgee1}}

Given the financial difficulties under which the Smith family laboured, it would hardly be surprising that they might hope for such a reversal in their fortunes! Richard Bushman has compared the Smith's attitude toward treasure digging with a modern attitudes toward gambling, or buying a lottery ticket. Bushman points out that looking for treasure had little stigma attached to it among all classes in the 17th century, and continued to be respectable among the lower classes into the 18th and 19th.{{ref|gamble1}}

Despite the claims of critics, it is not clear that Joseph and his family saw their activities as "magical." (See ''FAIR Wiki article: ''[[Joseph_Smith_and_the_occult|Magick and the occult]].)

{{SourceOfMagic}}

===Later changes in society's attitude===
The attitude of acceptance toward money-digging in general society changed later in the century, and certainly became a liability for Joseph among the educated and sophisticated, such as newspaper publishers and clergy. His use of a [[Joseph_Smith_and_seer_stones|seer stone]] provided further ammunition for his critics.

Claims that Joseph "retrofitted" his visions with religious trappings after the fact often beg the question, and ignore crucial evidence. In fact, the earliest accounts treat the matter as religious; this is true even of skeptical newspaper reports, as well as a Smith family letter which shows that Joseph or his father considered Moroni "the Angel of the Lord" as early as 1828.{{ref|moroni1}}

Joseph and those around him may have also seen some aspects of Moroni in a "treasure guardian" role (and he certainly did guard something of both material and spiritual value—the gold plates) but this seems to have been a secondary conclusion, as they interpreted Joseph's experience through their own preconceptions and understanding.

However, Moroni's status as an angel and messenger from God, is well attested in the early sources. Interestingly, the "treasure guardian" motif becomes more common and distinct in later sources, especially those gathered by enemies of Joseph, who sought to discredit him through ridicule and association with the (increasingly disreputable) practice of "treasure digging."{{ref|digging1}}

The [[Mark Hofmann|Hofmann forgeries]] gave great emphasis to the "money-digging" and "occult" aspects of Joseph's experience, and they unfortunately shaded a good deal of the initial scholarly discussion surrounding these issues. Hofmann's documents made the case "air-tight," so to speak, and so other clues along the way were given more weight. When the Hofmann documents collapsed, some authors were not willing to abandon the shakey interpretive edifice they had constructed.{{ref|hofmann1}}

==Conclusion==

Joseph and his family were involved in seeking for treasure. This was a common and accepted practice in their culture, though the Smiths do not seem to have been involved to the extent claimed by some of the exaggerated attacks upon them by former neighbours. The earliest documents strongly suggest, however, that Joseph and those close to him always understood Moroni as an angelic messenger, with a divine role.

==Endnotes==
# {{note|herald1}}''Palmyra Herald'' (24 July 1822); cited in Russell Anderson, "The 1826 Trial of Joseph Smith," (2002 FAIR Conference presentation.){{fairlink|url=http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/2002_1826_Trial_of_Joseph_Smith.html}}
#{{note|gamble1}} Richard L. Bushman, "Joseph Smith Miscellany," (Mesa, Arizona: FAIR, 2005 FAIR Conference){{fairlink|url=http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/2005_A_Joseph_Smith_Miscellany.html}}
#{{note|mcgee1}} "Wonderful Discovery," ''Wayne Sentinel'' [Palymyra, New York] (27 December 1825), page 2, col. 4. Reprinted from the ''Orleans Advocate'' of Orleans, New York; cited by {{Ashurst-McGee-Thesis|start=170|end=171}}
{{SourceOfMagicRefs}}
#{{note|moroni1}} {{FR-18-1-5}} {{NB}}
#{{note|digging1}}{{FR-17-1-4}} {{NB}}
#{{note|hofmann1}} {{BYUS1|author=Stephen E. Robinson|article=Review of D. Michael Quinn ''Early Mormonism and the Magic World View (1987)''|vol=27|num=4|start=88|date=Date?}}{{pdflink|url=http://byustudies.byu.edu/Products/MoreInfoPage/MoreInfo.aspx?Type=7&ProdID=2053}}; see also {{FR-12-2-15}}; {{FR-12-2-16}}; {{FR-12-2-17}}

==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===
{{MagicWiki}}
{{JosephSmithWiki}}
===FAIR web site===
{{MagicFAIR}}
{{JosephSmithFAIR}}
===External links===
{{MagicLinks}}
{{JosephSmithLinks}}
===Printed material===
{{MagicPrint}}
{{JosephSmithPrint}}

Joseph Smith's campaign for President of the United States

2008-01-25T19:38:37Z

Pwellauer:

{{JosephSmithPortal}}
{{GermanWiki|http://www.de.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith_und_Politik}}

==Criticism==
Critics charge that Joseph Smith's decision to run for President of the United States in 1844 shows him to be either a megalomaniac bent on amassing ever more power, or a fanatic with delusions of grandeur.

===Source(s) of the Criticism===
* Fawn M. Brodie, ''No Man Knows My History'' (New York, Alfred A. Knopf, 1945), 354.
* Thomas Ford, ''A History of Illinois from Its Commencement as a State in 1818 to 1847'', 2 vols. (1854; reprint, Chicago: Lakeside, 1946), 2:157.
* Henry Mayhew, ''History of the Mormons; or, Latter-day Saints. With Memoirs of the Life and Death of Joseph Smith, the "American Mahomet"'' (Auburn, N.Y.: Derby and Miller, 1852), 163–167.
* Eduard Meyer, "The Origin and History of the Mormons: With Reflections on the Beginnings of Islam and Christianity," translated by Heinz F. Rahde and Eugene Seaich, 123–25, typescript, BYU Special Collections.
* Bruce Kinney, ''Mormonism: The Islam of America'' (New York: Fleming H. Revell, 1912).
* I. Woodbridge Riley, ''The Founder of Mormonism: A Psychological Study of Joseph Smith, Jr.'' (New York: Dodd, Mead, 1902).
* T. B. H. Stenhouse, ''The Rocky Mountain Saints (New York: D. Appleton, 1873), 147.

==Response==
[[Image:JSCampaignPoster.jpg|left|frame|Cover of "The Prophet," a magazine published by the Church in New York, 1844. This issue advocates the election of Joseph as President of the United States, with Sidney Rigdon as Vice-President. (From ''Ensign'' (September 1973): 21.)]]
===Joseph Smith's motivations===

Joseph Smith was clear that he did not put his political beliefs or activities into the prophetic realm. As he said, "The Lord has not given me a revelation concerning politics. I have not asked him for one." {{ref|js1}}

Joseph's reasons for running for president included the following:{{ref|reasons1}}
# Joseph wanted to provide the Saints with a political candidate they could support. Rather than "holding their nose" and voting for the "lesser of two evils," or abstaining from participation in the process, Joseph offered himself as an option.
# Joseph's candidacy meant that Mormons would support neither Whigs or Democrats; this could help avert anti-Mormon sentiment in Illinois, since the party which did not receive LDS support would have further reason to resent the Mormons, who were numerous enough to hold a "balance of power" in the state.
# Joseph hoped to publicize the Saints' grievances regarding their dispossession by the state of Missouri. Other efforts at legal redress had failed, and so Joseph saw the campaign for the Presidency as a means of attracting attention, with hopes that the public's sentiments could be appealed to directly. Prior to running, Joseph asked John C. Calhoun, Lewis Cass, Richard M. Johnson, Henry Clay, and Martin Van Buren (the five leading candidates) what their actions would be with respect to the Mormons' Missouri grievances. Two did not reply; the other three would not pledge support in the event of a victory.{{ref|nohelp1}}
# Joseph knew that running for President would attract attention. This allowed him to preach his religious and political ideals on the national stage.
# Joseph advocated a strong central bank; he doubtless had vivid memories of the problems which arose when reliable banking was not available, especially on the frontier, given the problems with the [[Kirtland Safety Society]].{{ref|kss1}}

===Other benefits of the Presidential campaign===

There were many other benefits which accrued to the Church:

* Members of the Quorum of the Twelve were safely out of reach of mob violence at the martyrdom of Joseph and Hyrum. (Wilford Woodruff reported that Joseph told him that he [Woodruff] needed to leave to be protected. Some of the returning Twelve also faced mob attacks on their lives before reaching Nauvoo.){{ref|safe12}} The visits of the Twelve to members not at Nauvoo also strengthened these members' commitment to the Church following the death of Joseph. Members might have concluded that Joseph's death meant the end of the Church; having met and known the apostles, they were more confident in the Church's new leadership.{{ref|role12}}

*Campaigning for Joseph strengthened the Church through converts.{{ref|converts1}} One author who reviewed the campaigners' diaries noted:

:"The electioneers did much more than merely campaign for Joseph Smith: one of the purposes of the candidacy, which becomes obvious from the journals of the campaigners, was to proselytize. By their own accounts, campaigning seemed secondary in comparison to the amount of time they devoted to preaching."{{ref|preach1}} And, with Joseph's death, the travelers did not suddenly return home. They continued their work, which would be strange if their departure was primarily geared toward electing Joseph Smith.{{ref|postmartyr1}}

* Having many traveling messengers who knew Joseph Smith and the gospel well allowed the Church to suppress apostate practices or teachings in areas removed from the Church's center at Nauvoo.{{ref|apostasy1}}

* The preaching and campaigning managed "to remove a great deal of prejudice" against the Church.{{ref|hamblin1}} It also impressed many people favorably in the midst of an acrimonious presidential campaign:

:...the electioneers did campaign. They held political meetings, and some even had electors appointed for their respective states. The bulk of their campaigning effort involved presenting the Prophet's [platform] to the citizenry of the United States, who on the whole seemed impressed and pleased with this plaform. On the other hand, many of the elders did have difficulty campaigning and were sometimes severely opposed.{{ref|campaign1}}

* The electioneers were working in their home state, so this gave them the chance to preach to many family members. Some joined the Church, while others merely abandoned the prejudices they had held against their Mormon kin. This is significant, since the Saints were soon to move west, far from these family ties.{{ref|family1}}

===The issue of George Miller===

Some have pointed to the remarks of George Miller, one of the campaigners, to insist that Joseph really intended his run for the Presidency to permit the establishment of a political Kingdom of God on earth.

Miller was later to join Lyman Wight's Texas break-off "empire," and even later he joined the followers of Jesse James Strang—who claimed to have established the political Kingdom of God on earth—in 1850. As one author has noted,

:The course that George Miller followed after Joseph Smith's death, in contrast to that followed by Brigham Young and the Twelve, evidences that Miller probably left the Church, at least partially, over the very issue of the political Kingdom of God. But even more surprising is that George Miller's journal exists only through 1843. What historians have quoted as evidence of Joseph Smith's 'secret' intentions was not written by Miller at the time of Joseph's campaign. It was written in 1855 in a letter from Miller in St. James, Michigan, to his brother, partially to justify Miller and Strang's position. Miller attempted to substantiate that Joseph tried to do what he and Strang were then doing, and so portrayed the Prophet as trying to set up the Kingdom of God with a king in the United States. It seems clear that Miller justified his own position, rather than objectively reflecting on what Joseph had said to him ten years earlier.{{ref|miller1}}

Unfortunately for this theory, it ignores Joseph's contemporaneous remarks about his candidacy, and the behavior and journals of those who were involved as electioneers.

==Conclusion==

Joseph Smith was sincere in his political principles, which seem to have been generally well-received and were well thought out. There is little evidence, however, that Joseph expected to win his political contest. Joseph had ample experience with persecution and hatred throughout his prophetic career; it seems unlikely that he would have expected to overcome such animus and successfully be elected president.

However, there were other goals that were also served with his Presidential campaign, and these seem to have loomed even larger in the minds of Joseph and those he sent as campaigners—chief among these was the strength added to the Church through strengthening distant branches, training future leaders, preaching the gospel, and dispelling prejudice.

==Endnotes==
# {{note|js1}} {{HoC1|vol=5|start=526}}
# {{note|reasons1}} {{BYUS1|author=Margaret C. Robertson|date=2000|vol=39|num=3|article=The Campaign and the Kingdom: The Activities of the Electioneers in Joseph Smith's Presidential Campaign|start=148}}
# {{note|nohelp1}} {{RegionalStudiesIllinois1|author=Arnold K. Garr|article=Joseph Smith: Candidate for President of the United States|start=152|}} {{GL1|url=http://gospelink.com/library/doc?book_doc_id=273578}}
#{{note|kss1}} Garr, "Joseph Smith: Candidate," 158.
# {{note|safe12}} Robertson, "Electioneers," 149, 163–164.
# {{note|role12}} Robertson, "Electioneers," 162.
# {{note|converts1}} Robertson, "Electioneers," 149.
# {{note|preach1}} Robertson, "Electioneers," 152.
# {{note|postmartyr1}} Robertson, "Electioneers," 156–158.
# {{note|apostasy1}} Robertson, "Electioneers," 159–161.
#{{note|hamblin1}} Jacob Hamblin, Journals, typescript, Perry Special Collections, 7; cited in Robertson, "Electioneers," 154.
# {{note|campaign1}} Robertson, "Electioneers," 152.
#{{note|family1}} See discussion in Robertson, "Electioneers," 154–156.
#{{note|miller1}} Quoted with discussion in Robertson, "Electioneers," 173, note 60.

==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===
{{PoliticsWiki}}

===FAIR web site===
{{PoliticsFAIR}}

===External links===
{{PoliticsLinks}}

===Printed material===
{{PoliticsPrint}}

Joseph Smith fired a gun at Carthage Jail

2008-01-25T18:59:11Z

Pwellauer:

{{JosephSmithPortal}}
{{GermanWiki|http://www.de.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith_als_M%C3%A4rtyrer}}
==Criticism==
Critics claim that Joseph Smith is not a martyr because, while in jail, he had a gun and he had
the temerity to defend himself. His brother and companions killed two men by firing at the mob.

===Source(s) of the Criticism===
* Jerald and Sandra Tanner, ''Utah Lighthouse Ministry'' (accessed 7 May 2003).
* Wilhelm Wyl, ''Mormon Portraits Volume First: Joseph Smith the Prophet, His Family and Friends'' (Salt Lake City: Tribune Printing and Publishing Co., 1886), 153–.

==Response==

[[Image:Joseph_smith_martyrdom.jpg|frame|Mob fires at Joseph Smith in the upper window at Carthage Jail.]]

===Shifting Definitions===
In order to make their argument tenable, the critics must do three things. First, they must take some creative liberties with the English language. In this case, the word being redefined is the term ''martyr''. ''Webster’s New World Dictionary'' defines a "martyr" as

:“a person who chooses to suffer or die rather than give up his faith or his principles.”{{ref|def1}}

The online resource, ''Dictionary.com'', defines a martyr as

:“one who chooses to suffer death rather than renounce religious principles.” {{ref|def2}}

Both are nearly identical and fairly standard definitions, and neither includes a requirement or qualifiers of any sort. However, some anti-Mormon writers have taken the term ''martyr'' and subtly changed its definition to suit their own needs. The new definition would probably read something like this: ''Martyr: a person who chooses to suffer or die rather than give up his faith or his principles without any resistance or effort at self-defense on his part whatsoever''.

Critics are free to use such a definition, but it belongs to them alone; it is not the standard use of the word, and not what Church members mean when they refer to the "martyrdom" of Joseph and Hyrum Smith at Carthage.

Throughout Christian history, "martyrs" have been understood to be those who suffered quietly, and those who resisted, even with violence, and even to the death of those who persecuted them for their beliefs. (''See FAIR wiki article: [[Martyrdom in Christian history]].'')
The first anti-Mormon argument thus focuses on the fact that Joseph had a firearm and that he used that firearm to defend himself. Critics claim that Joseph's announcement that he was going “as a lamb to the slaughter” is false, since he fought back.

Anyone who has ever worked on a farm or in a slaughterhouse knows that sheep do not go willingly
to the slaughter. They kick and buck, bleat, scream, and make every attempt to escape their fate. In fact, they make such a haunting sound, that the title of an extremely popular Hollywood film was based on it: ''The Silence of the Lambs''. The term “lamb to the slaughter” simply refers to the
inevitability of the final outcome. No matter how valiantly they struggle, the fate of the sheep is sealed. If we apply this understanding to Joseph Smith and his brother, it is clear that they truly were slaughtered like lambs. Fight as they might, they were doomed.

===Hiding History?===

The critics' second tactic is to rely on their target reader being uninformed about trivial aspects of LDS history. Many members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (and this is especially true of new members or less-active members) are not aware of all the excruciatingly minute details of the history of the Church. It has become a common tactic among some anti-Mormon aficionados of Mormon history to use this historical ignorance as a weapon. These writers often claim to “expose” these minor events of Church history in a sensationalistic attempt to shock members of the Church with “hidden” revelations or “secret” accounts about various episodes in Church history. They will often claim that the Church has kept this knowledge under wraps for fear that if it was generally known it would cause many members of the Church to immediately renounce their faith and result in the ruination of the Church.

Unfortunately for the critics, Joseph's attempt to defend himself, his brother, and his friends, and his posession of a pepperbox gun, is clearly spelled out in the ''History of the Church'':

:In the meantime Joseph, Hyrum, and Elder Taylor had their coats off. Joseph sprang to his coat for his six-shooter, Hyrum for his single barrel, Taylor for Markham's large hickory cane, and Dr. Richards for Taylor's cane. All sprang against the door, the balls whistled up the stairway, and in an instant one came through the door.

