FAIR - User contributions [en]

Question: Does Jesus's statement that in the resurrection they "neither marry nor given in marriage" a refutation of the Mormon concept of eternal marriage?

2015-12-28T19:55:31Z

RonHellings1: /* */

Mormonism and apologetics/"ad hominem"/Case study/An attempt to discredit Hugh Nibley by accusing him of child abuse

2014-07-30T15:04:58Z

RonHellings1: /* */

{{Articles FAIR copyright}} {{Articles Header 1}} {{Articles Header 2}} {{Articles Header 3}} {{Articles Header 4}} {{Articles Header 5}} {{Articles Header 6}} {{Articles Header 7}} {{Articles Header 8}} {{Articles Header 9}} {{Articles Header 10}}
<onlyinclude>
{{Resource Title|An attempt to discredit Hugh Nibley by accusing him of child abuse}}
{{Epigraph|Nibley's zealous involvement with the Smith papyri would later be blamed in a family tragedy. —Robert K. Ritner<ref name="ritner">{{CriticalWork:RItner:Joseph Smith Egyptian Papyri|pages=5n12}}</ref>
}}
{{parabreak}}
== ==
{{response label}}

An ad hominem attack is one in which an irrelevant negative aspect of someone’s personality is used to undermine that person's position on an issue. It is not the same as an insult, nor is it the same as slander. To say that Edward is ugly is an insult, but it is not an ad hominem attack. To say that Edward is ugly and, therefore, that his views on quantum mechanics must be wrong is an ad hominem attack. To say that Edward beats his wife, when he in fact does not, is slander, but it is not an ad hominem attack. To say that Edward beats his wife and, therefore, that his views on impressionistic art are without vaue is an ad hominem attack. And, finally, to say that Edward has admitted that he knows nothing about the French Revolution and to suggest that his views on the French Revolution should therefore not be credited is not an ad hominem attack, because what he knows about the subject is certainly relevant to the value of his conclusions.

In the introduction to his 2013 translation of the Joseph Smith Papyri, Robert Ritner produces a classic insult of Hugh Nibley, repeats a slander of Hugh Nibley, and generates a true ad hominem attack on Hugh Nibley. In short, it is a textbook case of how not to honorably disagree with another’s ideas. In a footnote on page 5 of his book, Ritner attacks Hugh Nibley by mentioning accusations brought against Nibley by his daughter Martha Beck. He states that "Nibley's zealous involvement with the Smith papyri would later be blamed in a family tragedy."<ref name="ritner"></ref> He then explains what the family tragedy was by quoting the description of Beck's accusation from FairMormon President Scott Gordon's review of her 2005 book ''Leaving the Saints'', all the while ignoring the fact that Gordon makes a fairly good case for Martha’s accusations being false. The Gordon citation is:

:Beck accuses her father of putting on an Egyptian costume and ritually abusing her, something all seven of her siblings deny…. Martha claims (page 147) that her father dressed up as the Egyptian god Amut the Destroyer by putting on a costume with an alligator head and a lion’s body and molesting her between the ages of 5 and 7…. Martha blames the whole incident on the stress of having to defend the Book of Abraham when Nibley knew it was a fraud (ellipses in Ritner’s original).<ref>Scott Gordon, "Leaving the Saints or Leaving Reality?" online at http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/publications/leaving-the-saints-or-leaving-reality, as cited by Ritner.</ref>

First, this is a nasty insult, since there is pretty much nothing worse you can call someone in today’s society than “child molester.” Second, this is a vicious slander, as there is absolutely no credible evidence that substantiates Martha's claims.<ref>Besides Scott Gordon's review of Martha Nibley's book, see also Boyd Peterson, Hugh Nibley: A Consecrated Life (Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2002), 400–401 n. 13; "[http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/publications/as-things-stand-at-the-moment-responding-to-martha-becks-leaving-the-saints As Things Stand at the Moment: Responding to Martha Beck’s Leaving the Saints]"; "[http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/publications/response-to-leaving-the-saints Response to Leaving the Saints]"; {{FR-17-2-7}}; {{FR-17-1-6}}; {{FR-17-1-7}}</ref>

{{Main|Hugh Nibley/Abuse charges|l1=Hugh Nibley: Charges of abuse?}}

But, finally, even if this if this accusation were true (which it most emphatically is not), its placement in the introduction of Ritner’s book is a textbook example of a particular kind of ad hominem attack called "[[Logical_fallacies/Page_3#Poisoning_the_well|poisoning the well]]," a rhetorical device in which adverse information about a person is presented to an audience first, with the intention of discrediting everything that the person has to say on the subject.<ref>"Poisoning the well," at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well.</ref> Before engaging any of Nibley's scholarship on the Joseph Smith Papyri and the Book of Abraham, Ritner tries to pre-emptively attack Nibley's character by bringing up Martha’s accusations.

Let us be clear. Ritner’s book is not a biography of Hugh Nibley; it is a book about a translation from Egyptian. The only reason for bringing up the accusation against Nibley is to imply that his views on the translation should not be credited, because he was a child molester. (It also conveniently tars those who differ with Ritner--they are supporting the views of an alleged molester.)

This ''ad hominem'' attack by Ritner is especially ironic considering his own complaint that Nibley and other Mormons supposedly launched ''ad hominem'' attacks against the 1912 Egyptologists who had proffered comments on the Book of Abraham.<ref name="ritner"></ref>{{Rp|4–5}} In fact, the Mormon responses to those Egyptologists have been almost entirely engagements of the arguments, pointing out how the experts disagreed with each other and suggesting why they might not know as much as they thought they did. You could argue that these attacks were insulting. You could even try to make a case for their being slanderous. But they were most emphatically not ''ad hominem''.

== ==
{{endnotes label}}

<references/>
</onlyinclude>
{{Articles Footer 1}} {{Articles Footer 2}} {{Articles Footer 3}} {{Articles Footer 4}} {{Articles Footer 5}} {{Articles Footer 6}} {{Articles Footer 7}} {{Articles Footer 8}} {{Articles Footer 9}} {{Articles Footer 10}}

[[Category:ad hominem]] [[Category:Hugh Nibley]] [[Category:Robert Ritner]]

Mormonism and apologetics/"ad hominem"/Case study/An attempt to discredit Hugh Nibley by accusing him of child abuse

2014-07-30T15:04:17Z

RonHellings1: /* */

{{Articles FAIR copyright}} {{Articles Header 1}} {{Articles Header 2}} {{Articles Header 3}} {{Articles Header 4}} {{Articles Header 5}} {{Articles Header 6}} {{Articles Header 7}} {{Articles Header 8}} {{Articles Header 9}} {{Articles Header 10}}
<onlyinclude>
{{Resource Title|An attempt to discredit Hugh Nibley by accusing him of child abuse}}
{{Epigraph|Nibley's zealous involvement with the Smith papyri would later be blamed in a family tragedy. —Robert K. Ritner<ref name="ritner">{{CriticalWork:RItner:Joseph Smith Egyptian Papyri|pages=5n12}}</ref>
}}
{{parabreak}}
== ==
{{response label}}

An ad hominem attack is one in which an irrelevant negative aspect of someone’s personality is used to undermine that person's position. It is not the same as an insult, nor is it the same as slander. To say that Edward is ugly is an insult, but it is not an ad hominem attack. To say that Edward is ugly and, therefore, that his views on quantum mechanics must be wrong is an ad hominem attack. To say that Edward beats his wife, when he in fact does not, is slander, but it is not an ad hominem attack. To say that Edward beats his wife and, therefore, that his views on impressionistic art are without vaue is an ad hominem attack. And, finally, to say that Edward has admitted that he knows nothing about the French Revolution and to suggest that his views on the French Revolution should therefore not be credited is not an ad hominem attack, because what he knows about the subject is certainly relevant to the value of his conclusions.

In the introduction to his 2013 translation of the Joseph Smith Papyri, Robert Ritner produces a classic insult of Hugh Nibley, repeats a slander of Hugh Nibley, and generates a true ad hominem attack on Hugh Nibley. In short, it is a textbook case of how not to honorably disagree with another’s ideas. In a footnote on page 5 of his book, Ritner attacks Hugh Nibley by mentioning accusations brought against Nibley by his daughter Martha Beck. He states that "Nibley's zealous involvement with the Smith papyri would later be blamed in a family tragedy."<ref name="ritner"></ref> He then explains what the family tragedy was by quoting the description of Beck's accusation from FairMormon President Scott Gordon's review of her 2005 book ''Leaving the Saints'', all the while ignoring the fact that Gordon makes a fairly good case for Martha’s accusations being false. The Gordon citation is:

:Beck accuses her father of putting on an Egyptian costume and ritually abusing her, something all seven of her siblings deny…. Martha claims (page 147) that her father dressed up as the Egyptian god Amut the Destroyer by putting on a costume with an alligator head and a lion’s body and molesting her between the ages of 5 and 7…. Martha blames the whole incident on the stress of having to defend the Book of Abraham when Nibley knew it was a fraud (ellipses in Ritner’s original).<ref>Scott Gordon, "Leaving the Saints or Leaving Reality?" online at http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/publications/leaving-the-saints-or-leaving-reality, as cited by Ritner.</ref>

First, this is a nasty insult, since there is pretty much nothing worse you can call someone in today’s society than “child molester.” Second, this is a vicious slander, as there is absolutely no credible evidence that substantiates Martha's claims.<ref>Besides Scott Gordon's review of Martha Nibley's book, see also Boyd Peterson, Hugh Nibley: A Consecrated Life (Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2002), 400–401 n. 13; "[http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/publications/as-things-stand-at-the-moment-responding-to-martha-becks-leaving-the-saints As Things Stand at the Moment: Responding to Martha Beck’s Leaving the Saints]"; "[http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/publications/response-to-leaving-the-saints Response to Leaving the Saints]"; {{FR-17-2-7}}; {{FR-17-1-6}}; {{FR-17-1-7}}</ref>

{{Main|Hugh Nibley/Abuse charges|l1=Hugh Nibley: Charges of abuse?}}

But, finally, even if this if this accusation were true (which it most emphatically is not), its placement in the introduction of Ritner’s book is a textbook example of a particular kind of ad hominem attack called "[[Logical_fallacies/Page_3#Poisoning_the_well|poisoning the well]]," a rhetorical device in which adverse information about a person is presented to an audience first, with the intention of discrediting everything that the person has to say on the subject.<ref>"Poisoning the well," at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well.</ref> Before engaging any of Nibley's scholarship on the Joseph Smith Papyri and the Book of Abraham, Ritner tries to pre-emptively attack Nibley's character by bringing up Martha’s accusations.

Let us be clear. Ritner’s book is not a biography of Hugh Nibley; it is a book about a translation from Egyptian. The only reason for bringing up the accusation against Nibley is to imply that his views on the translation should not be credited, because he was a child molester. (It also conveniently tars those who differ with Ritner--they are supporting the views of an alleged molester.)

This ''ad hominem'' attack by Ritner is especially ironic considering his own complaint that Nibley and other Mormons supposedly launched ''ad hominem'' attacks against the 1912 Egyptologists who had proffered comments on the Book of Abraham.<ref name="ritner"></ref>{{Rp|4–5}} In fact, the Mormon responses to those Egyptologists have been almost entirely engagements of the arguments, pointing out how the experts disagreed with each other and suggesting why they might not know as much as they thought they did. You could argue that these attacks were insulting. You could even try to make a case for their being slanderous. But they were most emphatically not ''ad hominem''.

== ==
{{endnotes label}}

<references/>
</onlyinclude>
{{Articles Footer 1}} {{Articles Footer 2}} {{Articles Footer 3}} {{Articles Footer 4}} {{Articles Footer 5}} {{Articles Footer 6}} {{Articles Footer 7}} {{Articles Footer 8}} {{Articles Footer 9}} {{Articles Footer 10}}

[[Category:ad hominem]] [[Category:Hugh Nibley]] [[Category:Robert Ritner]]

Mormonism and apologetics/"ad hominem"/Case study/An attempt to discredit Hugh Nibley by accusing him of child abuse

2014-07-30T05:19:44Z

RonHellings1: /* */

{{Articles FAIR copyright}} {{Articles Header 1}} {{Articles Header 2}} {{Articles Header 3}} {{Articles Header 4}} {{Articles Header 5}} {{Articles Header 6}} {{Articles Header 7}} {{Articles Header 8}} {{Articles Header 9}} {{Articles Header 10}}
<onlyinclude>
{{Resource Title|An attempt to discredit Hugh Nibley by accusing him of child abuse}}
{{Epigraph|Nibley's zealous involvement with the Smith papyri would later be blamed in a family tragedy. —Robert K. Ritner<ref name="ritner">{{CriticalWork:RItner:Joseph Smith Egyptian Papyri|pages=5n12}}</ref>
}}
{{parabreak}}
== ==
{{response label}}

An ad hominem attack is one in which an irrelevant negative aspect of someone’s personality is used to undermine that person's position. It is not the same as an insult, nor is it the same as slander. To say that Edward is ugly is an insult, but it is not an ad hominem attack. To say that Edward is ugly and, therefore, that his views on quantum mechanics must be wrong is an ad hominem attack. To say that Edward beats his wife, when he in fact does not, is slander, but it is not an ad hominem attack. To say that Edward beats his wife and, therefore, that his views on impressionistic art are without vaue is an ad hominem attack. And, finally, to say that Edward has admitted that he knows nothing about the French Revolution and to suggest that his views on the French Revolution should therefore not be credited is not an ad hominem attack, because what he knows about the subject is certainly relevant to the value of his conclusions.

In the introduction to his 2013 translation of the Joseph Smith Papyri, Robert Ritner produces a classic insult of Hugh Nibley, repeats a slander of Hugh Nibley, and generates a true ad hominem attack on Hugh Nibley. In short, it is a textbook case of how not to honorably disagree with another’s ideas. In a footnote on page 5 of his book, Ritner attacks Hugh Nibley by mentioning accusations brought against Nibley by his daughter Martha Beck. He states that "Nibley's zealous involvement with the Smith papyri would later be blamed in a family tragedy."<ref name="ritner"></ref> He then explains what the family tragedy was by quoting the description of Beck's accusation from FairMormon President Scott Gordon's review of her 2005 book ''Leaving the Saints'', all the while ignoring the fact that Gordon makes a fairly good case for Martha’s accusations being false. The Gordon citation is:

:Beck accuses her father of putting on an Egyptian costume and ritually abusing her, something all seven of her siblings deny…. Martha claims (page 147) that her father dressed up as the Egyptian god Amut the Destroyer by putting on a costume with an alligator head and a lion’s body and molesting her between the ages of 5 and 7…. Martha blames the whole incident on the stress of having to defend the Book of Abraham when Nibley knew it was a fraud (ellipses in Ritner’s original).<ref>Scott Gordon, "Leaving the Saints or Leaving Reality?" online at http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/publications/leaving-the-saints-or-leaving-reality, as cited by Ritner.</ref>

First, this is a nasty insult, since there is pretty much nothing worse you can call someone in today’s society than “child molester.” Second, this is a vicious slander, as there is absolutely no credible evidence that substantiates Martha's claims.<ref>Besides Scott Gordon's review of Martha Nibley's book, see also Boyd Peterson, Hugh Nibley: A Consecrated Life (Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2002), 400–401 n. 13; "[http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/publications/as-things-stand-at-the-moment-responding-to-martha-becks-leaving-the-saints As Things Stand at the Moment: Responding to Martha Beck’s Leaving the Saints]"; "[http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/publications/response-to-leaving-the-saints Response to Leaving the Saints]"; {{FR-17-2-7}}; {{FR-17-1-6}}; {{FR-17-1-7}}</ref>

{{Main|Hugh Nibley/Abuse charges|l1=Hugh Nibley: Charges of abuse?}}

But, finally, even if this if this accusation were true (which it most emphatically is not), its placement in the introduction of Ritner’s book is a textbook example of a particular kind of ad hominem attack called "[[Logical_fallacies/Page_3#Poisoning_the_well|poisoning the well]]," a rhetorical device in which adverse information about a person is presented to an audience first, with the intention of discrediting everything that the person has to say on the subject.<ref>"Poisoning the well," at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well.</ref> Before engaging any of Nibley's scholarship on the Joseph Smith Papyri and the Book of Abraham, Ritner tries to pre-emptively attack Nibley's character by bringing up Martha’s accusations.

Let us be clear. Ritner’s book is not a biography of Hugh Nibley; it is a book about a translation from Egyptian. The only reason for bringing up the accusation against Nibley is to imply that his views on the translation should not be credited, because he was a child molester. (It also conveniently tars those who differ with Ritner--they are supporting the views of an alleged molester.)

This ''ad hominem'' attack by Ritner is also especially ironic considering his complaint that Nibley and other Mormons supposedly launched ''ad hominem'' attacks of their own against the 1912 Egyptologists in their apologetic work on the Book of Abraham.<ref name="ritner"></ref>{{Rp|4–5}} In fact, the Mormon responses to the Egyptologists were almost entirely engagements of the arguments, pointing out where the experts disagreed with each other and suggesting why they might not know as much as they thought they did. You could argue that these attacks were insulting. You could even try to make a case for their being slanderous. But they were most emphatically not ''ad hominem''.

== ==
{{endnotes label}}

<references/>
</onlyinclude>
{{Articles Footer 1}} {{Articles Footer 2}} {{Articles Footer 3}} {{Articles Footer 4}} {{Articles Footer 5}} {{Articles Footer 6}} {{Articles Footer 7}} {{Articles Footer 8}} {{Articles Footer 9}} {{Articles Footer 10}}

[[Category:ad hominem]] [[Category:Hugh Nibley]] [[Category:Robert Ritner]]

Mormonism and apologetics/"ad hominem"/Case study/An attempt to discredit Hugh Nibley by accusing him of child abuse

2014-07-30T05:18:42Z

RonHellings1: /* */

{{Articles FAIR copyright}} {{Articles Header 1}} {{Articles Header 2}} {{Articles Header 3}} {{Articles Header 4}} {{Articles Header 5}} {{Articles Header 6}} {{Articles Header 7}} {{Articles Header 8}} {{Articles Header 9}} {{Articles Header 10}}
<onlyinclude>
{{Resource Title|An attempt to discredit Hugh Nibley by accusing him of child abuse}}
{{Epigraph|Nibley's zealous involvement with the Smith papyri would later be blamed in a family tragedy. —Robert K. Ritner<ref name="ritner">{{CriticalWork:RItner:Joseph Smith Egyptian Papyri|pages=5n12}}</ref>
}}
{{parabreak}}
== ==
{{response label}}

An ad hominem attack is one in which an irrelevant negative aspect of someone’s personality is used to undermine that person's position. It is not the same as an insult, nor is it the same as slander. To say that Edward is ugly is an insult, but it is not an ad hominem attack. To say that Edward is ugly and, therefore, that his views on quantum mechanics must be wrong is an ad hominem attack. To say that Edward beats his wife, when he in fact does not, is slander, but it is not an ad hominem attack. To say that Edward beats his wife and, therefore, that his views on impressionistic art are without vaue is an ad hominem attack. And, finally, to say that Edward has admitted that he knows nothing about the French Revolution and to suggest that his views on the French Revolution should therefore not be credited is not an ad hominem attack, because what he knows about the subject is certainly relevant to the value of his conclusions.

In the introduction to his 2013 translation of the Joseph Smith Papyri, Robert Ritner produces a classic insult of Hugh Nibley, repeats a slander of Hugh Nibley, and generates a true ad hominem attack on Hugh Nibley. In short, it is a textbook case of how not to honorably disagree with another’s ideas. In a footnote on page 5 of his book, Ritner attacks Hugh Nibley by mentioning accusations brought against Nibley by his daughter Martha Beck. He states that "Nibley's zealous involvement with the Smith papyri would later be blamed in a family tragedy."<ref name="ritner"></ref> He then explains what the family tragedy was by quoting the description of Beck's accusation from FairMormon President Scott Gordon's review of her 2005 book ''Leaving the Saints'', all the while ignoring the fact that Gordon makes a fairly good case for Martha’s accusations being false. The Gordon citation is:

:Beck accuses her father of putting on an Egyptian costume and ritually abusing her, something all seven of her siblings deny…. Martha claims (page 147) that her father dressed up as the Egyptian god Amut the Destroyer by putting on a costume with an alligator head and a lion’s body and molesting her between the ages of 5 and 7…. Martha blames the whole incident on the stress of having to defend the Book of Abraham when Nibley knew it was a fraud (ellipses in Ritner’s original).<ref>Scott Gordon, "Leaving the Saints or Leaving Reality?" online at http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/publications/leaving-the-saints-or-leaving-reality, as cited by Ritner.</ref>

First, this is a nasty insult, since there is pretty much nothing worse you can call someone in today’s society than “child molester.” Second, this is a vicious slander, as there is absolutely no credible evidence that substantiates Martha's claims.<ref>Besides Scott Gordon's review of Martha Nibley's book, see also Boyd Peterson, Hugh Nibley: A Consecrated Life (Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2002), 400–401 n. 13; "[http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/publications/as-things-stand-at-the-moment-responding-to-martha-becks-leaving-the-saints As Things Stand at the Moment: Responding to Martha Beck’s Leaving the Saints]"; "[http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/publications/response-to-leaving-the-saints Response to Leaving the Saints]"; {{FR-17-2-7}}; {{FR-17-1-6}}; {{FR-17-1-7}}</ref>

{{Main|Hugh Nibley/Abuse charges|l1=Hugh Nibley: Charges of abuse?}}

But, finally, even if this if this accusation were true (which it most emphatically is not), its placement in the introduction of Ritner’s book is a textbook example of a particular kind of ad hominem attack called "[[Logical_fallacies/Page_3#Poisoning_the_well|poisoning the well]]," a rhetorical device in which adverse information about a person is presented to an audience first, with the intention of discrediting everything that the person has to say on the subject.<ref>"Poisoning the well," at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well.</ref> Before engaging any of Nibley's scholarship on the Joseph Smith Papyri and the Book of Abraham, Ritter tries to pre-emptively attack Nibley's character by bringing up Martha’s accusations.

Let us be clear. Ritner’s book is not a biography of Hugh Nibley; it is a book about a translation from Egyptian. The only reason for bringing up the accusation against Nibley is to imply that his views on the translation should not be credited, because he was a child molester. (It also conveniently tars those who differ with Ritner--they are supporting the views of an alleged molester.)

This ''ad hominem'' attack by Ritner is also especially ironic considering his complaint that Nibley and other Mormons supposedly launched ''ad hominem'' attacks of their own against the 1912 Egyptologists in their apologetic work on the Book of Abraham.<ref name="ritner"></ref>{{Rp|4–5}} In fact, the Mormon responses to the Egyptologists were almost entirely engagements of the arguments, pointing out where the experts disagreed with each other and suggesting why they might not know as much as they thought they did. You could argue that these attacks were insulting. You could even try to make a case for their being slanderous. But they were most emphatically not ''ad hominem''.

== ==
{{endnotes label}}

<references/>
</onlyinclude>
{{Articles Footer 1}} {{Articles Footer 2}} {{Articles Footer 3}} {{Articles Footer 4}} {{Articles Footer 5}} {{Articles Footer 6}} {{Articles Footer 7}} {{Articles Footer 8}} {{Articles Footer 9}} {{Articles Footer 10}}

[[Category:ad hominem]] [[Category:Hugh Nibley]] [[Category:Robert Ritner]]

Mormonism and apologetics/"ad hominem"/Case study/An attempt to discredit Hugh Nibley by accusing him of child abuse

2014-07-30T05:17:45Z

RonHellings1: /* */

{{Articles FAIR copyright}} {{Articles Header 1}} {{Articles Header 2}} {{Articles Header 3}} {{Articles Header 4}} {{Articles Header 5}} {{Articles Header 6}} {{Articles Header 7}} {{Articles Header 8}} {{Articles Header 9}} {{Articles Header 10}}
<onlyinclude>
{{Resource Title|An attempt to discredit Hugh Nibley by accusing him of child abuse}}
{{Epigraph|Nibley's zealous involvement with the Smith papyri would later be blamed in a family tragedy. —Robert K. Ritner<ref name="ritner">{{CriticalWork:RItner:Joseph Smith Egyptian Papyri|pages=5n12}}</ref>
}}
{{parabreak}}
== ==
{{response label}}

An ad hominem attack is one in which an irrelevant negative aspect of someone’s personality is used to undermine that person's position. It is not the same as an insult, nor is it the same as slander. To say that Edward is ugly is an insult, but it is not an ad hominem attack. To say that Edward is ugly and, therefore, that his views on quantum mechanics must be wrong is an ad hominem attack. To say that Edward beats his wife, when he in fact does not, is slander, but it is not an ad hominem attack. To say that Edward beats his wife and, therefore, that his views on impressionistic art are without vaue is an ad hominem attack. And, finally, to say that Edward has admitted that he knows nothing about the French Revolution and to suggest that his views on the French Revolution should therefore not be credited is not an ad hominem attack, because what he knows about the subject is certainly relevant to the value of his conclusions.

In the introduction to his 2013 translation of the Joseph Smith Papyri, Robert Ritner produces a classic insult of Hugh Nibley, repeats a slander of Hugh Nibley, and generates a true ad hominem attack on Hugh Nibley. In short, it is a textbook case of how not to honorably disagree with another’s ideas. In a footnote on page 5 of his book, Ritner attacks Hugh Nibley by mentioning accusations brought against Nibley by his daughter Martha Beck. He states that "Nibley's zealous involvement with the Smith papyri would later be blamed in a family tragedy."<ref name="ritner"></ref> He then explains what the family tragedy was by quoting the description of Beck's accusation from FairMormon President Scott Gordon's review of her 2005 book ''Leaving the Saints'', all the while ignoring the fact that Gordon makes a fairly good case for Martha’s accusations being false. The Gordon citation is:

:Beck accuses her father of putting on an Egyptian costume and ritually abusing her, something all seven of her siblings deny…. Martha claims(page 147) that her father dressed up as the Egyptian god Amut the Destroyer by putting on a costume with an alligator head and a lion’s body and molesting her between the ages of 5 and 7…. Martha blames the whole incident on the stress of having to defend the Book of Abraham when Nibley knew it was a fraud (ellipses in Ritner’s original).<ref>Scott Gordon, "Leaving the Saints or Leaving Reality?" online at http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/publications/leaving-the-saints-or-leaving-reality, as cited by Ritner.</ref>

First, this is a nasty insult, since there is pretty much nothing worse you can call someone in today’s society than “child molester.” Second, this is a vicious slander, as there is absolutely no credible evidence that substantiates Martha's claims.<ref>Besides Scott Gordon's review of Martha Nibley's book, see also Boyd Peterson, Hugh Nibley: A Consecrated Life (Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2002), 400–401 n. 13; "[http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/publications/as-things-stand-at-the-moment-responding-to-martha-becks-leaving-the-saints As Things Stand at the Moment: Responding to Martha Beck’s Leaving the Saints]"; "[http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/publications/response-to-leaving-the-saints Response to Leaving the Saints]"; {{FR-17-2-7}}; {{FR-17-1-6}}; {{FR-17-1-7}}</ref>

{{Main|Hugh Nibley/Abuse charges|l1=Hugh Nibley: Charges of abuse?}}

But, finally, even if this if this accusation were true (which it most emphatically is not), its placement in the introduction of Ritner’s book is a textbook example of a particular kind of ad hominem attack called "[[Logical_fallacies/Page_3#Poisoning_the_well|poisoning the well]]," a rhetorical device in which adverse information about a person is presented to an audience first, with the intention of discrediting everything that the person has to say on the subject.<ref>"Poisoning the well," at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well.</ref> Before engaging any of Nibley's scholarship on the Joseph Smith Papyri and the Book of Abraham, Ritter tries to pre-emptively attack Nibley's character by bringing up Martha’s accusations.

Let us be clear. Ritner’s book is not a biography of Hugh Nibley; it is a book about a translation from Egyptian. The only reason for bringing up the accusation against Nibley is to imply that his views on the translation should not be credited, because he was a child molester. (It also conveniently tars those who differ with Ritner--they are supporting the views of an alleged molester.)

This ''ad hominem'' attack by Ritner is also especially ironic considering his complaint that Nibley and other Mormons supposedly launched ''ad hominem'' attacks of their own against the 1912 Egyptologists in their apologetic work on the Book of Abraham.<ref name="ritner"></ref>{{Rp|4–5}} In fact, the Mormon responses to the Egyptologists were almost entirely engagements of the arguments, pointing out where the experts disagreed with each other and suggesting why they might not know as much as they thought they did. You could argue that these attacks were insulting. You could even try to make a case for their being slanderous. But they were most emphatically not ''ad hominem''.

== ==
{{endnotes label}}

<references/>
</onlyinclude>
{{Articles Footer 1}} {{Articles Footer 2}} {{Articles Footer 3}} {{Articles Footer 4}} {{Articles Footer 5}} {{Articles Footer 6}} {{Articles Footer 7}} {{Articles Footer 8}} {{Articles Footer 9}} {{Articles Footer 10}}

[[Category:ad hominem]] [[Category:Hugh Nibley]] [[Category:Robert Ritner]]

Mormonism and apologetics/"ad hominem"/Case study/An attempt to discredit Hugh Nibley by accusing him of child abuse

2014-07-30T05:16:01Z

RonHellings1: /* */

{{Articles FAIR copyright}} {{Articles Header 1}} {{Articles Header 2}} {{Articles Header 3}} {{Articles Header 4}} {{Articles Header 5}} {{Articles Header 6}} {{Articles Header 7}} {{Articles Header 8}} {{Articles Header 9}} {{Articles Header 10}}
<onlyinclude>
{{Resource Title|An attempt to discredit Hugh Nibley by accusing him of child abuse}}
{{Epigraph|Nibley's zealous involvement with the Smith papyri would later be blamed in a family tragedy. —Robert K. Ritner<ref name="ritner">{{CriticalWork:RItner:Joseph Smith Egyptian Papyri|pages=5n12}}</ref>
}}
{{parabreak}}
== ==
{{response label}}

An ad hominem attack is one in which an irrelevant negative aspect of someone’s personality is used to undermine that person's position. It is not the same as an insult, nor is it the same as slander. To say that Edward is ugly is an insult, but it is not an ad hominem attack. To say that Edward is ugly and, therefore, that his views on quantum mechanics must be wrong is an ad hominem attack. To say that Edward beats his wife, when he in fact does not, is slander, but it is not an ad hominem attack. To say that Edward beats his wife and, therefore, that his views on impressionistic art are without vaue is an ad hominem attack. And, finally, to say that Edward has admitted that he knows nothing about the French Revolution and to suggest that his views on the French Revolution should therefore not be credited is not an ad hominem attack, because what he knows about the subject is certainly relevant to the value of his conclusions.

In the introduction to his 2013 translation of the Joseph Smith Papyri, Robert Ritner produces a classic insult of Hugh Nibley, a slander of Hugh Nibley, and a true ad hominem attack on Hugh Nibley. In short, it is a textbook case of how not to honorably disagree with another’s ideas. In a footnote on page 5 of his book, Ritner attacks Hugh Nibley by mentioning accusations brought against Nibley by his daughter Martha Beck. He states that "Nibley's zealous involvement with the Smith papyri would later be blamed in a family tragedy."<ref name="ritner"></ref> He then explains what the family tragedy was by quoting the description of Beck's accusation from FairMormon President Scott Gordon's review of her 2005 book ''Leaving the Saints'', all the while ignoring the fact that Gordon makes a fairly good case for Martha’s accusations being false. The Gordon citation is:

:Beck accuses her father of putting on an Egyptian costume and ritually abusing her, something all seven of her siblings deny…. Martha claims(page 147) that her father dressed up as the Egyptian god Amut the Destroyer by putting on a costume with an alligator head and a lion’s body and molesting her between the ages of 5 and 7…. Martha blames the whole incident on the stress of having to defend the Book of Abraham when Nibley knew it was a fraud (ellipses in Ritner’s original).<ref>Scott Gordon, "Leaving the Saints or Leaving Reality?" online at http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/publications/leaving-the-saints-or-leaving-reality, as cited by Ritner.</ref>

First, this is a nasty insult, since there is pretty much nothing worse you can call someone in today’s society than “child molester.” Second, this is a vicious slander, as there is absolutely no credible evidence that substantiates Martha's claims.<ref>Besides Scott Gordon's review of Martha Nibley's book, see also Boyd Peterson, Hugh Nibley: A Consecrated Life (Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2002), 400–401 n. 13; "[http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/publications/as-things-stand-at-the-moment-responding-to-martha-becks-leaving-the-saints As Things Stand at the Moment: Responding to Martha Beck’s Leaving the Saints]"; "[http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/publications/response-to-leaving-the-saints Response to Leaving the Saints]"; {{FR-17-2-7}}; {{FR-17-1-6}}; {{FR-17-1-7}}</ref>

{{Main|Hugh Nibley/Abuse charges|l1=Hugh Nibley: Charges of abuse?}}

But, finally, even if this if this accusation were true (which it most emphatically is not), its placement in the introduction of Ritner’s book is a textbook example of a particular kind of ad hominem attack called "[[Logical_fallacies/Page_3#Poisoning_the_well|poisoning the well]]," a rhetorical device in which adverse information about a person is presented to an audience first, with the intention of discrediting everything that the person has to say on the subject.<ref>"Poisoning the well," at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well.</ref> Before engaging any of Nibley's scholarship on the Joseph Smith Papyri and the Book of Abraham, Ritter tries to pre-emptively attack Nibley's character by bringing up Martha’s accusations.