:Joseph Smith, John Taylor and Dr. Richards sprang to the left of the door, and tried to knock aside the guns of the ruffians...

:Joseph reached round the door casing, and discharged his six shooter into the passage, some barrels missing fire. Continual discharges of musketry came into the room. Elder Taylor continued parrying the guns until they had got them about half their length into the room, when he found that resistance was vain, and he attempted to jump out of the window, where a ball fired from within struck him on his left thigh, hitting the bone, and passing through to within half an inch of the other side. He fell on the window sill, when a ball fired from the outside struck his watch in his vest pocket, and threw him back into the room.{{ref|hc1}}

The next volume of the ''History of the Church'' tells the story from John Taylor's point of view:

:I shall never forget the deep feeling of sympathy and regard manifested in the countenance of Brother Joseph as he drew nigh to Hyrum, and, leaning over him, exclaimed, 'Oh! my poor, dear brother Hyrum!' He, however, instantly arose, and with a firm, quick step, and a determined expression of countenance, approached the door, and pulling the six-shooter left by Brother Wheelock from his pocket, opened the door slightly, and snapped the pistol six successive times; only three of the barrels, however, were discharged.{{ref|hoc2}}

If the Church wished to hide these facts, why did they publish them in the ''History of the Church'' not once, but twice?

===Murder?===
The critics' third attack is to insist that since Joseph fired his gun six times (only three shots discharged) and he hit two of the mobbers, he is a murderer.

Joseph's actions were clearly self-defense and defense of others under the common law. But, this point is moot since the mobbers who were hit were not killed (as was first reported in some Church publications) but only wounded. They were alive and well at the trial held for mob leaders, and were identified by witnesses. Their good health allowed them to receive gifts because of their role in the assault on Joseph, Hyrum, and the other prisoners.

==Conclusion==
It seems clear, then, that:

#Joseph and Hyrum were martyrs by the accepted definition of the term—they suffered death for their beliefs. (Note that martyrs can die for worthy or ignoble causes, but this makes them no less martyrs.)
#The Church has not hidden this fact, but published it from the beginning and includes it in the ''History of the Church'' twice.
#Joseph was not guilty of murder, because no one died from his shots, and his actions would have been justifiable as self-defense and defense of others even if deaths had resulted.

==Endnotes==
#{{note|def1}} ''Websters New World Dictionary of the American Language'',Second College Edition (New York: World Publishing Company, 1970), 870.
#{{note|def2}}''Dictionary.com'' website, (accessed May 7, 2003). {{link|url=http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=martyr}}
#{{note|hc1}}{{HoC|vol=6|start=617|end=618}}
#{{note|hc2}}{{HoC|vol=7|start=102|end=103}}

==Further reading==

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

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

Joseph Smith fired a gun at Carthage Jail

2008-01-24T20:48:58Z

Pwellauer: /* Response */

{{JosephSmithPortal}}
==Criticism==
Critics claim that Joseph Smith is not a martyr because, while in jail, he had a gun and he had
the temerity to defend himself. His brother and companions killed two men by firing at the mob.

===Source(s) of the Criticism===
* Jerald and Sandra Tanner, ''Utah Lighthouse Ministry'' (accessed 7 May 2003).
* Wilhelm Wyl, ''Mormon Portraits Volume First: Joseph Smith the Prophet, His Family and Friends'' (Salt Lake City: Tribune Printing and Publishing Co., 1886), 153–.

==Response==

[[Image:Joseph_smith_martyrdom.jpg|frame|Mob fires at Joseph Smith in the upper window at Carthage Jail.]]

===Shifting Definitions===
In order to make their argument tenable, the critics must do three things. First, they must take some creative liberties with the English language. In this case, the word being redefined is the term ''martyr''. ''Webster’s New World Dictionary'' defines a "martyr" as

:“a person who chooses to suffer or die rather than give up his faith or his principles.”{{ref|def1}}

The online resource, ''Dictionary.com'', defines a martyr as

:“one who chooses to suffer death rather than renounce religious principles.” {{ref|def2}}

Both are nearly identical and fairly standard definitions, and neither includes a requirement or qualifiers of any sort. However, some anti-Mormon writers have taken the term ''martyr'' and subtly changed its definition to suit their own needs. The new definition would probably read something like this: ''Martyr: a person who chooses to suffer or die rather than give up his faith or his principles without any resistance or effort at self-defense on his part whatsoever''.

Critics are free to use such a definition, but it belongs to them alone; it is not the standard use of the word, and not what Church members mean when they refer to the "martyrdom" of Joseph and Hyrum Smith at Carthage.

Throughout Christian history, "martyrs" have been understood to be those who suffered quietly, and those who resisted, even with violence, and even to the death of those who persecuted them for their beliefs. (''See FAIR wiki article: [[Martyrdom in Christian history]].'')
The first anti-Mormon argument thus focuses on the fact that Joseph had a firearm and that he used that firearm to defend himself. Critics claim that Joseph's announcement that he was going “as a lamb to the slaughter” is false, since he fought back.

Anyone who has ever worked on a farm or in a slaughterhouse knows that sheep do not go willingly
to the slaughter. They kick and buck, bleat, scream, and make every attempt to escape their fate. In fact, they make such a haunting sound, that the title of an extremely popular Hollywood film was based on it: ''The Silence of the Lambs''. The term “lamb to the slaughter” simply refers to the
inevitability of the final outcome. No matter how valiantly they struggle, the fate of the sheep is sealed. If we apply this understanding to Joseph Smith and his brother, it is clear that they truly were slaughtered like lambs. Fight as they might, they were doomed.

===Hiding History?===

The critics' second tactic is to rely on their target reader being uninformed about trivial aspects of LDS history. Many members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (and this is especially true of new members or less-active members) are not aware of all the excruciatingly minute details of the history of the Church. It has become a common tactic among some anti-Mormon aficionados of Mormon history to use this historical ignorance as a weapon. These writers often claim to “expose” these minor events of Church history in a sensationalistic attempt to shock members of the Church with “hidden” revelations or “secret” accounts about various episodes in Church history. They will often claim that the Church has kept this knowledge under wraps for fear that if it was generally known it would cause many members of the Church to immediately renounce their faith and result in the ruination of the Church.

Unfortunately for the critics, Joseph's attempt to defend himself, his brother, and his friends, and his posession of a pepperbox gun, is clearly spelled out in the ''History of the Church'':

:In the meantime Joseph, Hyrum, and Elder Taylor had their coats off. Joseph sprang to his coat for his six-shooter, Hyrum for his single barrel, Taylor for Markham's large hickory cane, and Dr. Richards for Taylor's cane. All sprang against the door, the balls whistled up the stairway, and in an instant one came through the door.

:Joseph Smith, John Taylor and Dr. Richards sprang to the left of the door, and tried to knock aside the guns of the ruffians...

:Joseph reached round the door casing, and discharged his six shooter into the passage, some barrels missing fire. Continual discharges of musketry came into the room. Elder Taylor continued parrying the guns until they had got them about half their length into the room, when he found that resistance was vain, and he attempted to jump out of the window, where a ball fired from within struck him on his left thigh, hitting the bone, and passing through to within half an inch of the other side. He fell on the window sill, when a ball fired from the outside struck his watch in his vest pocket, and threw him back into the room.{{ref|hc1}}

The next volume of the ''History of the Church'' tells the story from John Taylor's point of view:

:I shall never forget the deep feeling of sympathy and regard manifested in the countenance of Brother Joseph as he drew nigh to Hyrum, and, leaning over him, exclaimed, 'Oh! my poor, dear brother Hyrum!' He, however, instantly arose, and with a firm, quick step, and a determined expression of countenance, approached the door, and pulling the six-shooter left by Brother Wheelock from his pocket, opened the door slightly, and snapped the pistol six successive times; only three of the barrels, however, were discharged.{{ref|hoc2}}

If the Church wished to hide these facts, why did they publish them in the ''History of the Church'' not once, but twice?

===Murder?===
The critics' third attack is to insist that since Joseph fired his gun six times (only three shots discharged) and he hit two of the mobbers, he is a murderer.

Joseph's actions were clearly self-defense and defense of others under the common law. But, this point is moot since the mobbers who were hit were not killed (as was first reported in some Church publications) but only wounded. They were alive and well at the trial held for mob leaders, and were identified by witnesses. Their good health allowed them to receive gifts because of their role in the assault on Joseph, Hyrum, and the other prisoners.

==Conclusion==
It seems clear, then, that:

#Joseph and Hyrum were martyrs by the accepted definition of the term—they suffered death for their beliefs. (Note that martyrs can die for worthy or ignoble causes, but this makes them no less martyrs.)
#The Church has not hidden this fact, but published it from the beginning and includes it in the ''History of the Church'' twice.
#Joseph was not guilty of murder, because no one died from his shots, and his actions would have been justifiable as self-defense and defense of others even if deaths had resulted.

==Endnotes==
#{{note|def1}} ''Websters New World Dictionary of the American Language'',Second College Edition (New York: World Publishing Company, 1970), 870.
#{{note|def2}}''Dictionary.com'' website, (accessed May 7, 2003). {{link|url=http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=martyr}}
#{{note|hc1}}{{HoC|vol=6|start=617|end=618}}
#{{note|hc2}}{{HoC|vol=7|start=102|end=103}}

==Further reading==

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

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

Changes to the temple endowment

2008-01-19T18:37:09Z

Pwellauer:

{| style="margin: 0em 0em 0em 0em; border: 0px; align="right" cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0
|-
| {{TemplePortal}}
|-
| {{AdamPortal}}
|}
{{question}} 
{{GermanWiki|http://www.de.fairmormon.org/%C3%84nderungen_an_der_Tempelbegabung}}
{{templedisclaimer}}
==Question==
Latter-day Saints believe that the Temple endowment is an eternal ordinance that Joseph Smith received by revelation from God. Why, then, have changes been made to it several times since it was first revealed?

==Response==
God’s directives and how He deals with His people often vary according to His people’s understanding and needs. God doesn’t tell everyone to build an ark and wait for a flood. Changes most often occur as a result of God dealing with his children according to their changing circumstances.

We know, for example, that major changes in practices took place during Christ’s ministry. Christ fulfilled the Law of Moses and practices associated with that law were no longer necessary. Changes also took place after Christ's earthly ministry. For example, Christ originally taught the gospel only to the lost sheep of the House of Israel (Matt. 15:24) and forbade his apostles from going to the Gentiles ([http://scriptures.lds.org/en/matt/10/5-6#5 Matthew 10:5–6]). After Christ’s death Peter was commanded by an angel to take the gospel to all people ([http://scriptures.lds.org/en/acts/10 Acts 10], [http://scriptures.lds.org/en/acts/11 Acts 11]; [http://scriptures.lds.org/en/matt/28/19 Matt 28:19]). Following Christ’s mortal ministry the practice of circumcision also became unnecessary ([http://scriptures.lds.org/en/acts/15 Acts 15], [http://scriptures.lds.org/en/gal/6/15#15 Galatians 6:15]). Changes in the Church are not only common, but often necessary. Such changes, however, must be done by inspiration or revelation from the head of the Church, which is Christ.

There are absolute truths and relative truths. Absolute truths (such as: God lives and Jesus is the Christ) do not change. Relative truths or practices (such as: circumcision, plural marriage, and age of priesthood ordination) do change. Many relative truths deal with procedural issues, and how absolute truths are presented, rather than the absolute truths themselves. As additional truth is revealed, our understanding of previous revelation is modified to accommodate additional light. “But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, [and] there a little....” ( [http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/98/12#12 D&C 98:12].) “That which is of God is light; and he that receiveth light and continueth in God, receiveth more light; and that light groweth brighter and brighter until the perfect day.” ([http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/50/24#24 D&C 50:24].)

That the temple ceremony has undergone changes, improvements, and refinements, should come as no surprise. Joseph Fielding Smith said that the “work of salvation for the dead came to the Prophet like every other doctrine—piecemeal. It was not revealed all at once.”{{ref|jfs1}}

What has changed in the temple ceremony? It’s probably more important to understand what has not changed. What is the "endowment"? Brigham Young said:

:"Your endowment is, to receive all those ordinances in the House of the Lord, which are necessary for you, after you have departed this life, to enable you to walk back to the presence of the Father, passing the angels who stand as sentinels, being enabled to give them the key words, the signs and tokens, pertaining to the Holy Priesthood, and gain your eternal exaltation in spite of earth and hell." {{ref|by1}}

Joseph Smith said that the endowment is designed to give “a comprehensive view of our condition and true relation to God” {{ref|js1}} by way of instruction and covenants. As noted by Brigham Young, important elements of the endowment include the key words, signs, and tokens. The vehicle by which these important elements are expressed, as well as other components of the endowment—such as penalties, and the dramatic presentation of the endowment–are less essential (relative truths). While the significance and purpose of the endowment remains unchanged, how God chooses to reveal the message and meaning of the endowment can change according to His direction. Thanks to continuing revelation, the endowment can be modified as our understanding changes. As Greg Kearney explains,

:When Joseph was first trying to communicate the truths of the endowment he used a ritual form familiar to the saints of his day. That ritual form was, in some respects, Masonic in nature. As the saints lost their connection to Masonry the symbolic meaning of the penalties and other Masonic elements was lost as well. They became meaningless to all but a few Latter-day Saint Freemasons. So the penalties were removed along with other elements both Masonic and non-Masonic which no longer served the purpose of communicating the truths of the endowment.{{ref|kearney1}}

Although Joseph Smith received the principles of the endowment by revelation, he recognized that the presentation of the endowment could, and would, change. In May 1842, after the first endowment was given, the prophet Joseph told Brigham that the endowment was “not arranged perfectly” and he wanted Brigham to “organize and systematize” the ceremonies. In the process of so doing, Brigham claims to have gained more insight into the endowment.

In succeeding years, Brigham Young suggested that the presentation of the endowment could further evolve. On April 6, 1845, in a Nauvoo Conference, Brigham Young said that Joseph “did not receive every thing connected with the doctrine of redemption” in his lifetime, but instead “left the key” with the Brethren. “We have got to learn how to be faithful in a few things; you know the promise is, if we are faithful in a few things, we shall be made ruler over many things. If we improve upon small things, greater will be given unto us.” {{ref|ms1}}

The dramatic presentation of the endowment has undergone changes. Up until the dedication of the St. George Temple in 1877 the endowment teachings had passed on in oral form only. Brigham (as the sole survivor of the original group who received the endowment from Joseph Smith in 1842), was concerned that this ordinance be preserved as perfectly as possible. He enlisted the help of his son, Brigham, Jr., and Wilford Woodruff, giving them the assignment to record the ceremonies so they could be taught to the temple workers. Wilford Woodruff recalled that President Young labored “all winter to get up a perfect form of Endowments as far as possible.” {{ref|buerger1}} This indicates that the endowment may have varied slightly from the endowment of Joseph Smith.

Woodruff wrote that prior to this time they had “acted up to all the light and knowledge” they had, but they “felt that there was more to be revealed upon this subject than we had received.” After receiving revelation in the St. George Temple, “changes were made” to the endowment and Woodruff wrote that “we still have more changes to make, in order to satisfy our Heavenly Father, satisfy our dead and ourselves.”{{ref|ww1}} One of the changes was the addition of vicarious endowments for the dead. Although the doctrine concerning baptisms for the dead was revealed and performed under the direction of Joseph Smith, it wasn’t until January 11, 1877, in the St. George temple that the first endowments given in behalf of the dead were preformed. “Not long before,” notes Cowan, “President Young had told some temple workers that he had just learned by revelation “that it takes as full and complete a set of ordinances for the dead as for the living.”{{ref|cowan1}} Sixteen years later, Wilford Woodruff met with the Quorum of the Twelve and four temple presidents to harmonize the various and “different” modes of endowment ceremonies.{{ref|ww2}}

As the prophets have recognized, a living Church with continuing revelation, will expect the Lord to add further light, correction, and modification, as the needs of His people, and their understanding changes.

==Conclusion==

Inasmunch as the Endowment was given of God through revelation and inspiration, God is perfectly capable of revealing and inspiring modifications to the Endowment according to the needs and understanding of the Lord's people, in order to more fully benefit them. That the presentation of the Endowment has evolved is more a testament to the active involvement of Deity in the spiritual life of His children than a once-given, forever-unchangeable rite whose deep meaning becomes lost as cultural changes render symbols once familiar into empty ciphers full of mystery and suspicion.