Let us be clear. Ritner’s book is not a biography of Hugh Nibley; it is a book about a translation from Egyptian. The only reason for bringing up the accusation against Nibley is to imply that his views on the translation should not be credited, because he was a child molester. (It also conveniently tars those who differ with Ritner--they are supporting the views of an alleged molester.)

This ''ad hominem'' attack by Ritner is also especially ironic considering his complaint that Nibley and other Mormons supposedly launched ''ad hominem'' attacks of their own against the 1912 Egyptologists in their apologetic work on the Book of Abraham.<ref name="ritner"></ref>{{Rp|4–5}} In fact, the Mormon responses to the Egyptologists were almost entirely engagements of the arguments, pointing out where the experts disagreed with each other and suggesting why they might not know as much as they thought they did. You could argue that these attacks were insulting. You could even try to make a case for their being slanderous. But they were most emphatically not ''ad hominem''.

== ==
{{endnotes label}}

<references/>
</onlyinclude>
{{Articles Footer 1}} {{Articles Footer 2}} {{Articles Footer 3}} {{Articles Footer 4}} {{Articles Footer 5}} {{Articles Footer 6}} {{Articles Footer 7}} {{Articles Footer 8}} {{Articles Footer 9}} {{Articles Footer 10}}

[[Category:ad hominem]] [[Category:Hugh Nibley]] [[Category:Robert Ritner]]

Response to Under the Banner of Heaven: A Story of Violent Faith/The Justin Wise Dialogues

2014-07-10T17:04:55Z

RonHellings1: /* God commanded murder? */

Response to Under the Banner of Heaven: A Story of Violent Faith/The Justin Wise Dialogues

2014-06-19T17:54:57Z

RonHellings1: /* Basic errors of fact and history */

Response to Under the Banner of Heaven: A Story of Violent Faith/The Justin Wise Dialogues

2014-06-19T16:34:09Z

RonHellings1:

Response to Under the Banner of Heaven: A Story of Violent Faith/The Justin Wise Dialogues

2014-06-18T21:10:23Z

RonHellings1: /* God commanded murder? */

__NOTOC__
The following dialogue is from ''The Justin Wise Dialogues'', an unpublished manuscript by Ron Hellings. The imaginary dialogue in the chapter from which this segment is taken involves three men:
* '''Justin Wise''', a Mormon
* '''Bob Simplicio''', an ex-Mormon who left the church for intellectual reasons but just can't leave it alone
* '''Mario Sagredo''', an Italian investigator

The subject of the discussion in this excerpt is Jon Krakauer's 2003 book, "Under the Banner of Heaven". <ref name="banner">{{CriticalWork:Krakauer:Under the Banner of Heaven}}</ref>

==Dialogue==

'''Simplicio''': You may have a nice logical ethical philosophy in theory, but in practice it is a complete failure. In practice, Mormon doctrine does not lead to moral behavior.

'''Justin''': What are you talking about?

'''Simplicio''': I am referring to the main point of the recent best-seller, “Under the Banner of Heaven”.<ref name="banner"></ref> This is a book in which the author, Jon Krakauer, makes it very clear that religion in general, and the Mormon faith in particular, are powerful forces in motivating people to violent behavior.

'''Justin''': Come on, Bob. I thought you were smarter than that. Did you read the book?

'''Simplicio''': Yes. And it seems to me that…

===Brief summary of the volume===

'''Sagredo''' (interrupting): What is this book about?

'''Simplicio''': I’m sorry. Let me explain. In 2003, Jon Krakauer, an investigative reporter, wrote a book about a sensational murder in Utah in 1984, when two Mormon brothers...

'''Justin''' (interrupting): Bob...

'''Simplicio''': All right. Two excommunicated Mormon brothers, Ron and Dan Lafferty, murdered their younger brother Allen’s wife and baby daughter.

'''Sagredo''': Why?

===God commanded murder?===

'''Simplicio''': That’s just the point. Ron and Dan Lafferty said that God had told them to do it. And that is the premise of Krakauer’s whole book – that it was their Mormon upbringing that allowed them, pushed them, to this horrendous deed.

'''Sagredo''': Are Mormons particularly violent?

'''Justin''': Of course not. Krakauer just says this because he wants it to be the explanation. He has no facts to back it up. No studies of violence among Mormons as opposed to other religions. Nothing. In fact, it isn’t just Mormons he picks on. The premise of his book is that all religion leads to violence. He begins his book with a prologue in which he says, “As a means of motivating people to be cruel or inhumane – as a means of inciting evil, to borrow the vocabulary of the devout – there may be no more potent force than religion.”<ref name="banner"></ref>{{Rp|xxi}} What do you think, Mario? Is this a true statement?

'''Sagredo''': Well, there have been plenty of acts of violence in the name of religion.

'''Justin''': Of course there have. You can find anecdotes to support almost any proposition. In fact, I am thinking of writing a book advancing the idea that, as a means of motivating people to acts of violence, there may be no more potent force than World Cup Soccer.

Mario laughed.

'''Sagredo''': I know of many stories that support that premise.

'''Justin''': Right. But you can’t prove a premise by citing a few anecdotes. You need careful comparative studies. So where are the sociological studies that support Krakauer’s outlandish statement? There are none. None. In fact, the only way he can get away with positing such a ridiculous idea is to ignore overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

'''Simplicio''': What evidence to the contrary? Are you claiming that religious violence never happened?

'''Justin''': Of course not. I’m just saying that religious violence is the work of amateurs. Add up all the religious violence you can think of – the crusades, the inquisition, 400 years of Catholic-Protestant wars in Ireland, Islamic terrorism. Amateurs. If you want really professional cruelty and violence, you need to find yourself a good atheist. These are the guys who know how to do get it done. The reign of terror in revolutionary France was the work of atheists. They called it “The Age of Reason.” Slobodan Milošević was an atheist. So was Pol Pot. So were Josef Stalin and Mao Tse-Tung. Adolf Hitler wasn’t waging a religious campaign against the Jews, he was waging a campaign of scientific racism. And he had hard empirical science on his side. Intelligent Nazi scientists felt that they had evidence that Jews and other races were genetically inferior to Aryans, and that the only rational, ethical way to better the world was through eugenics and systematic genocide.

'''Sagredo''': That’s true. No uncomfortable religious faith got in Hitler’s way.

'''Justin''': And so Krakauer gets it exactly wrong. In the prologue of his book, he says,

:Faith is the very antithesis of reason, injudiciousness a crucial component of spiritual devotion. And when religious fanaticism supplants ratiocination [a little-used word meaning 'logic,' reminding us of William Safire's famous remark, "Never use a big word when a diminutive one will do."], all bets are suddenly off. Anything can happen. Absolutely anything. Common sense is no match for the voice of God – as the actions of Dan Lafferty vividly attest.<ref name="banner"></ref>{{Rp|xxiii}}

Actually, we see that the opposite is true. The actions of Adolph Hitler attest that common sense is no match for the relentless logic of a man with no religious faith to anchor him against the use of atheistic science and heartless reason for his own cruel and violent purposes.

Bob Simplicio took a deep breath.

===Mormon theology leads to murder?===

'''Simplicio''': Justin, you’re taking us off on a tangent. I don’t care if Jon Krakauer’s general statement about religion and violence is supported by careful sociological studies or not. The point is that Mormon theology contributed to a vicious murder, and Krakauer’s book provides the insight and the evidence that this is the case.

'''Justin''': Nonsense. Jon Krakauer’s book is really quite worthless on this score. It provides no insight into the reasons for the murders and it provides no insight into LDS practices or doctrines. The man is simply out of his depth. He has no training in criminology, none in psychology, none in history, none in religion. He is just not the man for the job.

'''Simplicio''': He doesn’t claim to be an expert in these things. He is not a scholar; he is an investigative journalist. He interviews the experts and then synthesizes their insights into a coherent picture that he then communicates to his readers.

'''Justin''': But there is no coherent picture. He rehashes the well-known contributing factors to the brothers’ action – Ron and Dan Lafferty’s father was abusive; their mother was submissive; both boys grew into abusive fathers and husbands themselves; Allen’s wife did not show the proper deference to her brothers-in-law, so she became a target. The defense tried to prove that the two were insane; the prosecution produced witnesses saying the opposite. But where is the coherent picture? What motivated these two men to this horrible crime? Jon Krakauer only answers this in one place. Do you remember it?

'''Simplicio''': I don’t know what you’re referring to.

'''Justin''': Jon is at the point in his book where Ron Lafferty is claiming revelations, one of which supposedly tells him to kill his sister-in-law. Krakauer points out that Lafferty had been examined by a psychiatrist who concluded that his revelations were delusions, “spawned by depression and his deeply entrenched narcissism, with no basis whatever in reality.” But Krakauer will have none of it. “Ron knows that the commandments he’d received were no mere figment of his imagination,” says Krakauer. “The Lord spoke to him.”<ref name="banner"></ref>{{Rp|162}} That is Krakauer’s explanation, the only one he ever gives. What do you think, Mario? Did God really speak to Ron Lafferty and tell him to kill his sister-in-law?

'''Simplicio''': Don’t be ridiculous. Jon Krakauer doesn’t believe in God.

'''Justin''': So what is he trying to say? Look, there are only three possibilities here. Either Lafferty is insane and his revelations are all delusions, or he is sane and knows that he did not really receive revelations, which means he is lying, or he actually received the word of God telling him to murder his sister-in-law.

'''Simplicio''': Jon’s point is that thinking that you can speak with God is a kind of insanity.

===Belief in revelation equals insanity===

'''Justin''': Aha! Now you have it. That is Krakauer’s agenda. He is an admitted atheist and that is the thing he wants to prove. That was his preconceived notion, and – surprise! – that is his conclusion. But it’s nonsense. There is not a Mormon bishop in the church who hasn’t received revelation to guide him in his calling, and Mormon bishops are among the sanest people I know. They do not kill people. But the Lafferty brothers did, and Jon Krakauer simply has no clue as to why.

'''Sagredo''': So that’s why you think the book is useless.

'''Justin''': Yes. That and the fact that he also spends half of his book writing about the history of the LDS church.

'''Sagredo''': What is wrong with that?

'''Justin''': He just doesn’t know very much about it. His only sources seem to be slanted anti-Mormon books – books that he clearly chooses because they support his prejudices. And so he makes one error after another, silly errors that any active member of the church can spot in a minute.

'''Simplicio''': Like what?

===Basic errors of fact and history===

'''Justin''': Like in his chapter about the Hill Cumorah, where he says that “the Hill Cumorah is one of the holiest sites in all of Mormondom, and sooner or later most Latter-day Saints make a pilgrimage there.”<ref name="banner"></ref>{{Rp|63}} He simply has no idea that Mormons do not speak of “holy sites” in that way, that there are no Mormon “pilgrimages,” and that it is simply not true that most Mormons will ever visit the Hill Cumorah. It is not one of our religious duties. It’s just that this is the kind of silly devout behavior he expects of Mormons, so, for him, that makes it a fact. He refers to the Apostle Mark E. Peterson as the President of the Church.<ref name="banner"></ref>{{Rp|75}} Any Mormon could have fixed that mistake for him, but he obviously sought no Mormon fact-checking help for his book. He speaks of the Book of Mormon’s Laban as a “filthy-rich sheep magnate”<ref name="banner"></ref>{{Rp|165}} because he has not read the Book of Mormon closely enough to notice that the Laban in the Book of Mormon is not the same as the Laban in the Old Testament. After all, why should he waste time actually reading the book when he already knows what his opinion of it is going to be?

'''Simplicio''': But he corrected those errors in the second edition.

'''Justin''': Some of them. He still hung onto his Cumorah error. But I especially enjoy what he said in his appendix in the second edition. After the first edition came out, Richard Turley, a Mormon historian, pointed out several of these errors. So, in the second edition, Krakauer concedes five of these mistakes and then proceeds to debate the rest. I love how he justifies his position. Speaking of Turley’s review of his book, Krakauer says, “Some of the ‘errors’ he [Turley] alleges are no more that honest differences of opinion.”<ref name="banner"></ref>{{Rp|357}}

'''Simplicio''': So?

'''Justin''': So do you know what they call it when an author knows that there are other “honest” points of view, but he only presents one of them? They don’t call it scholarship. They don’t even call it investigative journalism. They call it propaganda. That is what Jon Krakauer has written. There is no balance in the book, no acknowledgement of any view but his own. In referring to one historical incident, he states, “I find the version of the tragedy offered by John D. Lee, Juanita Brooks, and Will Bagley ... to be much more credible than the versions offered by Turley and other spokesmen for the LDS Church.” That’s it! No explanation of what the other versions say or why he dislikes them, no reasons given that would allow a reader to judge anything for himself. Jon thinks that it is enough for us to know that he - our intellectually-detached, rational judge of all things historical - doesn’t find them “credible.” Well, of course we know what he finds wrong with the other versions – they don’t agree with his agenda. And if he were to allow himself to discuss any of these other views, he might have to give the LDS Church one tiny break in his otherwise unremitting, condescending ridicule of a faith he doesn’t understand.

'''Simpicio''': That’s a little harsh.

'''Justin''' : Is it? Do you remember what he said about the Cumorah Pageant he attended?

:The pageant has the energy of a Phish concert, but without the drunkenness, outlandish hairdos (Brother Richards’ comb-over notwithstanding), or clouds of marijuana smoke.... Order, needless to say, prevails. This is a culture that considers obedience to be among the highest virtues.<ref name="banner"></ref>{{Rp|67}}

Besides the mean-spirited ridicule of Brother Richards’ appearance, what about the rest? I’ve been to concerts at the Kennedy Center in Washington, D.C., where order, needless to say, prevailed. But I always chalked that up to the decency and good manners of the concert-goers. Of course, that can’t be the explanation for the behavior of the Mormons at the Cumorah Pageant. After all, Mormons only behave in an orderly way because they are mindless, obsequious little automatons.

'''Sagredo''': You seem to have strong feelings about this book.

Justin smiled.

===Krakauer's Abuse of Elizabeth Smart===

'''Justin''': I must admit that the book makes me a little angry. But we haven’t yet gotten to the part that offends me most of all. That is Krakauer’s treatment of Elizabeth Smart.

'''Simplicio''': Yes. That was a bit over the top.

'''Sagredo''': What is this?

'''Justin''': In 2002, while Jon Krakauer was still writing his book, a pretty, innocent fourteen-year-old girl named Elizabeth Smart was abducted from her home in Salt Lake City by an itinerant street preacher, Brian Mitchell, and his wife, Wanda Barzee. Mitchell cut through the window screen of Elizabeth’s home at night, while the family was asleep. He woke Elizabeth up with a knife at her throat and told her that he would kill her and her family if she did not go with him. She was taken to a campsite in the woods nearby, held captive by chaining her to a tree, and raped repeatedly at knifepoint over a period of nine months.

'''Sagredo''': How horrible. But why did that matter to Krakauer? Was Mitchell a Mormon?

'''Justin''': Both Mitchell and his wife had been raised in the church and excommunicated for apostasy in the mid 1990s. Mitchell claimed that God had told him to take Elizabeth as his polygamous wife.

'''Sagredo''': Ah. I see the connection.

'''Justin''': Yes. But the point here is not what Jon has to say about Mitchell and Barzee; it’s what he has to say about Elizabeth Smart.

'''Sagredo''': What about Elizabeth?

'''Justin''': You see, toward the end of her captivity, she was occasionally left alone, but she did not try to escape. When she was finally recognized on the street, she did not admit who she was, until pressed. And, after the kidnappers were arrested, Elizabeth expressed some concern for their welfare.

'''Sagredo''': But this is typical behavior for someone who is abducted, threatened, and then shown a little kindness. It’s called the Stockholm syndrome.

'''Justin''': Yes. And Krakauer knows it. He mentions the syndrome in connection with another case in his book,<ref>On p. 21, it is used to explain the attitude of a polygamous wife in Colorado City.</ref> but there is no mention of it in reference to Elizabeth Smart. Instead, Jon prefers the time-honored tradition of blaming the victim, and, in this case, the victim’s family. Elizabeth’s problem, according to Jon Krakauer, is that she was “raised to obey figures of Mormon authority unquestioningly, and to believe that LDS doctrine is the law of God.”<ref name="banner"></ref>{{Rp|45}} Of course, he has no idea what they actually taught her; but he is quite sure that all Mormons are taught blind obedience, so that must have been it. He also suggests that “the white robes Mitchell and Barzee wore, and forced Elizabeth to wear, resembled the sacred robes she had donned with her family when they entered the Mormon temple.” Now you can’t really blame Krakauer for a stupid mistake like this, because he is not a Mormon and should not be expected to know that Elizabeth, having been born ‘under the covenant,’ would not need to be sealed to her parents in the temple, and so she would probably never have even seen the robes that her parents wore when they attended the temple. Of course, he could have done a little research here by actually talking to a faithful Mormon, but Jon doesn’t like to use faithful Mormons as sources.

'''Sagredo''': But why wouldn’t he bring up the Stockholm syndrome? Can’t he see that Elizabeth’s case is a classic example?

'''Justin''': Because he has an axe to grind. He doesn’t consult psychologists or other experts on abductions to ask them to comment on Elizabeth’s case. Instead, he goes searching for someone to tell him what he wants to hear. He finds Debbie Palmer, a refugee from a non-LDS polygamous offshoot from the church, who is now an anti-polygamy crusader. It is Debbie’s opinion that “Mitchell would never have been able to have such power over a non-Mormon girl.” Debbie is not a psychologist and was never a Mormon, but she was once a member of a polygamous sect. That’s good enough for Jon. Actually a member of a polygamous sect – what more expertise could you want?

'''Sagredo''': I guess neither of them ever heard of Patricia Hearst. As I remember, she was brainwashed by her captors and ended up strongly sympathetic to them. But no one ever blamed her parents for it.

'''Justin''': No. But Jon Krakauer blames Ed and Lois Smart for Elizabeth’s problems. It’s their fault for teaching Elizabeth to follow her LDS faith. It’s Lois’ fault that Mitchell came to work at their house and meet Elizabeth in the first place, because Lois has “a soft spot for the destitute.” There’s that condescending, ridiculing sense of humor again. Jon has no sympathy for their nine months of anguish, not knowing if their daughter was dead or alive, picturing what may have happened or might still be happening, knowing that whatever it was had to have been a horror for their little girl. And he has no sympathy for Elizabeth Smart. I read his chapter in vain, looking for any vestige of understanding of what Elizabeth and her family suffered. There was nothing. Nothing! I’m sorry, Bob; Jon Krakauer is just a mean man.

'''Simplicio''': So you think Elizabeth Smart’s Mormon upbringing was not a factor in her failing to escape when she could?

'''Justin''': Absolutely not. When non-Mormons are abducted, their responses are commonly identical to Elizabeth’s. But I’ll tell you what effect her religion did have on her. It helped her to recover. She forgave her abductors and got on with her life. And her parents were amazing. They asked her no questions about her ordeal. When she finally testified in court, six years later, most of the details they heard were details they were hearing for the first time. In 2007, she co-wrote a Department of Justice pamphlet for victims of abduction in which she said, “I made a conscious decision that my abductors had already taken away 9 months of my life, and I certainly was not going to give them any more than that.”<ref name="smart">''You’re Not Alone: The Journey from Abduction to Empowerment'', U.S. Department of Justice</ref>{{Rp|29}} That’s the kind of strength and independence that the gospel of Jesus Christ truly fosters in LDS women. She also describes how she once took several members of her family back into the woods to where she had been held, and told them, “This is where I was held hostage, and now I'm showing you. They can't have this anymore.”<ref name="smart"></ref>{{Rp|31}} In 2009, she left to serve an LDS mission in France. She has since returned and was recently married.

'''Simplicio''': There is no question, Justin. Elizabeth Smart is a remarkable woman.

'''Justin''': Actually, the LDS Church is filled with remarkable women.

=== ===
{{Endnotes label}}
<references />

Response to Under the Banner of Heaven: A Story of Violent Faith/The Justin Wise Dialogues

2014-06-18T21:08:21Z

RonHellings1:

__NOTOC__
The following dialogue is from ''The Justin Wise Dialogues'', an unpublished manuscript by Ron Hellings. The imaginary dialogue in the chapter from which this segment is taken involves three men:
* '''Justin Wise''', a Mormon
* '''Bob Simplicio''', an ex-Mormon who left the church for intellectual reasons but just can't leave it alone
* '''Mario Sagredo''', an Italian investigator

The subject of the discussion in this excerpt is Jon Krakauer's 2003 book, "Under the Banner of Heaven". <ref name="banner">{{CriticalWork:Krakauer:Under the Banner of Heaven}}</ref>

==Dialogue==

'''Simplicio''': You may have a nice logical ethical philosophy in theory, but in practice it is a complete failure. In practice, Mormon doctrine does not lead to moral behavior.

'''Justin''': What are you talking about?

'''Simplicio''': I am referring to the main point of the recent best-seller, “Under the Banner of Heaven”.<ref name="banner"></ref> This is a book in which the author, Jon Krakauer, makes it very clear that religion in general, and the Mormon faith in particular, are powerful forces in motivating people to violent behavior.

'''Justin''': Come on, Bob. I thought you were smarter than that. Did you read the book?

'''Simplicio''': Yes. And it seems to me that…

===Brief summary of the volume===

'''Sagredo''' (interrupting): What is this book about?

'''Simplicio''': I’m sorry. Let me explain. In 2003, Jon Krakauer, an investigative reporter, wrote a book about a sensational murder in Utah in 1984, when two Mormon brothers...

'''Justin''' (interrupting): Bob...

'''Simplicio''': All right. Two excommunicated Mormon brothers, Ron and Dan Lafferty, murdered their younger brother Allen’s wife and baby daughter.

'''Sagredo''': Why?

===God commanded murder?===

'''Simplicio''': That’s just the point. Ron and Dan Lafferty said that God had told them to do it. And that is the premise of Krakauer’s whole book – that it was their Mormon upbringing that allowed them, pushed them, to this horrendous deed.

'''Sagredo''': Are Mormons particularly violent?

'''Justin''': Of course not. Krakauer just says this because he wants it to be the explanation. He has no facts to back it up. No studies of violence among Mormons as opposed to other religions. Nothing. In fact, it isn’t just Mormons he picks on. The premise of his book is that all religion leads to violence. He begins his book with a prologue in which he says, “As a means of motivating people to be cruel or inhumane – as a means of inciting evil, to borrow the vocabulary of the devout – there may be no more potent force than religion.”<ref name="banner"></ref>{{Rp|xxi}} What do you think, Mario? Is this a true statement?

'''Sagredo''': Well, there have been plenty of acts of violence in the name of religion.

'''Justin''': Of course there have. You can find anecdotes to support almost any proposition. In fact, I am thinking of writing a book advancing the idea that, as a means of motivating people to acts of violence, there may be no more potent force than World Cup Soccer.

Mario laughed.

'''Sagredo''': I know of many stories that support that premise.

'''Justin''': Right. But you can’t prove a premise by citing a few anecdotes. You need careful comparative studies. So where are the sociological studies that support Krakauer’s outlandish statement? There are none. None. In fact, the only way he can get away with positing such a ridiculous idea is to ignore overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

'''Simplicio''': What evidence to the contrary? Are you claiming that religious violence never happened?

'''Justin''': Of course not. I’m just saying that religious violence is the work of amateurs. Add up all the religious violence you can think of – the crusades, the inquisition, 400 years of Catholic-Protestant wars in Ireland, Islamic terrorism. Amateurs. If you want really professional cruelty and violence, you need to find yourself a good atheist. These are the guys who know how to do get it done. The reign of terror in revolutionary France was the work of atheists. They called it “The Age of Reason.” Slobodan Milošević was an atheist. So was Pol Pot. So were Josef Stalin and Mao Tse-Tung. Adolf Hitler wasn’t waging a religious campaign against the Jews, he was waging a campaign of scientific racism. And he had hard empirical science on his side. Intelligent Nazi scientists felt that they had evidence that Jews and other races were genetically inferior to Aryans, and that the only rational, ethical way to better the world was through eugenics and systematic genocide.

'''Sagredo''': That’s true. No uncomfortable religious faith got in Hitler’s way.

'''Justin''': And so Krakauer gets it exactly wrong. In the prologue of his book, he also says,

:Faith is the very antithesis of reason, injudiciousness a crucial component of spiritual devotion. And when religious fanaticism supplants ratiocination [a little-used word meaning 'logic,' reminding us of William Safire's famous remark, "Never use a big word when a diminutive one will do."], all bets are suddenly off. Anything can happen. Absolutely anything. Common sense is no match for the voice of God – as the actions of Dan Lafferty vividly attest.<ref name="banner"></ref>{{Rp|xxiii}}

Actually, we see that the opposite is true. The actions of Adolph Hitler attest that common sense is no match for the relentless logic of a man with no religious faith to anchor him against the use of atheistic science and heartless reason for his own cruel and violent purposes.

Bob Simplicio took a deep breath.

===Mormon theology leads to murder?===

'''Simplicio''': Justin, you’re taking us off on a tangent. I don’t care if Jon Krakauer’s general statement about religion and violence is supported by careful sociological studies or not. The point is that Mormon theology contributed to a vicious murder, and Krakauer’s book provides the insight and the evidence that this is the case.

'''Justin''': Nonsense. Jon Krakauer’s book is really quite worthless on this score. It provides no insight into the reasons for the murders and it provides no insight into LDS practices or doctrines. The man is simply out of his depth. He has no training in criminology, none in psychology, none in history, none in religion. He is just not the man for the job.

'''Simplicio''': He doesn’t claim to be an expert in these things. He is not a scholar; he is an investigative journalist. He interviews the experts and then synthesizes their insights into a coherent picture that he then communicates to his readers.

'''Justin''': But there is no coherent picture. He rehashes the well-known contributing factors to the brothers’ action – Ron and Dan Lafferty’s father was abusive; their mother was submissive; both boys grew into abusive fathers and husbands themselves; Allen’s wife did not show the proper deference to her brothers-in-law, so she became a target. The defense tried to prove that the two were insane; the prosecution produced witnesses saying the opposite. But where is the coherent picture? What motivated these two men to this horrible crime? Jon Krakauer only answers this in one place. Do you remember it?

'''Simplicio''': I don’t know what you’re referring to.

'''Justin''': Jon is at the point in his book where Ron Lafferty is claiming revelations, one of which supposedly tells him to kill his sister-in-law. Krakauer points out that Lafferty had been examined by a psychiatrist who concluded that his revelations were delusions, “spawned by depression and his deeply entrenched narcissism, with no basis whatever in reality.” But Krakauer will have none of it. “Ron knows that the commandments he’d received were no mere figment of his imagination,” says Krakauer. “The Lord spoke to him.”<ref name="banner"></ref>{{Rp|162}} That is Krakauer’s explanation, the only one he ever gives. What do you think, Mario? Did God really speak to Ron Lafferty and tell him to kill his sister-in-law?

'''Simplicio''': Don’t be ridiculous. Jon Krakauer doesn’t believe in God.

'''Justin''': So what is he trying to say? Look, there are only three possibilities here. Either Lafferty is insane and his revelations are all delusions, or he is sane and knows that he did not really receive revelations, which means he is lying, or he actually received the word of God telling him to murder his sister-in-law.

'''Simplicio''': Jon’s point is that thinking that you can speak with God is a kind of insanity.

===Belief in revelation equals insanity===

'''Justin''': Aha! Now you have it. That is Krakauer’s agenda. He is an admitted atheist and that is the thing he wants to prove. That was his preconceived notion, and – surprise! – that is his conclusion. But it’s nonsense. There is not a Mormon bishop in the church who hasn’t received revelation to guide him in his calling, and Mormon bishops are among the sanest people I know. They do not kill people. But the Lafferty brothers did, and Jon Krakauer simply has no clue as to why.

'''Sagredo''': So that’s why you think the book is useless.

'''Justin''': Yes. That and the fact that he also spends half of his book writing about the history of the LDS church.

'''Sagredo''': What is wrong with that?

'''Justin''': He just doesn’t know very much about it. His only sources seem to be slanted anti-Mormon books – books that he clearly chooses because they support his prejudices. And so he makes one error after another, silly errors that any active member of the church can spot in a minute.

'''Simplicio''': Like what?

===Basic errors of fact and history===

'''Justin''': Like in his chapter about the Hill Cumorah, where he says that “the Hill Cumorah is one of the holiest sites in all of Mormondom, and sooner or later most Latter-day Saints make a pilgrimage there.”<ref name="banner"></ref>{{Rp|63}} He simply has no idea that Mormons do not speak of “holy sites” in that way, that there are no Mormon “pilgrimages,” and that it is simply not true that most Mormons will ever visit the Hill Cumorah. It is not one of our religious duties. It’s just that this is the kind of silly devout behavior he expects of Mormons, so, for him, that makes it a fact. He refers to the Apostle Mark E. Peterson as the President of the Church.<ref name="banner"></ref>{{Rp|75}} Any Mormon could have fixed that mistake for him, but he obviously sought no Mormon fact-checking help for his book. He speaks of the Book of Mormon’s Laban as a “filthy-rich sheep magnate”<ref name="banner"></ref>{{Rp|165}} because he has not read the Book of Mormon closely enough to notice that the Laban in the Book of Mormon is not the same as the Laban in the Old Testament. After all, why should he waste time actually reading the book when he already knows what his opinion of it is going to be?

'''Simplicio''': But he corrected those errors in the second edition.

'''Justin''': Some of them. He still hung onto his Cumorah error. But I especially enjoy what he said in his appendix in the second edition. After the first edition came out, Richard Turley, a Mormon historian, pointed out several of these errors. So, in the second edition, Krakauer concedes five of these mistakes and then proceeds to debate the rest. I love how he justifies his position. Speaking of Turley’s review of his book, Krakauer says, “Some of the ‘errors’ he [Turley] alleges are no more that honest differences of opinion.”<ref name="banner"></ref>{{Rp|357}}

'''Simplicio''': So?

'''Justin''': So do you know what they call it when an author knows that there are other “honest” points of view, but he only presents one of them? They don’t call it scholarship. They don’t even call it investigative journalism. They call it propaganda. That is what Jon Krakauer has written. There is no balance in the book, no acknowledgement of any view but his own. In referring to one historical incident, he states, “I find the version of the tragedy offered by John D. Lee, Juanita Brooks, and Will Bagley ... to be much more credible than the versions offered by Turley and other spokesmen for the LDS Church.” That’s it! No explanation of what the other versions say or why he dislikes them, no reasons given that would allow a reader to judge anything for himself. Jon thinks that it is enough for us to know that he - our intellectually-detached, rational judge of all things historical - doesn’t find them “credible.” Well, of course we know what he finds wrong with the other versions – they don’t agree with his agenda. And if he were to allow himself to discuss any of these other views, he might have to give the LDS Church one tiny break in his otherwise unremitting, condescending ridicule of a faith he doesn’t understand.

'''Simpicio''': That’s a little harsh.

'''Justin''' : Is it? Do you remember what he said about the Cumorah Pageant he attended?

:The pageant has the energy of a Phish concert, but without the drunkenness, outlandish hairdos (Brother Richards’ comb-over notwithstanding), or clouds of marijuana smoke.... Order, needless to say, prevails. This is a culture that considers obedience to be among the highest virtues.<ref name="banner"></ref>{{Rp|67}}

Besides the mean-spirited ridicule of Brother Richards’ appearance, what about the rest? I’ve been to concerts at the Kennedy Center in Washington, D.C., where order, needless to say, prevailed. But I always chalked that up to the decency and good manners of the concert-goers. Of course, that can’t be the explanation for the behavior of the Mormons at the Cumorah Pageant. After all, Mormons only behave in an orderly way because they are mindless, obsequious little automatons.