==Endnotes==
#{{note|jfs1}} {{DoS1|vol=2|start=168}}
#{{note|by1}} {{JoD2_1|start=31|end=31|title=The Gospel, Growing in Knowldege, etc.|date=23 October 1853|author=Brigham Young}}
#{{note|js1}} {{TPJS1|start=324}}
#{{note|kearney1}} Greg Kearney, “Mormons and Masonry: Ask the Apologist,” at ''fairlds.org'' {{fairlink|url=http://www.fairlds.org/apol/misc/misc33.html}}
#{{note|ms1}} {{MS|date=6 April 1845|vol=6|start=119|end=121}}
#{{note|beurger1}} {{Dialogue1|author=David John Buerger|article=The Development of the Mormon Temple Endowment Ceremony|vol=20|num=4|date=Winter 1987|start=50}}
#{{note|ww1}} Wilford Woodruff, ''Discourses of Wilford Woodruff'' (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1964), 154.
#{{note|cowan1}} Richard O. Cowan, “Brigham Young: Builder of Temples,” in ''Lion of the Lord: Essays on the Life and Service of Brigham Young'', eds., Susan Easton Black and Larry C. Porter, (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1995), 240; see also Richard O. Cowan, “The Doctrine and Covenants on Temples and Their Functions,” ''Doctrines for Exaltation: The 1989 Sperry Symposium on the Doctrine and Covenants'' (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1989), 27.
#{{note|ww2}} {{WWJ1|vol=9|start=267}}

==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===
{{TempleWiki}}

===FAIR web site===
{{TempleFAIR}}

===External links===
{{TempleLinks}}

===Printed material===
{{TemplePrint}}

Changes to the temple endowment

2008-01-19T18:09:59Z

Pwellauer: /* Response */

{| style="margin: 0em 0em 0em 0em; border: 0px; align="right" cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0
|-
| {{TemplePortal}}
|-
| {{AdamPortal}}
|}
{{question}} 
{{templedisclaimer}}
==Question==
Latter-day Saints believe that the Temple endowment is an eternal ordinance that Joseph Smith received by revelation from God. Why, then, have changes been made to it several times since it was first revealed?

==Response==
God’s directives and how He deals with His people often vary according to His people’s understanding and needs. God doesn’t tell everyone to build an ark and wait for a flood. Changes most often occur as a result of God dealing with his children according to their changing circumstances.

We know, for example, that major changes in practices took place during Christ’s ministry. Christ fulfilled the Law of Moses and practices associated with that law were no longer necessary. Changes also took place after Christ's earthly ministry. For example, Christ originally taught the gospel only to the lost sheep of the House of Israel (Matt. 15:24) and forbade his apostles from going to the Gentiles ([http://scriptures.lds.org/en/matt/10/5-6#5 Matthew 10:5–6]). After Christ’s death Peter was commanded by an angel to take the gospel to all people ([http://scriptures.lds.org/en/acts/10 Acts 10], [http://scriptures.lds.org/en/acts/11 Acts 11]; [http://scriptures.lds.org/en/matt/28/19 Matt 28:19]). Following Christ’s mortal ministry the practice of circumcision also became unnecessary ([http://scriptures.lds.org/en/acts/15 Acts 15], [http://scriptures.lds.org/en/gal/6/15#15 Galatians 6:15]). Changes in the Church are not only common, but often necessary. Such changes, however, must be done by inspiration or revelation from the head of the Church, which is Christ.

There are absolute truths and relative truths. Absolute truths (such as: God lives and Jesus is the Christ) do not change. Relative truths or practices (such as: circumcision, plural marriage, and age of priesthood ordination) do change. Many relative truths deal with procedural issues, and how absolute truths are presented, rather than the absolute truths themselves. As additional truth is revealed, our understanding of previous revelation is modified to accommodate additional light. “But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, [and] there a little....” ( [http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/98/12#12 D&C 98:12].) “That which is of God is light; and he that receiveth light and continueth in God, receiveth more light; and that light groweth brighter and brighter until the perfect day.” ([http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/50/24#24 D&C 50:24].)

That the temple ceremony has undergone changes, improvements, and refinements, should come as no surprise. Joseph Fielding Smith said that the “work of salvation for the dead came to the Prophet like every other doctrine—piecemeal. It was not revealed all at once.”{{ref|jfs1}}

What has changed in the temple ceremony? It’s probably more important to understand what has not changed. What is the "endowment"? Brigham Young said:

:"Your endowment is, to receive all those ordinances in the House of the Lord, which are necessary for you, after you have departed this life, to enable you to walk back to the presence of the Father, passing the angels who stand as sentinels, being enabled to give them the key words, the signs and tokens, pertaining to the Holy Priesthood, and gain your eternal exaltation in spite of earth and hell." {{ref|by1}}

Joseph Smith said that the endowment is designed to give “a comprehensive view of our condition and true relation to God” {{ref|js1}} by way of instruction and covenants. As noted by Brigham Young, important elements of the endowment include the key words, signs, and tokens. The vehicle by which these important elements are expressed, as well as other components of the endowment—such as penalties, and the dramatic presentation of the endowment–are less essential (relative truths). While the significance and purpose of the endowment remains unchanged, how God chooses to reveal the message and meaning of the endowment can change according to His direction. Thanks to continuing revelation, the endowment can be modified as our understanding changes. As Greg Kearney explains,

:When Joseph was first trying to communicate the truths of the endowment he used a ritual form familiar to the saints of his day. That ritual form was, in some respects, Masonic in nature. As the saints lost their connection to Masonry the symbolic meaning of the penalties and other Masonic elements was lost as well. They became meaningless to all but a few Latter-day Saint Freemasons. So the penalties were removed along with other elements both Masonic and non-Masonic which no longer served the purpose of communicating the truths of the endowment.{{ref|kearney1}}

Although Joseph Smith received the principles of the endowment by revelation, he recognized that the presentation of the endowment could, and would, change. In May 1842, after the first endowment was given, the prophet Joseph told Brigham that the endowment was “not arranged perfectly” and he wanted Brigham to “organize and systematize” the ceremonies. In the process of so doing, Brigham claims to have gained more insight into the endowment.

In succeeding years, Brigham Young suggested that the presentation of the endowment could further evolve. On April 6, 1845, in a Nauvoo Conference, Brigham Young said that Joseph “did not receive every thing connected with the doctrine of redemption” in his lifetime, but instead “left the key” with the Brethren. “We have got to learn how to be faithful in a few things; you know the promise is, if we are faithful in a few things, we shall be made ruler over many things. If we improve upon small things, greater will be given unto us.” {{ref|ms1}}

The dramatic presentation of the endowment has undergone changes. Up until the dedication of the St. George Temple in 1877 the endowment teachings had passed on in oral form only. Brigham (as the sole survivor of the original group who received the endowment from Joseph Smith in 1842), was concerned that this ordinance be preserved as perfectly as possible. He enlisted the help of his son, Brigham, Jr., and Wilford Woodruff, giving them the assignment to record the ceremonies so they could be taught to the temple workers. Wilford Woodruff recalled that President Young labored “all winter to get up a perfect form of Endowments as far as possible.” {{ref|buerger1}} This indicates that the endowment may have varied slightly from the endowment of Joseph Smith.

Woodruff wrote that prior to this time they had “acted up to all the light and knowledge” they had, but they “felt that there was more to be revealed upon this subject than we had received.” After receiving revelation in the St. George Temple, “changes were made” to the endowment and Woodruff wrote that “we still have more changes to make, in order to satisfy our Heavenly Father, satisfy our dead and ourselves.”{{ref|ww1}} One of the changes was the addition of vicarious endowments for the dead. Although the doctrine concerning baptisms for the dead was revealed and performed under the direction of Joseph Smith, it wasn’t until January 11, 1877, in the St. George temple that the first endowments given in behalf of the dead were preformed. “Not long before,” notes Cowan, “President Young had told some temple workers that he had just learned by revelation “that it takes as full and complete a set of ordinances for the dead as for the living.”{{ref|cowan1}} Sixteen years later, Wilford Woodruff met with the Quorum of the Twelve and four temple presidents to harmonize the various and “different” modes of endowment ceremonies.{{ref|ww2}}

As the prophets have recognized, a living Church with continuing revelation, will expect the Lord to add further light, correction, and modification, as the needs of His people, and their understanding changes.

==Conclusion==

Inasmunch as the Endowment was given of God through revelation and inspiration, God is perfectly capable of revealing and inspiring modifications to the Endowment according to the needs and understanding of the Lord's people, in order to more fully benefit them. That the presentation of the Endowment has evolved is more a testament to the active involvement of Deity in the spiritual life of His children than a once-given, forever-unchangeable rite whose deep meaning becomes lost as cultural changes render symbols once familiar into empty ciphers full of mystery and suspicion.