'''Sagredo''': You seem to have strong feelings about this book.

Justin smiled.

===Krakauer's Abuse of Elizabeth Smart===

'''Justin''': I must admit that the book makes me a little angry. But we haven’t yet gotten to the part that offends me most of all. That is Krakauer’s treatment of Elizabeth Smart.

'''Simplicio''': Yes. That was a bit over the top.

'''Sagredo''': What is this?

'''Justin''': In 2002, while Jon Krakauer was still writing his book, a pretty, innocent fourteen-year-old girl named Elizabeth Smart was abducted from her home in Salt Lake City by an itinerant street preacher, Brian Mitchell, and his wife, Wanda Barzee. Mitchell cut through the window screen of Elizabeth’s home at night, while the family was asleep. He woke Elizabeth up with a knife at her throat and told her that he would kill her and her family if she did not go with him. She was taken to a campsite in the woods nearby, held captive by chaining her to a tree, and raped repeatedly at knifepoint over a period of nine months.

'''Sagredo''': How horrible. But why did that matter to Krakauer? Was Mitchell a Mormon?

'''Justin''': Both Mitchell and his wife had been raised in the church and excommunicated for apostasy in the mid 1990s. Mitchell claimed that God had told him to take Elizabeth as his polygamous wife.

'''Sagredo''': Ah. I see the connection.

'''Justin''': Yes. But the point here is not what Jon has to say about Mitchell and Barzee; it’s what he has to say about Elizabeth Smart.

'''Sagredo''': What about Elizabeth?

'''Justin''': You see, toward the end of her captivity, she was occasionally left alone, but she did not try to escape. When she was finally recognized on the street, she did not admit who she was, until pressed. And, after the kidnappers were arrested, Elizabeth expressed some concern for their welfare.

'''Sagredo''': But this is typical behavior for someone who is abducted, threatened, and then shown a little kindness. It’s called the Stockholm syndrome.

'''Justin''': Yes. And Krakauer knows it. He mentions the syndrome in connection with another case in his book,<ref>On p. 21, it is used to explain the attitude of a polygamous wife in Colorado City.</ref> but there is no mention of it in reference to Elizabeth Smart. Instead, Jon prefers the time-honored tradition of blaming the victim, and, in this case, the victim’s family. Elizabeth’s problem, according to Jon Krakauer, is that she was “raised to obey figures of Mormon authority unquestioningly, and to believe that LDS doctrine is the law of God.”<ref name="banner"></ref>{{Rp|45}} Of course, he has no idea what they actually taught her; but he is quite sure that all Mormons are taught blind obedience, so that must have been it. He also suggests that “the white robes Mitchell and Barzee wore, and forced Elizabeth to wear, resembled the sacred robes she had donned with her family when they entered the Mormon temple.” Now you can’t really blame Krakauer for a stupid mistake like this, because he is not a Mormon and should not be expected to know that Elizabeth, having been born ‘under the covenant,’ would not need to be sealed to her parents in the temple, and so she would probably never have even seen the robes that her parents wore when they attended the temple. Of course, he could have done a little research here by actually talking to a faithful Mormon, but Jon doesn’t like to use faithful Mormons as sources.

'''Sagredo''': But why wouldn’t he bring up the Stockholm syndrome? Can’t he see that Elizabeth’s case is a classic example?

'''Justin''': Because he has an axe to grind. He doesn’t consult psychologists or other experts on abductions to ask them to comment on Elizabeth’s case. Instead, he goes searching for someone to tell him what he wants to hear. He finds Debbie Palmer, a refugee from a non-LDS polygamous offshoot from the church, who is now an anti-polygamy crusader. It is Debbie’s opinion that “Mitchell would never have been able to have such power over a non-Mormon girl.” Debbie is not a psychologist and was never a Mormon, but she was once a member of a polygamous sect. That’s good enough for Jon. Actually a member of a polygamous sect – what more expertise could you want?

'''Sagredo''': I guess neither of them ever heard of Patricia Hearst. As I remember, she was brainwashed by her captors and ended up strongly sympathetic to them. But no one ever blamed her parents for it.

'''Justin''': No. But Jon Krakauer blames Ed and Lois Smart for Elizabeth’s problems. It’s their fault for teaching Elizabeth to follow her LDS faith. It’s Lois’ fault that Mitchell came to work at their house and meet Elizabeth in the first place, because Lois has “a soft spot for the destitute.” There’s that condescending, ridiculing sense of humor again. Jon has no sympathy for their nine months of anguish, not knowing if their daughter was dead or alive, picturing what may have happened or might still be happening, knowing that whatever it was had to have been a horror for their little girl. And he has no sympathy for Elizabeth Smart. I read his chapter in vain, looking for any vestige of understanding of what Elizabeth and her family suffered. There was nothing. Nothing! I’m sorry, Bob; Jon Krakauer is just a mean man.

'''Simplicio''': So you think Elizabeth Smart’s Mormon upbringing was not a factor in her failing to escape when she could?

'''Justin''': Absolutely not. When non-Mormons are abducted, their responses are commonly identical to Elizabeth’s. But I’ll tell you what effect her religion did have on her. It helped her to recover. She forgave her abductors and got on with her life. And her parents were amazing. They asked her no questions about her ordeal. When she finally testified in court, six years later, most of the details they heard were details they were hearing for the first time. In 2007, she co-wrote a Department of Justice pamphlet for victims of abduction in which she said, “I made a conscious decision that my abductors had already taken away 9 months of my life, and I certainly was not going to give them any more than that.”<ref name="smart">''You’re Not Alone: The Journey from Abduction to Empowerment'', U.S. Department of Justice</ref>{{Rp|29}} That’s the kind of strength and independence that the gospel of Jesus Christ truly fosters in LDS women. She also describes how she once took several members of her family back into the woods to where she had been held, and told them, “This is where I was held hostage, and now I'm showing you. They can't have this anymore.”<ref name="smart"></ref>{{Rp|31}} In 2009, she left to serve an LDS mission in France. She has since returned and was recently married.

'''Simplicio''': There is no question, Justin. Elizabeth Smart is a remarkable woman.

'''Justin''': Actually, the LDS Church is filled with remarkable women.

=== ===
{{Endnotes label}}
<references />

Response to Under the Banner of Heaven: A Story of Violent Faith/The Justin Wise Dialogues

2014-06-18T21:05:47Z

RonHellings1: /* Krakauer's Abuse of Elizabeth Smart */

__NOTOC__
The following dialogue is from ''The Justin Wise Dialogues'', an unpublished manuscript by Ron Hellings. The imaginary dialogues in the chapter from which this segment is taken involve three men:
* Justin Wise, a Mormon
* Bob Simplicio, an ex-Mormon who left the church for intellectual reasons but just can't leave it alone
* Mario Sagredo, an Italian investigator

The subject of the discussion in this excerpt is Jon Krakauer's 2003 book, "Under the Banner of Heaven". <ref name="banner">{{CriticalWork:Krakauer:Under the Banner of Heaven}}</ref>

==Dialogue==

'''Simplicio''': You may have a nice logical ethical philosophy in theory, but in practice it is a complete failure. In practice, Mormon doctrine does not lead to moral behavior.

'''Justin''': What are you talking about?

'''Simplicio''': I am referring to the main point of the recent best-seller, “Under the Banner of Heaven”.<ref name="banner"></ref> This is a book in which the author, Jon Krakauer, makes it very clear that religion in general, and the Mormon faith in particular, are powerful forces in motivating people to violent behavior.

'''Justin''': Come on, Bob. I thought you were smarter than that. Did you read the book?

'''Simplicio''': Yes. And it seems to me that…

===Brief summary of the volume===

'''Sagredo''' (interrupting): What is this book about?

'''Simplicio''': I’m sorry. Let me explain. In 2003, Jon Krakauer, an investigative reporter, wrote a book about a sensational murder in Utah in 1984, when two Mormon brothers...

'''Justin''' (interrupting): Bob...

'''Simplicio''': All right. Two excommunicated Mormon brothers, Ron and Dan Lafferty, murdered their younger brother Allen’s wife and baby daughter.

'''Sagredo''': Why?

===God commanded murder?===

'''Simplicio''': That’s just the point. Ron and Dan Lafferty said that God had told them to do it. And that is the premise of Krakauer’s whole book – that it was their Mormon upbringing that allowed them, pushed them, to this horrendous deed.

'''Sagredo''': Are Mormons particularly violent?

'''Justin''': Of course not. Krakauer just says this because he wants it to be the explanation. He has no facts to back it up. No studies of violence among Mormons as opposed to other religions. Nothing. In fact, it isn’t just Mormons he picks on. The premise of his book is that all religion leads to violence. He begins his book with a prologue in which he says, “As a means of motivating people to be cruel or inhumane – as a means of inciting evil, to borrow the vocabulary of the devout – there may be no more potent force than religion.”<ref name="banner"></ref>{{Rp|xxi}} What do you think, Mario? Is this a true statement?

'''Sagredo''': Well, there have been plenty of acts of violence in the name of religion.

'''Justin''': Of course there have. You can find anecdotes to support almost any proposition. In fact, I am thinking of writing a book advancing the idea that, as a means of motivating people to acts of violence, there may be no more potent force than World Cup Soccer.

Mario laughed.

'''Sagredo''': I know of many stories that support that premise.

'''Justin''': Right. But you can’t prove a premise by citing a few anecdotes. You need careful comparative studies. So where are the sociological studies that support Krakauer’s outlandish statement? There are none. None. In fact, the only way he can get away with positing such a ridiculous idea is to ignore overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

'''Simplicio''': What evidence to the contrary? Are you claiming that religious violence never happened?

'''Justin''': Of course not. I’m just saying that religious violence is the work of amateurs. Add up all the religious violence you can think of – the crusades, the inquisition, 400 years of Catholic-Protestant wars in Ireland, Islamic terrorism. Amateurs. If you want really professional cruelty and violence, you need to find yourself a good atheist. These are the guys who know how to do get it done. The reign of terror in revolutionary France was the work of atheists. They called it “The Age of Reason.” Slobodan Milošević was an atheist. So was Pol Pot. So were Josef Stalin and Mao Tse-Tung. Adolf Hitler wasn’t waging a religious campaign against the Jews, he was waging a campaign of scientific racism. And he had hard empirical science on his side. Intelligent Nazi scientists felt that they had evidence that Jews and other races were genetically inferior to Aryans, and that the only rational, ethical way to better the world was through eugenics and systematic genocide.

'''Sagredo''': That’s true. No uncomfortable religious faith got in Hitler’s way.

'''Justin''': And so Krakauer gets it exactly wrong. In the prologue of his book, he also says,

:Faith is the very antithesis of reason, injudiciousness a crucial component of spiritual devotion. And when religious fanaticism supplants ratiocination [a little-used word meaning 'logic,' reminding us of William Safire's famous remark, "Never use a big word when a diminutive one will do."], all bets are suddenly off. Anything can happen. Absolutely anything. Common sense is no match for the voice of God – as the actions of Dan Lafferty vividly attest.<ref name="banner"></ref>{{Rp|xxiii}}

Actually, we see that the opposite is true. The actions of Adolph Hitler attest that common sense is no match for the relentless logic of a man with no religious faith to anchor him against the use of atheistic science and heartless reason for his own cruel and violent purposes.

Bob Simplicio took a deep breath.

===Mormon theology leads to murder?===

'''Simplicio''': Justin, you’re taking us off on a tangent. I don’t care if Jon Krakauer’s general statement about religion and violence is supported by careful sociological studies or not. The point is that Mormon theology contributed to a vicious murder, and Krakauer’s book provides the insight and the evidence that this is the case.

'''Justin''': Nonsense. Jon Krakauer’s book is really quite worthless on this score. It provides no insight into the reasons for the murders and it provides no insight into LDS practices or doctrines. The man is simply out of his depth. He has no training in criminology, none in psychology, none in history, none in religion. He is just not the man for the job.

'''Simplicio''': He doesn’t claim to be an expert in these things. He is not a scholar; he is an investigative journalist. He interviews the experts and then synthesizes their insights into a coherent picture that he then communicates to his readers.

'''Justin''': But there is no coherent picture. He rehashes the well-known contributing factors to the brothers’ action – Ron and Dan Lafferty’s father was abusive; their mother was submissive; both boys grew into abusive fathers and husbands themselves; Allen’s wife did not show the proper deference to her brothers-in-law, so she became a target. The defense tried to prove that the two were insane; the prosecution produced witnesses saying the opposite. But where is the coherent picture? What motivated these two men to this horrible crime? Jon Krakauer only answers this in one place. Do you remember it?

'''Simplicio''': I don’t know what you’re referring to.

'''Justin''': Jon is at the point in his book where Ron Lafferty is claiming revelations, one of which supposedly tells him to kill his sister-in-law. Krakauer points out that Lafferty had been examined by a psychiatrist who concluded that his revelations were delusions, “spawned by depression and his deeply entrenched narcissism, with no basis whatever in reality.” But Krakauer will have none of it. “Ron knows that the commandments he’d received were no mere figment of his imagination,” says Krakauer. “The Lord spoke to him.”<ref name="banner"></ref>{{Rp|162}} That is Krakauer’s explanation, the only one he ever gives. What do you think, Mario? Did God really speak to Ron Lafferty and tell him to kill his sister-in-law?

'''Simplicio''': Don’t be ridiculous. Jon Krakauer doesn’t believe in God.

'''Justin''': So what is he trying to say? Look, there are only three possibilities here. Either Lafferty is insane and his revelations are all delusions, or he is sane and knows that he did not really receive revelations, which means he is lying, or he actually received the word of God telling him to murder his sister-in-law.

'''Simplicio''': Jon’s point is that thinking that you can speak with God is a kind of insanity.

===Belief in revelation equals insanity===

'''Justin''': Aha! Now you have it. That is Krakauer’s agenda. He is an admitted atheist and that is the thing he wants to prove. That was his preconceived notion, and – surprise! – that is his conclusion. But it’s nonsense. There is not a Mormon bishop in the church who hasn’t received revelation to guide him in his calling, and Mormon bishops are among the sanest people I know. They do not kill people. But the Lafferty brothers did, and Jon Krakauer simply has no clue as to why.

'''Sagredo''': So that’s why you think the book is useless.

'''Justin''': Yes. That and the fact that he also spends half of his book writing about the history of the LDS church.

'''Sagredo''': What is wrong with that?

'''Justin''': He just doesn’t know very much about it. His only sources seem to be slanted anti-Mormon books – books that he clearly chooses because they support his prejudices. And so he makes one error after another, silly errors that any active member of the church can spot in a minute.

'''Simplicio''': Like what?

===Basic errors of fact and history===

'''Justin''': Like in his chapter about the Hill Cumorah, where he says that “the Hill Cumorah is one of the holiest sites in all of Mormondom, and sooner or later most Latter-day Saints make a pilgrimage there.”<ref name="banner"></ref>{{Rp|63}} He simply has no idea that Mormons do not speak of “holy sites” in that way, that there are no Mormon “pilgrimages,” and that it is simply not true that most Mormons will ever visit the Hill Cumorah. It is not one of our religious duties. It’s just that this is the kind of silly devout behavior he expects of Mormons, so, for him, that makes it a fact. He refers to the Apostle Mark E. Peterson as the President of the Church.<ref name="banner"></ref>{{Rp|75}} Any Mormon could have fixed that mistake for him, but he obviously sought no Mormon fact-checking help for his book. He speaks of the Book of Mormon’s Laban as a “filthy-rich sheep magnate”<ref name="banner"></ref>{{Rp|165}} because he has not read the Book of Mormon closely enough to notice that the Laban in the Book of Mormon is not the same as the Laban in the Old Testament. After all, why should he waste time actually reading the book when he already knows what his opinion of it is going to be?

'''Simplicio''': But he corrected those errors in the second edition.

'''Justin''': Some of them. He still hung onto his Cumorah error. But I especially enjoy what he said in his appendix in the second edition. After the first edition came out, Richard Turley, a Mormon historian, pointed out several of these errors. So, in the second edition, Krakauer concedes five of these mistakes and then proceeds to debate the rest. I love how he justifies his position. Speaking of Turley’s review of his book, Krakauer says, “Some of the ‘errors’ he [Turley] alleges are no more that honest differences of opinion.”<ref name="banner"></ref>{{Rp|357}}

'''Simplicio''': So?

'''Justin''': So do you know what they call it when an author knows that there are other “honest” points of view, but he only presents one of them? They don’t call it scholarship. They don’t even call it investigative journalism. They call it propaganda. That is what Jon Krakauer has written. There is no balance in the book, no acknowledgement of any view but his own. In referring to one historical incident, he states, “I find the version of the tragedy offered by John D. Lee, Juanita Brooks, and Will Bagley ... to be much more credible than the versions offered by Turley and other spokesmen for the LDS Church.” That’s it! No explanation of what the other versions say or why he dislikes them, no reasons given that would allow a reader to judge anything for himself. Jon thinks that it is enough for us to know that he - our intellectually-detached, rational judge of all things historical - doesn’t find them “credible.” Well, of course we know what he finds wrong with the other versions – they don’t agree with his agenda. And if he were to allow himself to discuss any of these other views, he might have to give the LDS Church one tiny break in his otherwise unremitting, condescending ridicule of a faith he doesn’t understand.

'''Simpicio''': That’s a little harsh.

'''Justin''' : Is it? Do you remember what he said about the Cumorah Pageant he attended?

:The pageant has the energy of a Phish concert, but without the drunkenness, outlandish hairdos (Brother Richards’ comb-over notwithstanding), or clouds of marijuana smoke.... Order, needless to say, prevails. This is a culture that considers obedience to be among the highest virtues.<ref name="banner"></ref>{{Rp|67}}

Besides the mean-spirited ridicule of Brother Richards’ appearance, what about the rest? I’ve been to concerts at the Kennedy Center in Washington, D.C., where order, needless to say, prevailed. But I always chalked that up to the decency and good manners of the concert-goers. Of course, that can’t be the explanation for the behavior of the Mormons at the Cumorah Pageant. After all, Mormons only behave in an orderly way because they are mindless, obsequious little automatons.

'''Sagredo''': You seem to have strong feelings about this book.

Justin smiled.

===Krakauer's Abuse of Elizabeth Smart===

'''Justin''': I must admit that the book makes me a little angry. But we haven’t yet gotten to the part that offends me most of all. That is Krakauer’s treatment of Elizabeth Smart.

'''Simplicio''': Yes. That was a bit over the top.

'''Sagredo''': What is this?

'''Justin''': In 2002, while Jon Krakauer was still writing his book, a pretty, innocent fourteen-year-old girl named Elizabeth Smart was abducted from her home in Salt Lake City by an itinerant street preacher, Brian Mitchell, and his wife, Wanda Barzee. Mitchell cut through the window screen of Elizabeth’s home at night, while the family was asleep. He woke Elizabeth up with a knife at her throat and told her that he would kill her and her family if she did not go with him. She was taken to a campsite in the woods nearby, held captive by chaining her to a tree, and raped repeatedly at knifepoint over a period of nine months.

'''Sagredo''': How horrible. But why did that matter to Krakauer? Was Mitchell a Mormon?

'''Justin''': Both Mitchell and his wife had been raised in the church and excommunicated for apostasy in the mid 1990s. Mitchell claimed that God had told him to take Elizabeth as his polygamous wife.

'''Sagredo''': Ah. I see the connection.

'''Justin''': Yes. But the point here is not what Jon has to say about Mitchell and Barzee; it’s what he has to say about Elizabeth Smart.

'''Sagredo''': What about Elizabeth?

'''Justin''': You see, toward the end of her captivity, she was occasionally left alone, but she did not try to escape. When she was finally recognized on the street, she did not admit who she was, until pressed. And, after the kidnappers were arrested, Elizabeth expressed some concern for their welfare.

'''Sagredo''': But this is typical behavior for someone who is abducted, threatened, and then shown a little kindness. It’s called the Stockholm syndrome.

'''Justin''': Yes. And Krakauer knows it. He mentions the syndrome in connection with another case in his book,<ref>On p. 21, it is used to explain the attitude of a polygamous wife in Colorado City.</ref> but there is no mention of it in reference to Elizabeth Smart. Instead, Jon prefers the time-honored tradition of blaming the victim, and, in this case, the victim’s family. Elizabeth’s problem, according to Jon Krakauer, is that she was “raised to obey figures of Mormon authority unquestioningly, and to believe that LDS doctrine is the law of God.”<ref name="banner"></ref>{{Rp|45}} Of course, he has no idea what they actually taught her; but he is quite sure that all Mormons are taught blind obedience, so that must have been it. He also suggests that “the white robes Mitchell and Barzee wore, and forced Elizabeth to wear, resembled the sacred robes she had donned with her family when they entered the Mormon temple.” Now you can’t really blame Krakauer for a stupid mistake like this, because he is not a Mormon and should not be expected to know that Elizabeth, having been born ‘under the covenant,’ would not need to be sealed to her parents in the temple, and so she would probably never have even seen the robes that her parents wore when they attended the temple. Of course, he could have done a little research here by actually talking to a faithful Mormon, but Jon doesn’t like to use faithful Mormons as sources.

'''Sagredo''': But why wouldn’t he bring up the Stockholm syndrome? Can’t he see that Elizabeth’s case is a classic example?

'''Justin''': Because he has an axe to grind. He doesn’t consult psychologists or other experts on abductions to ask them to comment on Elizabeth’s case. Instead, he goes searching for someone to tell him what he wants to hear. He finds Debbie Palmer, a refugee from a non-LDS polygamous offshoot from the church, who is now an anti-polygamy crusader. It is Debbie’s opinion that “Mitchell would never have been able to have such power over a non-Mormon girl.” Debbie is not a psychologist and was never a Mormon, but she was once a member of a polygamous sect. That’s good enough for Jon. Actually a member of a polygamous sect – what more expertise could you want?

'''Sagredo''': I guess neither of them ever heard of Patricia Hearst. As I remember, she was brainwashed by her captors and ended up strongly sympathetic to them. But no one ever blamed her parents for it.

'''Justin''': No. But Jon Krakauer blames Ed and Lois Smart for Elizabeth’s problems. It’s their fault for teaching Elizabeth to follow her LDS faith. It’s Lois’ fault that Mitchell came to work at their house and meet Elizabeth in the first place, because Lois has “a soft spot for the destitute.” There’s that condescending, ridiculing sense of humor again. Jon has no sympathy for their nine months of anguish, not knowing if their daughter was dead or alive, picturing what may have happened or might still be happening, knowing that whatever it was had to have been a horror for their little girl. And he has no sympathy for Elizabeth Smart. I read his chapter in vain, looking for any vestige of understanding of what Elizabeth and her family suffered. There was nothing. Nothing! I’m sorry, Bob; Jon Krakauer is just a mean man.

'''Simplicio''': So you think Elizabeth Smart’s Mormon upbringing was not a factor in her failing to escape when she could?

'''Justin''': Absolutely not. When non-Mormons are abducted, their responses are commonly identical to Elizabeth’s. But I’ll tell you what effect her religion did have on her. It helped her to recover. She forgave her abductors and got on with her life. And her parents were amazing. They asked her no questions about her ordeal. When she finally testified in court, six years later, most of the details they heard were details they were hearing for the first time. In 2007, she co-wrote a Department of Justice pamphlet for victims of abduction in which she said, “I made a conscious decision that my abductors had already taken away 9 months of my life, and I certainly was not going to give them any more than that.”<ref name="smart">''You’re Not Alone: The Journey from Abduction to Empowerment'', U.S. Department of Justice</ref>{{Rp|29}} That’s the kind of strength and independence that the gospel of Jesus Christ truly fosters in LDS women. She also describes how she once took several members of her family back into the woods to where she had been held, and told them, “This is where I was held hostage, and now I'm showing you. They can't have this anymore.”<ref name="smart"></ref>{{Rp|31}} In 2009, she left to serve an LDS mission in France. She has since returned and was recently married.

'''Simplicio''': There is no question, Justin. Elizabeth Smart is a remarkable woman.

'''Justin''': Actually, the LDS Church is filled with remarkable women.

=== ===
{{Endnotes label}}
<references />

Response to Under the Banner of Heaven: A Story of Violent Faith/The Justin Wise Dialogues

2014-06-18T21:00:35Z

RonHellings1: /* Basic errors of fact and history */

__NOTOC__
The following dialogue is from ''The Justin Wise Dialogues'', an unpublished manuscript by Ron Hellings. The imaginary dialogues in the chapter from which this segment is taken involve three men:
* Justin Wise, a Mormon
* Bob Simplicio, an ex-Mormon who left the church for intellectual reasons but just can't leave it alone
* Mario Sagredo, an Italian investigator

The subject of the discussion in this excerpt is Jon Krakauer's 2003 book, "Under the Banner of Heaven". <ref name="banner">{{CriticalWork:Krakauer:Under the Banner of Heaven}}</ref>

==Dialogue==

'''Simplicio''': You may have a nice logical ethical philosophy in theory, but in practice it is a complete failure. In practice, Mormon doctrine does not lead to moral behavior.

'''Justin''': What are you talking about?

'''Simplicio''': I am referring to the main point of the recent best-seller, “Under the Banner of Heaven”.<ref name="banner"></ref> This is a book in which the author, Jon Krakauer, makes it very clear that religion in general, and the Mormon faith in particular, are powerful forces in motivating people to violent behavior.

'''Justin''': Come on, Bob. I thought you were smarter than that. Did you read the book?

'''Simplicio''': Yes. And it seems to me that…

===Brief summary of the volume===

'''Sagredo''' (interrupting): What is this book about?

'''Simplicio''': I’m sorry. Let me explain. In 2003, Jon Krakauer, an investigative reporter, wrote a book about a sensational murder in Utah in 1984, when two Mormon brothers...

'''Justin''' (interrupting): Bob...

'''Simplicio''': All right. Two excommunicated Mormon brothers, Ron and Dan Lafferty, murdered their younger brother Allen’s wife and baby daughter.

'''Sagredo''': Why?

===God commanded murder?===

'''Simplicio''': That’s just the point. Ron and Dan Lafferty said that God had told them to do it. And that is the premise of Krakauer’s whole book – that it was their Mormon upbringing that allowed them, pushed them, to this horrendous deed.

'''Sagredo''': Are Mormons particularly violent?

'''Justin''': Of course not. Krakauer just says this because he wants it to be the explanation. He has no facts to back it up. No studies of violence among Mormons as opposed to other religions. Nothing. In fact, it isn’t just Mormons he picks on. The premise of his book is that all religion leads to violence. He begins his book with a prologue in which he says, “As a means of motivating people to be cruel or inhumane – as a means of inciting evil, to borrow the vocabulary of the devout – there may be no more potent force than religion.”<ref name="banner"></ref>{{Rp|xxi}} What do you think, Mario? Is this a true statement?

'''Sagredo''': Well, there have been plenty of acts of violence in the name of religion.

'''Justin''': Of course there have. You can find anecdotes to support almost any proposition. In fact, I am thinking of writing a book advancing the idea that, as a means of motivating people to acts of violence, there may be no more potent force than World Cup Soccer.

Mario laughed.

'''Sagredo''': I know of many stories that support that premise.

'''Justin''': Right. But you can’t prove a premise by citing a few anecdotes. You need careful comparative studies. So where are the sociological studies that support Krakauer’s outlandish statement? There are none. None. In fact, the only way he can get away with positing such a ridiculous idea is to ignore overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

'''Simplicio''': What evidence to the contrary? Are you claiming that religious violence never happened?

'''Justin''': Of course not. I’m just saying that religious violence is the work of amateurs. Add up all the religious violence you can think of – the crusades, the inquisition, 400 years of Catholic-Protestant wars in Ireland, Islamic terrorism. Amateurs. If you want really professional cruelty and violence, you need to find yourself a good atheist. These are the guys who know how to do get it done. The reign of terror in revolutionary France was the work of atheists. They called it “The Age of Reason.” Slobodan Milošević was an atheist. So was Pol Pot. So were Josef Stalin and Mao Tse-Tung. Adolf Hitler wasn’t waging a religious campaign against the Jews, he was waging a campaign of scientific racism. And he had hard empirical science on his side. Intelligent Nazi scientists felt that they had evidence that Jews and other races were genetically inferior to Aryans, and that the only rational, ethical way to better the world was through eugenics and systematic genocide.

'''Sagredo''': That’s true. No uncomfortable religious faith got in Hitler’s way.

'''Justin''': And so Krakauer gets it exactly wrong. In the prologue of his book, he also says,

:Faith is the very antithesis of reason, injudiciousness a crucial component of spiritual devotion. And when religious fanaticism supplants ratiocination [a little-used word meaning 'logic,' reminding us of William Safire's famous remark, "Never use a big word when a diminutive one will do."], all bets are suddenly off. Anything can happen. Absolutely anything. Common sense is no match for the voice of God – as the actions of Dan Lafferty vividly attest.<ref name="banner"></ref>{{Rp|xxiii}}

Actually, we see that the opposite is true. The actions of Adolph Hitler attest that common sense is no match for the relentless logic of a man with no religious faith to anchor him against the use of atheistic science and heartless reason for his own cruel and violent purposes.

Bob Simplicio took a deep breath.

===Mormon theology leads to murder?===

'''Simplicio''': Justin, you’re taking us off on a tangent. I don’t care if Jon Krakauer’s general statement about religion and violence is supported by careful sociological studies or not. The point is that Mormon theology contributed to a vicious murder, and Krakauer’s book provides the insight and the evidence that this is the case.

'''Justin''': Nonsense. Jon Krakauer’s book is really quite worthless on this score. It provides no insight into the reasons for the murders and it provides no insight into LDS practices or doctrines. The man is simply out of his depth. He has no training in criminology, none in psychology, none in history, none in religion. He is just not the man for the job.

'''Simplicio''': He doesn’t claim to be an expert in these things. He is not a scholar; he is an investigative journalist. He interviews the experts and then synthesizes their insights into a coherent picture that he then communicates to his readers.

'''Justin''': But there is no coherent picture. He rehashes the well-known contributing factors to the brothers’ action – Ron and Dan Lafferty’s father was abusive; their mother was submissive; both boys grew into abusive fathers and husbands themselves; Allen’s wife did not show the proper deference to her brothers-in-law, so she became a target. The defense tried to prove that the two were insane; the prosecution produced witnesses saying the opposite. But where is the coherent picture? What motivated these two men to this horrible crime? Jon Krakauer only answers this in one place. Do you remember it?

'''Simplicio''': I don’t know what you’re referring to.

'''Justin''': Jon is at the point in his book where Ron Lafferty is claiming revelations, one of which supposedly tells him to kill his sister-in-law. Krakauer points out that Lafferty had been examined by a psychiatrist who concluded that his revelations were delusions, “spawned by depression and his deeply entrenched narcissism, with no basis whatever in reality.” But Krakauer will have none of it. “Ron knows that the commandments he’d received were no mere figment of his imagination,” says Krakauer. “The Lord spoke to him.”<ref name="banner"></ref>{{Rp|162}} That is Krakauer’s explanation, the only one he ever gives. What do you think, Mario? Did God really speak to Ron Lafferty and tell him to kill his sister-in-law?

'''Simplicio''': Don’t be ridiculous. Jon Krakauer doesn’t believe in God.

'''Justin''': So what is he trying to say? Look, there are only three possibilities here. Either Lafferty is insane and his revelations are all delusions, or he is sane and knows that he did not really receive revelations, which means he is lying, or he actually received the word of God telling him to murder his sister-in-law.

'''Simplicio''': Jon’s point is that thinking that you can speak with God is a kind of insanity.

===Belief in revelation equals insanity===

'''Justin''': Aha! Now you have it. That is Krakauer’s agenda. He is an admitted atheist and that is the thing he wants to prove. That was his preconceived notion, and – surprise! – that is his conclusion. But it’s nonsense. There is not a Mormon bishop in the church who hasn’t received revelation to guide him in his calling, and Mormon bishops are among the sanest people I know. They do not kill people. But the Lafferty brothers did, and Jon Krakauer simply has no clue as to why.

'''Sagredo''': So that’s why you think the book is useless.

'''Justin''': Yes. That and the fact that he also spends half of his book writing about the history of the LDS church.