==Endnotes==
#{{note|jfs1}} {{DoS1|vol=2|start=168}}
#{{note|by1}} {{JoD2_1|start=31|end=31|title=The Gospel, Growing in Knowldege, etc.|date=23 October 1853|author=Brigham Young}}
#{{note|js1}} {{TPJS1|start=324}}
#{{note|kearney1}} Greg Kearney, “Mormons and Masonry: Ask the Apologist,” at ''fairlds.org'' {{fairlink|url=http://www.fairlds.org/apol/misc/misc33.html}}
#{{note|ms1}} {{MS|date=6 April 1845|vol=6|start=119|end=121}}
#{{note|beurger1}} {{Dialogue1|author=David John Buerger|article=The Development of the Mormon Temple Endowment Ceremony|vol=20|num=4|date=Winter 1987|start=50}}
#{{note|ww1}} Wilford Woodruff, ''Discourses of Wilford Woodruff'' (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1964), 154.
#{{note|cowan1}} Richard O. Cowan, “Brigham Young: Builder of Temples,” in ''Lion of the Lord: Essays on the Life and Service of Brigham Young'', eds., Susan Easton Black and Larry C. Porter, (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1995), 240; see also Richard O. Cowan, “The Doctrine and Covenants on Temples and Their Functions,” ''Doctrines for Exaltation: The 1989 Sperry Symposium on the Doctrine and Covenants'' (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1989), 27.
#{{note|ww2}} {{WWJ1|vol=9|start=267}}

==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===
{{TempleWiki}}

===FAIR web site===
{{TempleFAIR}}

===External links===
{{TempleLinks}}

===Printed material===
{{TemplePrint}}

Changes to the temple endowment

2008-01-19T18:05:24Z

Pwellauer: /* Response */

{| style="margin: 0em 0em 0em 0em; border: 0px; align="right" cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0
|-
| {{TemplePortal}}
|-
| {{AdamPortal}}
|}
{{question}} 
{{templedisclaimer}}
==Question==
Latter-day Saints believe that the Temple endowment is an eternal ordinance that Joseph Smith received by revelation from God. Why, then, have changes been made to it several times since it was first revealed?

==Response==
God’s directives and how He deals with His people often vary according to His people’s understanding and needs. God doesn’t tell everyone to build an ark and wait for a flood. Changes most often occur as a result of God dealing with his children according to their changing circumstances.

We know, for example, that major changes in practices took place during Christ’s ministry. Christ fulfilled the Law of Moses and practices associated with that law were no longer necessary. Changes also took place after Christ's earthly ministry. For example, Christ originally taught the gospel only to the lost sheep of the House of Israel (Matt. 15:24) and forbade his apostles from going to the Gentiles ([http://scriptures.lds.org/en/matt/10/5-6#5 Matthew 10:5–6]). After Christ’s death Peter was commanded by an angel to take the gospel to all people ([http://scriptures.lds.org/en/acts/10 Acts 10], [http://scriptures.lds.org/en/acts/11 Acts 11]; [http://scriptures.lds.org/en/matt/28/19 Matt 28:19]). Following Christ’s mortal ministry the practice of circumcision also became unnecessary ([http://scriptures.lds.org/en/acts/15 Acts 15], [http://scriptures.lds.org/en/gal/6/15#15 Galatians 6:15]). Changes in the Church are not only common, but often necessary. Such changes, however, must be done by inspiration or revelation from the head of the Church, which is Christ.

There are absolute truths and relative truths. Absolute truths (such as: God lives and Jesus is the Christ) do not change. Relative truths or practices (such as: circumcision, plural marriage, and age of priesthood ordination) do change. Many relative truths deal with procedural issues, and how absolute truths are presented, rather than the absolute truths themselves. As additional truth is revealed, our understanding of previous revelation is modified to accommodate additional light. “But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, [and] there a little....” ( [http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/98/12#12 D&C 98:12].) “That which is of God is light; and he that receiveth light and continueth in God, receiveth more light; and that light groweth brighter and brighter until the perfect day.” ([http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/50/23-24#23 D&C 50:23–24].)

That the temple ceremony has undergone changes, improvements, and refinements, should come as no surprise. Joseph Fielding Smith said that the “work of salvation for the dead came to the Prophet like every other doctrine—piecemeal. It was not revealed all at once.”{{ref|jfs1}}

What has changed in the temple ceremony? It’s probably more important to understand what has not changed. What is the "endowment"? Brigham Young said:

:"Your endowment is, to receive all those ordinances in the House of the Lord, which are necessary for you, after you have departed this life, to enable you to walk back to the presence of the Father, passing the angels who stand as sentinels, being enabled to give them the key words, the signs and tokens, pertaining to the Holy Priesthood, and gain your eternal exaltation in spite of earth and hell." {{ref|by1}}

Joseph Smith said that the endowment is designed to give “a comprehensive view of our condition and true relation to God” {{ref|js1}} by way of instruction and covenants. As noted by Brigham Young, important elements of the endowment include the key words, signs, and tokens. The vehicle by which these important elements are expressed, as well as other components of the endowment—such as penalties, and the dramatic presentation of the endowment–are less essential (relative truths). While the significance and purpose of the endowment remains unchanged, how God chooses to reveal the message and meaning of the endowment can change according to His direction. Thanks to continuing revelation, the endowment can be modified as our understanding changes. As Greg Kearney explains,

:When Joseph was first trying to communicate the truths of the endowment he used a ritual form familiar to the saints of his day. That ritual form was, in some respects, Masonic in nature. As the saints lost their connection to Masonry the symbolic meaning of the penalties and other Masonic elements was lost as well. They became meaningless to all but a few Latter-day Saint Freemasons. So the penalties were removed along with other elements both Masonic and non-Masonic which no longer served the purpose of communicating the truths of the endowment.{{ref|kearney1}}

Although Joseph Smith received the principles of the endowment by revelation, he recognized that the presentation of the endowment could, and would, change. In May 1842, after the first endowment was given, the prophet Joseph told Brigham that the endowment was “not arranged perfectly” and he wanted Brigham to “organize and systematize” the ceremonies. In the process of so doing, Brigham claims to have gained more insight into the endowment.

In succeeding years, Brigham Young suggested that the presentation of the endowment could further evolve. On April 6, 1845, in a Nauvoo Conference, Brigham Young said that Joseph “did not receive every thing connected with the doctrine of redemption” in his lifetime, but instead “left the key” with the Brethren. “We have got to learn how to be faithful in a few things; you know the promise is, if we are faithful in a few things, we shall be made ruler over many things. If we improve upon small things, greater will be given unto us.” {{ref|ms1}}

The dramatic presentation of the endowment has undergone changes. Up until the dedication of the St. George Temple in 1877 the endowment teachings had passed on in oral form only. Brigham (as the sole survivor of the original group who received the endowment from Joseph Smith in 1842), was concerned that this ordinance be preserved as perfectly as possible. He enlisted the help of his son, Brigham, Jr., and Wilford Woodruff, giving them the assignment to record the ceremonies so they could be taught to the temple workers. Wilford Woodruff recalled that President Young labored “all winter to get up a perfect form of Endowments as far as possible.” {{ref|buerger1}} This indicates that the endowment may have varied slightly from the endowment of Joseph Smith.

Woodruff wrote that prior to this time they had “acted up to all the light and knowledge” they had, but they “felt that there was more to be revealed upon this subject than we had received.” After receiving revelation in the St. George Temple, “changes were made” to the endowment and Woodruff wrote that “we still have more changes to make, in order to satisfy our Heavenly Father, satisfy our dead and ourselves.”{{ref|ww1}} One of the changes was the addition of vicarious endowments for the dead. Although the doctrine concerning baptisms for the dead was revealed and performed under the direction of Joseph Smith, it wasn’t until January 11, 1877, in the St. George temple that the first endowments given in behalf of the dead were preformed. “Not long before,” notes Cowan, “President Young had told some temple workers that he had just learned by revelation “that it takes as full and complete a set of ordinances for the dead as for the living.”{{ref|cowan1}} Sixteen years later, Wilford Woodruff met with the Quorum of the Twelve and four temple presidents to harmonize the various and “different” modes of endowment ceremonies.{{ref|ww2}}

As the prophets have recognized, a living Church with continuing revelation, will expect the Lord to add further light, correction, and modification, as the needs of His people, and their understanding changes.

==Conclusion==

Inasmunch as the Endowment was given of God through revelation and inspiration, God is perfectly capable of revealing and inspiring modifications to the Endowment according to the needs and understanding of the Lord's people, in order to more fully benefit them. That the presentation of the Endowment has evolved is more a testament to the active involvement of Deity in the spiritual life of His children than a once-given, forever-unchangeable rite whose deep meaning becomes lost as cultural changes render symbols once familiar into empty ciphers full of mystery and suspicion.