'''Sagredo''': What is wrong with that?

'''Justin''': He just doesn’t know very much about it. His only sources seem to be slanted anti-Mormon books – books that he clearly chooses because they support his prejudices. And so he makes one error after another, silly errors that any active member of the church can spot in a minute.

'''Simplicio''': Like what?

===Basic errors of fact and history===

'''Justin''': Like in his chapter about the Hill Cumorah, where he says that “the Hill Cumorah is one of the holiest sites in all of Mormondom, and sooner or later most Latter-day Saints make a pilgrimage there.”<ref name="banner"></ref>{{Rp|63}} He simply has no idea that Mormons do not speak of “holy sites” in that way, that there are no Mormon “pilgrimages,” and that it is simply not true that most Mormons will ever visit the Hill Cumorah. It is not one of our religious duties. It’s just that this is the kind of silly devout behavior he expects of Mormons, so, for him, that makes it a fact. He refers to the Apostle Mark E. Peterson as the President of the Church.<ref name="banner"></ref>{{Rp|75}} Any Mormon could have fixed that mistake for him, but he obviously sought no Mormon fact-checking help for his book. He speaks of the Book of Mormon’s Laban as a “filthy-rich sheep magnate”<ref name="banner"></ref>{{Rp|165}} because he has not read the Book of Mormon closely enough to notice that the Laban in the Book of Mormon is not the same as the Laban in the Old Testament. After all, why should he waste time actually reading the book when he already knows what his opinion of it is going to be?

'''Simplicio''': But he corrected those errors in the second edition.

'''Justin''': Some of them. He still hung onto his Cumorah error. But I especially enjoy what he said in his appendix in the second edition. After the first edition came out, Richard Turley, a Mormon historian, pointed out several of these errors. So, in the second edition, Krakauer concedes five of these mistakes and then proceeds to debate the rest. I love how he justifies his position. Speaking of Turley’s review of his book, Krakauer says, “Some of the ‘errors’ he [Turley] alleges are no more that honest differences of opinion.”<ref name="banner"></ref>{{Rp|357}}

'''Simplicio''': So?

'''Justin''': So do you know what they call it when an author knows that there are other “honest” points of view, but he only presents one of them? They don’t call it scholarship. They don’t even call it investigative journalism. They call it propaganda. That is what Jon Krakauer has written. There is no balance in the book, no acknowledgement of any view but his own. In referring to one historical incident, he states, “I find the version of the tragedy offered by John D. Lee, Juanita Brooks, and Will Bagley ... to be much more credible than the versions offered by Turley and other spokesmen for the LDS Church.” That’s it! No explanation of what the other versions say or why he dislikes them, no reasons given that would allow a reader to judge anything for himself. Jon thinks that it is enough for us to know that he - our intellectually-detached, rational judge of all things historical - doesn’t find them “credible.” Well, of course we know what he finds wrong with the other versions – they don’t agree with his agenda. And if he were to allow himself to discuss any of these other views, he might have to give the LDS Church one tiny break in his otherwise unremitting, condescending ridicule of a faith he doesn’t understand.

'''Simpicio''': That’s a little harsh.

'''Justin''' : Is it? Do you remember what he said about the Cumorah Pageant he attended?

:The pageant has the energy of a Phish concert, but without the drunkenness, outlandish hairdos (Brother Richards’ comb-over notwithstanding), or clouds of marijuana smoke.... Order, needless to say, prevails. This is a culture that considers obedience to be among the highest virtues.<ref name="banner"></ref>{{Rp|67}}

Besides the mean-spirited ridicule of Brother Richards’ appearance, what about the rest? I’ve been to concerts at the Kennedy Center in Washington, D.C., where order, needless to say, prevailed. But I always chalked that up to the decency and good manners of the concert-goers. Of course, that can’t be the explanation for the behavior of the Mormons at the Cumorah Pageant. After all, Mormons only behave in an orderly way because they are mindless, obsequious little automatons.

'''Sagredo''': You seem to have strong feelings about this book.

Justin smiled.

===Krakauer's Abuse of Elizabeth Smart===

'''Justin''': I must admit that the book makes me a little angry. But we haven’t yet gotten to the part that offends me most of all. That is Krakauer’s treatment of Elizabeth Smart.

'''Simplicio''': Yes. That was a bit over the top.

'''Sagredo''': What is this?

'''Justin''': In 2002, while Jon Krakauer was still writing his book, a pretty, innocent fourteen-year-old girl named Elizabeth Smart was abducted from her home in Salt Lake City by an itinerant street preacher, Brian Mitchell, and his wife, Wanda Barzee. Mitchell cut through the window screen of Elizabeth’s home at night, while the family was asleep. He woke Elizabeth up with a knife at her throat and told her that he would kill her and her family if she did not go with him. She was taken to a campsite in the woods nearby, held captive by chaining her to a tree, and raped repeatedly at knifepoint over a period of nine months.

'''Sagredo''': How horrible. But why did that matter to Krakauer? Was Mitchell a Mormon?

'''Justin''': Both Mitchell and his wife had been raised in the church and excommunicated for apostasy in the mid 1990s. Mitchell claimed that God had told him to take Elizabeth as his polygamous wife.

'''Sagredo''': Ah. I see the connection.

'''Justin''': Yes. But the point here is not what Jon has to say about Mitchell and Barzee; it’s what he has to say about Elizabeth Smart.

'''Sagredo''': What about Elizabeth?

'''Justin''': You see, toward the end of her captivity, she was occasionally left alone, but she did not try to escape. When she was finally recognized on the street, she did not admit who she was, until pressed. And, after the kidnappers were arrested, Elizabeth expressed some concern for their welfare.

'''Sagredo''': But this is typical behavior for someone who is abducted, threatened, and then shown a little kindness. It’s called the Stockholm syndrome.

'''Justin''': Yes. And Krakauer knows it. He mentions the syndrome in connection with another case in his book,<ref>On p. 21, it is used to explain the attitude of a polygamous wife in Colorado City.</ref> but there is no mention of it in reference to Elizabeth Smart. Instead, Jon prefers the time-honored tradition of blaming the victim, and, in this case, the victim’s family. Elizabeth’s problem, according to Jon Krakauer, is that she was “raised to obey figures of Mormon authority unquestioningly, and to believe that LDS doctrine is the law of God.”<ref name="banner"></ref>{{Rp|45}} Of course, he has no idea what they actually taught her; but he is quite sure that all Mormons are taught blind obedience, so that must have been it. He also suggests that “the white robes Mitchell and Barzee wore, and forced Elizabeth to wear, resembled the sacred robes she had donned with her family when they entered the Mormon temple.” Now you can’t really blame Krakauer for a stupid mistake like this, because he is not a Mormon and should not be expected to know that Elizabeth, having been born ‘under the covenant,’ would not need to be sealed to her parents in the temple, and so she would probably never have even seen the robes that her parents wore when they attended the temple. Of course, he could have done a little research here by actually talking to a faithful Mormon, but Jon doesn’t like to use faithful Mormons as sources.

'''Sagredo''': But why wouldn’t he bring up the Stockholm syndrome? Can’t he see that Elizabeth’s case is a classic example?

'''Justin''': Because he has an axe to grind. He doesn’t consult psychologists or other experts on abductions to ask them to comment on Elizabeth’s case. Instead, he goes searching for someone to tell him what he wants to hear. He finds Debbie Palmer, a refugee from a non-LDS polygamous offshoot from the church, who is now an anti-polygamy crusader. It is Debbie’s opinion that “Mitchell would never have been able to have such power over a non-Mormon girl.” Debbie is not a psychologist and was never a Mormon, but she was once a member of a polygamous sect. That’s good enough for Jon. Actually a member of a polygamous sect – what more expertise could you want?

'''Sagredo''': I guess neither of them ever heard of Patricia Hearst. As I remember, she was brainwashed by her captors and ended up strongly sympathetic to them. But no one ever blamed her parents for it.

'''Justin''': No. But Jon Krakauer blames Ed and Lois Smart for Elizabeth’s problems. It’s their fault for teaching Elizabeth to follow her LDS faith. It’s Lois’ fault that Mitchell came to work at their house and meet Elizabeth in the first place, because Lois has “a soft spot for the destitute.” There’s that condescending, ridiculing sense of humor again. Jon has no sympathy for their nine months of anguish, not knowing if their daughter was dead or alive, picturing what may have happened or might still be happening, knowing that whatever it was had to have been a horror for their little girl. And he has no sympathy for Elizabeth Smart. I read his chapter in vain, looking for any vestige of understanding of what Elizabeth and her family suffered. There was nothing. Nothing. I’m sorry, Bob; Jon Krakauer is just a mean man.

'''Simplicio''': So you think Elizabeth Smart’s Mormon upbringing was not a factor in her failing to escape when she could?

'''Justin''': Absolutely not. When non-Mormons are abducted, their responses are commonly identical to Elizabeth’s. But I’ll tell you what effect her religion did have on her. It helped her to recover. She forgave her abductors and got on with her life. And her parents were amazing. They asked her no questions about her ordeal. When she finally testified in court, six years later, most of the details they heard were details they were hearing for the first time. In 2007, she co-wrote a Department of Justice pamphlet for victims of abduction in which she said, “I made a conscious decision that my abductors had already taken away 9 months of my life, and I certainly was not going to give them any more than that.”<ref name="smart">''You’re Not Alone: The Journey from Abduction to Empowerment'', U.S. Department of Justice</ref>{{Rp|29}} That’s the kind of strength and independence that the gospel of Jesus Christ truly fosters in LDS women. She also describes how she once took several members of her family back into the woods to where she had been held, and told them, “This is where I was held hostage, and now I'm showing you. They can't have this anymore.”<ref name="smart"></ref>{{Rp|31}} In 2009, she left to serve an LDS mission in France. She has since returned and was recently married.

'''Simplicio''': There is no question, Justin. Elizabeth Smart is a remarkable woman.

'''Justin''': Actually, the LDS Church is filled with remarkable women.

=== ===
{{Endnotes label}}
<references />

Response to Under the Banner of Heaven: A Story of Violent Faith/The Justin Wise Dialogues

2014-06-18T20:57:22Z

RonHellings1: /* Basic errors of fact and history */

__NOTOC__
The following dialogue is from ''The Justin Wise Dialogues'', an unpublished manuscript by Ron Hellings. The imaginary dialogues in the chapter from which this segment is taken involve three men:
* Justin Wise, a Mormon
* Bob Simplicio, an ex-Mormon who left the church for intellectual reasons but just can't leave it alone
* Mario Sagredo, an Italian investigator

The subject of the discussion in this excerpt is Jon Krakauer's 2003 book, "Under the Banner of Heaven". <ref name="banner">{{CriticalWork:Krakauer:Under the Banner of Heaven}}</ref>

==Dialogue==

'''Simplicio''': You may have a nice logical ethical philosophy in theory, but in practice it is a complete failure. In practice, Mormon doctrine does not lead to moral behavior.

'''Justin''': What are you talking about?

'''Simplicio''': I am referring to the main point of the recent best-seller, “Under the Banner of Heaven”.<ref name="banner"></ref> This is a book in which the author, Jon Krakauer, makes it very clear that religion in general, and the Mormon faith in particular, are powerful forces in motivating people to violent behavior.

'''Justin''': Come on, Bob. I thought you were smarter than that. Did you read the book?

'''Simplicio''': Yes. And it seems to me that…

===Brief summary of the volume===

'''Sagredo''' (interrupting): What is this book about?

'''Simplicio''': I’m sorry. Let me explain. In 2003, Jon Krakauer, an investigative reporter, wrote a book about a sensational murder in Utah in 1984, when two Mormon brothers...

'''Justin''' (interrupting): Bob...

'''Simplicio''': All right. Two excommunicated Mormon brothers, Ron and Dan Lafferty, murdered their younger brother Allen’s wife and baby daughter.

'''Sagredo''': Why?

===God commanded murder?===

'''Simplicio''': That’s just the point. Ron and Dan Lafferty said that God had told them to do it. And that is the premise of Krakauer’s whole book – that it was their Mormon upbringing that allowed them, pushed them, to this horrendous deed.

'''Sagredo''': Are Mormons particularly violent?

'''Justin''': Of course not. Krakauer just says this because he wants it to be the explanation. He has no facts to back it up. No studies of violence among Mormons as opposed to other religions. Nothing. In fact, it isn’t just Mormons he picks on. The premise of his book is that all religion leads to violence. He begins his book with a prologue in which he says, “As a means of motivating people to be cruel or inhumane – as a means of inciting evil, to borrow the vocabulary of the devout – there may be no more potent force than religion.”<ref name="banner"></ref>{{Rp|xxi}} What do you think, Mario? Is this a true statement?

'''Sagredo''': Well, there have been plenty of acts of violence in the name of religion.

'''Justin''': Of course there have. You can find anecdotes to support almost any proposition. In fact, I am thinking of writing a book advancing the idea that, as a means of motivating people to acts of violence, there may be no more potent force than World Cup Soccer.

Mario laughed.

'''Sagredo''': I know of many stories that support that premise.

'''Justin''': Right. But you can’t prove a premise by citing a few anecdotes. You need careful comparative studies. So where are the sociological studies that support Krakauer’s outlandish statement? There are none. None. In fact, the only way he can get away with positing such a ridiculous idea is to ignore overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

'''Simplicio''': What evidence to the contrary? Are you claiming that religious violence never happened?

'''Justin''': Of course not. I’m just saying that religious violence is the work of amateurs. Add up all the religious violence you can think of – the crusades, the inquisition, 400 years of Catholic-Protestant wars in Ireland, Islamic terrorism. Amateurs. If you want really professional cruelty and violence, you need to find yourself a good atheist. These are the guys who know how to do get it done. The reign of terror in revolutionary France was the work of atheists. They called it “The Age of Reason.” Slobodan Milošević was an atheist. So was Pol Pot. So were Josef Stalin and Mao Tse-Tung. Adolf Hitler wasn’t waging a religious campaign against the Jews, he was waging a campaign of scientific racism. And he had hard empirical science on his side. Intelligent Nazi scientists felt that they had evidence that Jews and other races were genetically inferior to Aryans, and that the only rational, ethical way to better the world was through eugenics and systematic genocide.

'''Sagredo''': That’s true. No uncomfortable religious faith got in Hitler’s way.

'''Justin''': And so Krakauer gets it exactly wrong. In the prologue of his book, he also says,

:Faith is the very antithesis of reason, injudiciousness a crucial component of spiritual devotion. And when religious fanaticism supplants ratiocination [a little-used word meaning 'logic,' reminding us of William Safire's famous remark, "Never use a big word when a diminutive one will do."], all bets are suddenly off. Anything can happen. Absolutely anything. Common sense is no match for the voice of God – as the actions of Dan Lafferty vividly attest.<ref name="banner"></ref>{{Rp|xxiii}}

Actually, we see that the opposite is true. The actions of Adolph Hitler attest that common sense is no match for the relentless logic of a man with no religious faith to anchor him against the use of atheistic science and heartless reason for his own cruel and violent purposes.

Bob Simplicio took a deep breath.

===Mormon theology leads to murder?===

'''Simplicio''': Justin, you’re taking us off on a tangent. I don’t care if Jon Krakauer’s general statement about religion and violence is supported by careful sociological studies or not. The point is that Mormon theology contributed to a vicious murder, and Krakauer’s book provides the insight and the evidence that this is the case.

'''Justin''': Nonsense. Jon Krakauer’s book is really quite worthless on this score. It provides no insight into the reasons for the murders and it provides no insight into LDS practices or doctrines. The man is simply out of his depth. He has no training in criminology, none in psychology, none in history, none in religion. He is just not the man for the job.

'''Simplicio''': He doesn’t claim to be an expert in these things. He is not a scholar; he is an investigative journalist. He interviews the experts and then synthesizes their insights into a coherent picture that he then communicates to his readers.

'''Justin''': But there is no coherent picture. He rehashes the well-known contributing factors to the brothers’ action – Ron and Dan Lafferty’s father was abusive; their mother was submissive; both boys grew into abusive fathers and husbands themselves; Allen’s wife did not show the proper deference to her brothers-in-law, so she became a target. The defense tried to prove that the two were insane; the prosecution produced witnesses saying the opposite. But where is the coherent picture? What motivated these two men to this horrible crime? Jon Krakauer only answers this in one place. Do you remember it?