==Endnotes==
#{{note|jfs1}} {{DoS1|vol=2|start=168}}
#{{note|by1}} {{JoD2_1|start=31|end=31|title=The Gospel, Growing in Knowldege, etc.|date=23 October 1853|author=Brigham Young}}
#{{note|js1}} {{TPJS1|start=324}}
#{{note|kearney1}} Greg Kearney, “Mormons and Masonry: Ask the Apologist,” at ''fairlds.org'' {{fairlink|url=http://www.fairlds.org/apol/misc/misc33.html}}
#{{note|ms1}} {{MS|date=6 April 1845|vol=6|start=119|end=121}}
#{{note|beurger1}} {{Dialogue1|author=David John Buerger|article=The Development of the Mormon Temple Endowment Ceremony|vol=20|num=4|date=Winter 1987|start=50}}
#{{note|ww1}} Wilford Woodruff, ''Discourses of Wilford Woodruff'' (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1964), 154.
#{{note|cowan1}} Richard O. Cowan, “Brigham Young: Builder of Temples,” in ''Lion of the Lord: Essays on the Life and Service of Brigham Young'', eds., Susan Easton Black and Larry C. Porter, (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1995), 240; see also Richard O. Cowan, “The Doctrine and Covenants on Temples and Their Functions,” ''Doctrines for Exaltation: The 1989 Sperry Symposium on the Doctrine and Covenants'' (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1989), 27.
#{{note|ww2}} {{WWJ1|vol=9|start=267}}

==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===
{{TempleWiki}}

===FAIR web site===
{{TempleFAIR}}

===External links===
{{TempleLinks}}

===Printed material===
{{TemplePrint}}

Relationship between the temple endowment and Freemasonry

2008-01-19T14:12:07Z

Pwellauer:

{{TemplePortal}}
{{GermanWiki|http://www.de.fairmormon.org/index.php/Tempel-Begabung_und_Freimaurerei}}
{{templedisclaimer}}

==Criticism==
Critics of the LDS Church often point to similarities between the rituals of Freemasonry and the LDS temple endowment and claim that since Joseph Smith was initiated as a Freemason in Nauvoo, Illinois shortly before he introduced the full endowment to the Saints (as opposed to the partial endowment given in the Kirtland Temple), he must have incorporated elements of the Masonic rites into his own ceremony. Implicit in this charge is the idea that Joseph Smith's ritual was not revealed to him by God and thus not a legitimate restoration of ancient Israelite and early Christian ordinances.

It is worthwhile to note that these critics are also often critical of Freemasonry, and thus attempt [[Logical_fallacies#Guilt_by_association | guilt by association]].

===Source(s) of the Criticism===
* Scott Abbott, Review of ''Mormonism's Temple of Doom'', by William J. Schnoebelen and James R. Spencer, ''Dialogue'' 22/2 (1989): 151–53.
* Edward H. Ashment, "The LDS Temple Ceremony: Historical Origins and Religious Value," ''Dialogue'' 27/3 (1994): 289–98.
* David J. Buerger, "The Development of the Mormon Temple Endowment Ceremony," ''Dialogue'' 20/4 (1987): 33–76.
* David J. Buerger, ''The Mysteries of Godliness: A History of Mormon Temple Worship'' (San Francisco: Smith Research Associates, 1994).
* Michael W. Homer, "'Similarity of Priesthood in Masonry': The Relationship between Freemasonry and Mormonism," ''Dialogue'' 27/3 (1994): 1–113.
* Robert N. Hullinger, ''Joseph Smith's Response to Skepticism'' (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1992), 99–120.
* Armand L. Mauss, "Culture, Charisma, and Change: Reflections on Mormon Temple Worship," ''Dialogue'' 20/4 (1987): 77–83.
* Sterling M. McMurrin, Review of ''Encyclopedia of Mormonism'', ed. Daniel H. Ludlow, ''Dialogue'' 26/2 (1993): 210.
* Keith E. Norman, "A Kinder, Gentler Mormonism: Moving Beyond the Violence of Our Past," ''Sunstone'' (August 1990): 10–14.
* Lance S. Owens, "Joseph Smith and Kabbalah: The Occult Connection," ''Dialogue'' 27/3 (1994): 166–73.
*Gregory A. Prince, ''Power from on High: The Development of Mormon Priesthood'' (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1995), 146–48.
* Allen D. Roberts, "Where Are the All-Seeing Eyes?" ''Sunstone'' (May/June 1979): 22–37
* George D. Smith Jr., ''Review of Evolution of the Mormon Temple Ceremony: 1920–1990'', by Jerald and Sandra Tanner, ''Sunstone'' (June 1991): 56.
* George D. Smith Jr., ed., ''An Intimate Chronicle: The Journals of William Clayton'' (Salt Lake City: Signature Books in association with Smith Research Associates, 1991), xxxvii–xxxviii.
* Margaret and Paul Toscano, ''Strangers in Paradox: Explorations in Mormon Theology'' (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1990), 279, 287.

==Response==

In order to understand this issue, a few facts need to be understood:

#Joseph Smith, Jr. was initiated as a Freemason in Nauvoo, Illinois on the 15th and 16th of March 1842; his brother Hyrum and his father Joseph Sr. were Masons before the Church's organization in April 1830.
#A few of the early leaders of the Church were Masons before the Church's organization while many others were initiated into the Masonic institution after the Prophet was.
#Masonry was a common social institution in mid-19th century America.
#There are similarities between the rituals of Freemasonry and those of the LDS Temple endowment. These similarities center around
::*the use of a ritual drama—the story of Hiram Abiff is used by the Masons, while the LDS endowment uses the story of Adam and Eve and the creation (the LDS versions have parallels to ancient Israelite temple worship).
::*some similar hand actions in the course of the rituals (the LDS versions having distinct parallels to ancient Israelite temple worship and early Christian usage).

Symbolist F. L. Brink suggests that Joseph Smith successfully created an "innovative and intricate symbology" that suited well the psychic needs of his followers.{{ref|roberts1}}

===Two Aspects of Temple Worship===

In order to understand the relationship between the temple endowment and Freemasonry it is useful to consider the temple experience. In the temple, participants are confronted with ritual in a form which is unknown in LDS worship outside of that venue. The temple endowment can be viewed as being made up of two parts:
#The ''teachings'' of the endowment, i.e., the doctrines taught and the covenants made with God.
#The ''method'' of presenting the endowment, or the "ritual" mechanics themselves.

It is in the ritual ''presentation'' of the endowment teachings and covenants that the similarities between the LDS temple worship and Freemasonry are the most apparent. The question is, why would this be the case?

===Joseph's Challenge===

In developing the endowment, some people believe that Joseph faced a problem. He wished to communicate, in a clear and effective manner, some different (and, in some cases, complex) religious ideas. These included such abstract concepts as
* the nature of creation (matter being organized and not created out of nothing)
* humanity's relationship to God and to each other
* eternal marriage and exaltation in the afterlife

Joseph needed to communicate these ideas to a diverse population; some with limited educational attainments, many of whom were immigrants; several with only modest understanding of the English language; all of whom possessed different levels of intellectual and spiritual maturity—but who needed to be instructed through the same ceremony.

Joseph Smith's very brief experience with Freemasonry before the introduction of the full LDS endowment—including personal service as the Chaplain of Rising Sun Lodge in Nauvoo—may have reminded him of the power of instruction through ritual and repetition. Some people believe that Joseph may have seized upon these tools as teaching devices for the endowment's doctrines and covenants during the Nauvoo era. Other people are of the opinion that since these elements were previously present in the worship of the Kirtland Temple they were not 'borrowed' by the Prophet at all.

Regardless, the use of symbols was characteristic of Joseph Smith's era; it was not unique to him or Masonry:

:Symbols on buildings, in literature, stamped on manufactured goods, etc. were not endemic to Mormons and Masons but were common throughout all of mid-nineteenth century American society (as even a cursory inspection of books, posters, buildings and photos of the periods will bear out.) So, '''assuming''' [Joseph] Smith felt a need to communicate specific principles to his Saints, he '''might''' naturally develop a set of easily understood symbols as were already in familiar use about him.{{ref|roberts4}}

===Confidentiality===

The LDS temple ceremony was, and is, considered sacred. As such, it was not to be exposed to the view or discussion of outsiders.

Joseph Smith was of the view that many of the Saints were not good at keeping religious confidences:

:The reason we do not have the secrets of the Lord revealed unto us, is because we do not keep them but reveal them; we do not keep our own secrets, but reveal our difficulties to the world, even to our enemies, then how would we keep the secrets of the Lord? I can keep a secret till Doomsday.{{ref|js1}}

A few of the early leaders of the Church pointed out that one of the aims of Masonry was to teach adherents proper respect for promises of confidentiality.{{ref|brown1}} For instance,

* '''Joseph Smith''': "The secret of Masonry is to keep a secret."{{ref|js2}}
* '''Brigham Young''': "The main part of Masonry is to keep a secret."{{ref|by1}}

This institutionalized Masonic principle was a trait that would be necessary for the Saints to incorporate into their lives once they were endowed, because certain elements of the temple ritual were considered to be very sacred and were not to be divulged to the uninitiated. This may be the key for understanding why the Prophet encouraged so many of the Nauvoo-era Saints to join the Masonic brotherhood.

===Early Saints' Views===

The Saints of Joseph Smith's era accepted the then-common belief that Masonry ultimately sprang from Solomon's temple. Thus, Brigham Young and Heber C. Kimball understood Masonry to be a corrupted form of a pristine ancient temple rite.{{ref|brown2}} One author later wrote that masonry as an "institution dates its origins many centuries back, it is only a perverted Priesthood stolen from the Temples of the Most High."{{ref|brown3}}

Joseph Fielding wrote during the Nauvoo period:

:Many have joined the Masonic institution. This seems to have been a stepping stone or preparation for something else, the true origin of Masonry. This I have also seen and rejoice in it.... I have evidence enough that Joseph is not fallen. I have seen him after giving, as I before said, the origin of Masonry.{{ref|jf1}}

Heber C. Kimball wrote of the endowment:

:We have received some precious things through the Prophet on the Priesthood which would cause your soul to rejoice. I cannot give them to you on paper for they are not to be written so you must come and get them for yourself...There is a similarity of Priesthood in Masonry. Brother Joseph says Masonry was taken from Priesthood but has become degenerated. But many things are perfect.{{ref|hck1}}

Thus, to Joseph's contemporaries, there was much more to the LDS temple endowment than just warmed-over Freemasonry. None of Joseph's friends complained that he had just adapted Masonic ritual for his own purposes. Rather, they were aware of the common ritual elements, but understood that Joseph had restored something that was both ritually and theologically ancient and God-given.

===Timing of the Endowment Revelations===

Critics have noted that Joseph's initiation into Freemasonry (15–16 March 1842) predates his introduction of the full temple endowment among the Saints (4 May 1842). They thus claim that Masonry was a necessary element for Joseph's self-generated "revelation" of the Nauvoo-era temple ceremonies.

But one LDS author draws attention to the fact that there is much more to the history of the endowment restoration than critics of the Church are willing to admit.

:Plenty of evidence...is available that Joseph Smith had a detailed knowledge of the Nauvoo temple ceremonies long before he introduced them in May 1842 and long before he set foot inside a Masonic hall...While Joseph Smith was translating the book of Abraham from Egyptian papyri, he wrote a series of short explanations for three of the illustrations that accompanied his translation. The Prophet noted that in Facsimile 2, figures 3 and 7 were related in some manner to "the grand Key-words of the Holy Priesthood" and "the sign of the Holy Ghost." When he came to figure 8, he explained that this area on the Egyptian drawing contained "writings that cannot be revealed unto the world; but is to be had in the Holy Temple of God."...

:Other writers have used the Facsimile 2 material to sharpen the chronological argument against Joseph Smith. Facsimile 2 and its temple-related explanations were first printed in the 15 March 1842 edition of the ''Times and Seasons'', the same day that the Prophet received the first of three Masonic initiation rites. Latter-day Saints have traditionally argued that this issue of the newspaper was published during the day while the Prophet's Masonic initiation did not occur until that evening. Thus Joseph Smith must have had temple knowledge before he had Masonic knowledge. But critics point out that the 15 March issue of the paper was not actually published until 19 March, several days after the Prophet witnessed the Masonic ceremonies.

:This is where terminology becomes crucial. Critics claim that the phrases employed by Joseph Smith in the Facsimile 2 explanations are Masonic and that it was not until several days after his Masonic induction that Joseph Smith "first spoke of 'certain key words and signs belonging to the priesthood.'" These critics assume the terms are necessarily "Masonic," yet it must be remembered that Freemasonry's rites are little more than borrowed baggage. Then what about the supposedly incriminating timing of these incidents? This is precisely the point at which the entire argument falls apart. On 5 May 1841 William Appleby paid a visit to Joseph Smith, who read to him the revelation on temple ordinances, now identified as Doctrine and Covenants 124, that was received 19 January 1841. After the two men discussed baptism for the dead, the Prophet got out his collection of Egyptian papyrus scrolls and, while exhibiting Facsimile 2, explained to Appleby that part of the drawing was related to "the Lord revealing the Grand key words of the Holy Priesthood, to Adam in the garden of Eden, as also to Seth, Noah, Melchizedek, Abraham, and to all whom the Priesthood was revealed."

:It is also clear from Doctrine and Covenants 124 that Joseph Smith was well aware of the main ritual elements of the Nauvoo endowment ceremony at least as early as 19 January 1841. (See {{s||DC||124||}}.){{ref|brown4}}

The note from Appleby is found in his journal under the date of 5 May 1841, a little less than a year before Joseph's initiation into the Masonic Lodge at Nauvoo.{{ref|appleby1}} There is a great deal more historical evidence that the Prophet Joseph Smith knew of Nauvoo-era endowment ritual, phraseology, vestments, and theology long before he ever became a Freemason.

In evidence of this fact, we find that upon his initiation into Masonry Joseph Smith was already explaining things which the Masons themselves did not comprehend. According to one witness:

:"the Prophet explained many things about the rites that even Masons do not pretend to understand but which he made most clear and beautiful."{{ref|brown5}}

===Differences===
It is worth noting that some of the similarities between the endowment and Freemasonry which are highlighted by Church critics are only superficial. For example, critics typically focus on the common use of architectural elements on the Salt Lake Temple and in Masonry, even though the endowment makes no reference to such elements. In almost every case, shared symbolic forms have different ''meanings'', and thus should not be seen as exact parallels.

It should also be emphasized that the goals of Masonry and the LDS endowment are not the same. Both teach important truths, but the truths they teach are different. Masonry teaches of man's relationship to his fellow men and offers no means of salvation; i.e., it is not a religion. The temple endowment, on the other hand, teaches of man's relationship to God, and Latter-day Saints consider it to be essential for exaltation in the world to come.

==Conclusion==

Joseph Smith's critics want to label him as an intellectual thief by claiming that he stole some of the ritual elements of Freemasonry in order to create the Nauvoo-era temple endowment ceremony. The greatest obstacles to this theory are the facts that

#Joseph Smith claimed direct revelation from God regarding the Nauvoo-era endowment,
#Joseph Smith knew a great deal about the Nauvoo-era endowment ceremony long before the Nauvoo period - and thus long before his entry into the Masonic fraternity, and
#the Nauvoo-era temple endowment ceremony has numerous exacting parallels to the initiation ceremonies of ancient Israelite and early Christian kings and priests—parallels which cannot be found among Freemasons.

==Endnotes==
#{{note|roberts1}}T. L. Brink, "The Rise of Mormonism: A Case Study in the Symbology of Frontier America," ''International Journal of Symbology'' 6/3 (1975): 4; cited in {{Sunstone1 |author=Allen D. Roberts|article=Where are the All-Seeing Eyes?|vol=4|num=15|date=May 1979|start=26}} {{link|url=http://www.sunstoneonline.com/magazine/searchable/mag-text.asp?MagID=15}}
#{{note|roberts4}} {{Sunstone1 |author=Allen D. Roberts|article=Where are the All-Seeing Eyes?|vol=4|num=5|date=May 1979|start=26}} {{link|url=http://www.sunstoneonline.com/magazine/searchable/mag-text.asp?MagID=15}}(emphasis added)
#{{note|js1}}{{TPJS|start=194|end=195, (19 December 1841)}} {{link|url=http://www.boap.org/LDS/Joseph-Smith/Teachings/T4.html Direct}}; see also {{HC|vol=4|start=478|end=479}}
#{{note|brown1}} See footnote 20 of {{FR-10-1-4}}
#{{note|js2}}{{TPJS1|start=329}}{15 October 1843)
#{{note|by1}}{{WWJ1 |vol=5|start=418, (22 January 1860, spelling standardized) }}
#{{note|brown2}} See Footnote 30, {{FR-10-1-4}}
#{{note|brown3}} {{Instructor1 | author=H. Belnap | article=A Mysterious Preacher|date=15 March 1886|vol=21|num=?|start=91|}}; cited in {{FR-10-1-4}}
#{{note|jf1}} {{BYUS1|author=Andrew F. Ehat|article='They Might Have Known That He Was Not a Fallen Prophet'—The Nauvoo Journal of Joseph Fielding|vol=19|num=2|date=1979|start=145, 147, spelling and punctuation standardized}}
#{{note|hck1}} Heber C. Kimball to Parley P. Pratt, 17 June 1842, Parley P. Pratt Papers, LDS Church Archives, Salt Lake City, Utah, spelling and punctuation standardized.
#{{note|brown4}} {{FR-10-1-4}} (citations omitted)
#{{note|appleby1}} William I. Appleby Journal, 5 May 1841, MS 1401 1, LDS Church Archives, Salt Lake City, Utah.
#{{note|brown5}} {{Instructor1 | author=Horace H. Cummings | article=True Stories from My Journal|date=August 1929|vol=64|num=8|start=441|}}; cited in {{FR-10-1-4}}

==Further Reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===
{{MasonryWiki}}
{{TempleWiki}}

===FAIR web site===
{{MasonryFAIR}}
{{TempleFAIR}}

===External links===
{{MasonryLinks}}
{{TempleLinks}}

===Printed material===
{{MasonryPrint}}
{{TemplePrint}}