'''Simplicio''': I don’t know what you’re referring to.

'''Justin''': Jon is at the point in his book where Ron Lafferty is claiming revelations, one of which supposedly tells him to kill his sister-in-law. Krakauer points out that Lafferty had been examined by a psychiatrist who concluded that his revelations were delusions, “spawned by depression and his deeply entrenched narcissism, with no basis whatever in reality.” But Krakauer will have none of it. “Ron knows that the commandments he’d received were no mere figment of his imagination,” says Krakauer. “The Lord spoke to him.”<ref name="banner"></ref>{{Rp|162}} That is Krakauer’s explanation, the only one he ever gives. What do you think, Mario? Did God really speak to Ron Lafferty and tell him to kill his sister-in-law?

'''Simplicio''': Don’t be ridiculous. Jon Krakauer doesn’t believe in God.

'''Justin''': So what is he trying to say? Look, there are only three possibilities here. Either Lafferty is insane and his revelations are all delusions, or he is sane and knows that he did not really receive revelations, which means he is lying, or he actually received the word of God telling him to murder his sister-in-law.

'''Simplicio''': Jon’s point is that thinking that you can speak with God is a kind of insanity.

===Belief in revelation equals insanity===

'''Justin''': Aha! Now you have it. That is Krakauer’s agenda. He is an admitted atheist and that is the thing he wants to prove. That was his preconceived notion, and – surprise! – that is his conclusion. But it’s nonsense. There is not a Mormon bishop in the church who hasn’t received revelation to guide him in his calling, and Mormon bishops are among the sanest people I know. They do not kill people. But the Lafferty brothers did, and Jon Krakauer simply has no clue as to why.

'''Sagredo''': So that’s why you think the book is useless.

'''Justin''': Yes. That and the fact that he also spends half of his book writing about the history of the LDS church.

'''Sagredo''': What is wrong with that?

'''Justin''': He just doesn’t know very much about it. His only sources seem to be slanted anti-Mormon books – books that he clearly chooses because they support his prejudices. And so he makes one error after another, silly errors that any active member of the church can spot in a minute.

'''Simplicio''': Like what?

===Basic errors of fact and history===

'''Justin''': Like in his chapter about the Hill Cumorah, where he says that “the Hill Cumorah is one of the holiest sites in all of Mormondom, and sooner or later most Latter-day Saints make a pilgrimage there.”<ref name="banner"></ref>{{Rp|63}} He simply has no idea that Mormons do not speak of “holy sites” in that way, that there are no Mormon “pilgrimages,” and that it is simply not true that most Mormons will ever visit the Hill Cumorah. It is not one of our religious duties. It’s just that this is the kind of silly devout behavior he expects of Mormons, so, for him, that makes it a fact. He refers to the Apostle Mark E. Peterson as the President of the Church.<ref name="banner"></ref>{{Rp|75}} Any Mormon could have fixed that mistake for him, but he obviously sought no Mormon fact-checking help for his book. He speaks of the Book of Mormon’s Laban as a “filthy-rich sheep magnate”<ref name="banner"></ref>{{Rp|165}} because he has not read the Book of Mormon closely enough to notice that the Laban in the Book of Mormon is not the same as the Laban in the Old Testament. After all, why should he waste time actually reading the book when he already knows what his opinion of it is going to be?

'''Simplicio''': But he corrected those errors in the second edition.

'''Justin''': Some of them. He still hung onto his Cumorah error. But I especially enjoy what he said in his appendix in the second edition. After the first edition came out, Richard Turley, a Mormon historian, pointed out several of these errors. So, in the second edition, Krakauer concedes five of these mistakes and then proceeds to debate the rest. I love how he justifies his position. Speaking of Turley’s review of his book, Krakauer says, “Some of the ‘errors’ he [Turley] alleges are no more that honest differences of opinion.”<ref name="banner"></ref>{{Rp|357}}

'''Simplicio''': So?

'''Justin''': So do you know what they call it when an author knows that there are other “honest” points of view, but he only presents one of them? They don’t call it scholarship. They don’t even call it investigative journalism. They call it propaganda. That is what Jon Krakauer has written. There is no balance in the book, no acknowledgement of any view but his own. In referring to one historical incident, he states, “I find the version of the tragedy offered by John D. Lee, Juanita Brooks, and Will Bagley ... to be much more credible than the versions offered by Turley and other spokesmen for the LDS Church.” That’s it! No explanation of what(/i> the other versions say or why he dislikes them, no reasons given that would allow a reader to judge anything for himself. Jon thinks that it is enough for us to know that he - our intellectually-detached rational judge of all things historical - doesn’t find them “credible.” Well, of course we know what he finds wrong with the other versions – they don’t agree with his agenda. And if he were to allow himself to discuss any of these other views, he might have to give the LDS Church one tiny break in his otherwise unremitting, condescending ridicule of a faith he doesn’t understand.

'''Simpicio''': That’s a little harsh.

'''Justin''' : Is it? Do you remember what he said about the Cumorah Pageant he attended?

:The pageant has the energy of a Phish concert, but without the drunkenness, outlandish hairdos (Brother Richards’ comb-over notwithstanding), or clouds of marijuana smoke.... Order, needless to say, prevails. This is a culture that considers obedience to be among the highest virtues.<ref name="banner"></ref>{{Rp|67}}

Besides the mean-spirited ridicule of Brother Richards’ appearance, what about the rest? I’ve been to concerts at the Kennedy Center in Washington, D.C., where order, needless to say, prevailed. But I always chalked that up to the decency and good manners of the concert-goers. Of course, that can’t be the explanation for the behavior of the Mormons at the Cumorah Pageant. After all, Mormons only behave in an orderly way because they are mindless, obsequious little automatons.

'''Sagredo''': You seem to have strong feelings about this book.

Justin smiled.

===Krakauer's Abuse of Elizabeth Smart===

'''Justin''': I must admit that the book makes me a little angry. But we haven’t yet gotten to the part that offends me most of all. That is Krakauer’s treatment of Elizabeth Smart.

'''Simplicio''': Yes. That was a bit over the top.

'''Sagredo''': What is this?

'''Justin''': In 2002, while Jon Krakauer was still writing his book, a pretty, innocent fourteen-year-old girl named Elizabeth Smart was abducted from her home in Salt Lake City by an itinerant street preacher, Brian Mitchell, and his wife, Wanda Barzee. Mitchell cut through the window screen of Elizabeth’s home at night, while the family was asleep. He woke Elizabeth up with a knife at her throat and told her that he would kill her and her family if she did not go with him. She was taken to a campsite in the woods nearby, held captive by chaining her to a tree, and raped repeatedly at knifepoint over a period of nine months.

'''Sagredo''': How horrible. But why did that matter to Krakauer? Was Mitchell a Mormon?

'''Justin''': Both Mitchell and his wife had been raised in the church and excommunicated for apostasy in the mid 1990s. Mitchell claimed that God had told him to take Elizabeth as his polygamous wife.

'''Sagredo''': Ah. I see the connection.

'''Justin''': Yes. But the point here is not what Jon has to say about Mitchell and Barzee; it’s what he has to say about Elizabeth Smart.

'''Sagredo''': What about Elizabeth?

'''Justin''': You see, toward the end of her captivity, she was occasionally left alone, but she did not try to escape. When she was finally recognized on the street, she did not admit who she was, until pressed. And, after the kidnappers were arrested, Elizabeth expressed some concern for their welfare.

'''Sagredo''': But this is typical behavior for someone who is abducted, threatened, and then shown a little kindness. It’s called the Stockholm syndrome.

'''Justin''': Yes. And Krakauer knows it. He mentions the syndrome in connection with another case in his book,<ref>On p. 21, it is used to explain the attitude of a polygamous wife in Colorado City.</ref> but there is no mention of it in reference to Elizabeth Smart. Instead, Jon prefers the time-honored tradition of blaming the victim, and, in this case, the victim’s family. Elizabeth’s problem, according to Jon Krakauer, is that she was “raised to obey figures of Mormon authority unquestioningly, and to believe that LDS doctrine is the law of God.”<ref name="banner"></ref>{{Rp|45}} Of course, he has no idea what they actually taught her; but he is quite sure that all Mormons are taught blind obedience, so that must have been it. He also suggests that “the white robes Mitchell and Barzee wore, and forced Elizabeth to wear, resembled the sacred robes she had donned with her family when they entered the Mormon temple.” Now you can’t really blame Krakauer for a stupid mistake like this, because he is not a Mormon and should not be expected to know that Elizabeth, having been born ‘under the covenant,’ would not need to be sealed to her parents in the temple, and so she would probably never have even seen the robes that her parents wore when they attended the temple. Of course, he could have done a little research here by actually talking to a faithful Mormon, but Jon doesn’t like to use faithful Mormons as sources.

'''Sagredo''': But why wouldn’t he bring up the Stockholm syndrome? Can’t he see that Elizabeth’s case is a classic example?

'''Justin''': Because he has an axe to grind. He doesn’t consult psychologists or other experts on abductions to ask them to comment on Elizabeth’s case. Instead, he goes searching for someone to tell him what he wants to hear. He finds Debbie Palmer, a refugee from a non-LDS polygamous offshoot from the church, who is now an anti-polygamy crusader. It is Debbie’s opinion that “Mitchell would never have been able to have such power over a non-Mormon girl.” Debbie is not a psychologist and was never a Mormon, but she was once a member of a polygamous sect. That’s good enough for Jon. Actually a member of a polygamous sect – what more expertise could you want?

'''Sagredo''': I guess neither of them ever heard of Patricia Hearst. As I remember, she was brainwashed by her captors and ended up strongly sympathetic to them. But no one ever blamed her parents for it.

'''Justin''': No. But Jon Krakauer blames Ed and Lois Smart for Elizabeth’s problems. It’s their fault for teaching Elizabeth to follow her LDS faith. It’s Lois’ fault that Mitchell came to work at their house and meet Elizabeth in the first place, because Lois has “a soft spot for the destitute.” There’s that condescending, ridiculing sense of humor again. Jon has no sympathy for their nine months of anguish, not knowing if their daughter was dead or alive, picturing what may have happened or might still be happening, knowing that whatever it was had to have been a horror for their little girl. And he has no sympathy for Elizabeth Smart. I read his chapter in vain, looking for any vestige of understanding of what Elizabeth and her family suffered. There was nothing. Nothing. I’m sorry, Bob; Jon Krakauer is just a mean man.

'''Simplicio''': So you think Elizabeth Smart’s Mormon upbringing was not a factor in her failing to escape when she could?

'''Justin''': Absolutely not. When non-Mormons are abducted, their responses are commonly identical to Elizabeth’s. But I’ll tell you what effect her religion did have on her. It helped her to recover. She forgave her abductors and got on with her life. And her parents were amazing. They asked her no questions about her ordeal. When she finally testified in court, six years later, most of the details they heard were details they were hearing for the first time. In 2007, she co-wrote a Department of Justice pamphlet for victims of abduction in which she said, “I made a conscious decision that my abductors had already taken away 9 months of my life, and I certainly was not going to give them any more than that.”<ref name="smart">''You’re Not Alone: The Journey from Abduction to Empowerment'', U.S. Department of Justice</ref>{{Rp|29}} That’s the kind of strength and independence that the gospel of Jesus Christ truly fosters in LDS women. She also describes how she once took several members of her family back into the woods to where she had been held, and told them, “This is where I was held hostage, and now I'm showing you. They can't have this anymore.”<ref name="smart"></ref>{{Rp|31}} In 2009, she left to serve an LDS mission in France. She has since returned and was recently married.

'''Simplicio''': There is no question, Justin. Elizabeth Smart is a remarkable woman.

'''Justin''': Actually, the LDS Church is filled with remarkable women.

=== ===
{{Endnotes label}}
<references />

Response to Under the Banner of Heaven: A Story of Violent Faith/The Justin Wise Dialogues

2014-06-18T20:52:15Z

RonHellings1: /* Mormon theology leads to murder? */

__NOTOC__
The following dialogue is from ''The Justin Wise Dialogues'', an unpublished manuscript by Ron Hellings. The imaginary dialogues in the chapter from which this segment is taken involve three men:
* Justin Wise, a Mormon
* Bob Simplicio, an ex-Mormon who left the church for intellectual reasons but just can't leave it alone
* Mario Sagredo, an Italian investigator

The subject of the discussion in this excerpt is Jon Krakauer's 2003 book, "Under the Banner of Heaven". <ref name="banner">{{CriticalWork:Krakauer:Under the Banner of Heaven}}</ref>

==Dialogue==

'''Simplicio''': You may have a nice logical ethical philosophy in theory, but in practice it is a complete failure. In practice, Mormon doctrine does not lead to moral behavior.

'''Justin''': What are you talking about?

'''Simplicio''': I am referring to the main point of the recent best-seller, “Under the Banner of Heaven”.<ref name="banner"></ref> This is a book in which the author, Jon Krakauer, makes it very clear that religion in general, and the Mormon faith in particular, are powerful forces in motivating people to violent behavior.

'''Justin''': Come on, Bob. I thought you were smarter than that. Did you read the book?

'''Simplicio''': Yes. And it seems to me that…

===Brief summary of the volume===

'''Sagredo''' (interrupting): What is this book about?

'''Simplicio''': I’m sorry. Let me explain. In 2003, Jon Krakauer, an investigative reporter, wrote a book about a sensational murder in Utah in 1984, when two Mormon brothers...

'''Justin''' (interrupting): Bob...

'''Simplicio''': All right. Two excommunicated Mormon brothers, Ron and Dan Lafferty, murdered their younger brother Allen’s wife and baby daughter.

'''Sagredo''': Why?

===God commanded murder?===

'''Simplicio''': That’s just the point. Ron and Dan Lafferty said that God had told them to do it. And that is the premise of Krakauer’s whole book – that it was their Mormon upbringing that allowed them, pushed them, to this horrendous deed.

'''Sagredo''': Are Mormons particularly violent?

'''Justin''': Of course not. Krakauer just says this because he wants it to be the explanation. He has no facts to back it up. No studies of violence among Mormons as opposed to other religions. Nothing. In fact, it isn’t just Mormons he picks on. The premise of his book is that all religion leads to violence. He begins his book with a prologue in which he says, “As a means of motivating people to be cruel or inhumane – as a means of inciting evil, to borrow the vocabulary of the devout – there may be no more potent force than religion.”<ref name="banner"></ref>{{Rp|xxi}} What do you think, Mario? Is this a true statement?

'''Sagredo''': Well, there have been plenty of acts of violence in the name of religion.

'''Justin''': Of course there have. You can find anecdotes to support almost any proposition. In fact, I am thinking of writing a book advancing the idea that, as a means of motivating people to acts of violence, there may be no more potent force than World Cup Soccer.

Mario laughed.

'''Sagredo''': I know of many stories that support that premise.

'''Justin''': Right. But you can’t prove a premise by citing a few anecdotes. You need careful comparative studies. So where are the sociological studies that support Krakauer’s outlandish statement? There are none. None. In fact, the only way he can get away with positing such a ridiculous idea is to ignore overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

'''Simplicio''': What evidence to the contrary? Are you claiming that religious violence never happened?

'''Justin''': Of course not. I’m just saying that religious violence is the work of amateurs. Add up all the religious violence you can think of – the crusades, the inquisition, 400 years of Catholic-Protestant wars in Ireland, Islamic terrorism. Amateurs. If you want really professional cruelty and violence, you need to find yourself a good atheist. These are the guys who know how to do get it done. The reign of terror in revolutionary France was the work of atheists. They called it “The Age of Reason.” Slobodan Milošević was an atheist. So was Pol Pot. So were Josef Stalin and Mao Tse-Tung. Adolf Hitler wasn’t waging a religious campaign against the Jews, he was waging a campaign of scientific racism. And he had hard empirical science on his side. Intelligent Nazi scientists felt that they had evidence that Jews and other races were genetically inferior to Aryans, and that the only rational, ethical way to better the world was through eugenics and systematic genocide.

'''Sagredo''': That’s true. No uncomfortable religious faith got in Hitler’s way.

'''Justin''': And so Krakauer gets it exactly wrong. In the prologue of his book, he also says,

:Faith is the very antithesis of reason, injudiciousness a crucial component of spiritual devotion. And when religious fanaticism supplants ratiocination [a little-used word meaning 'logic,' reminding us of William Safire's famous remark, "Never use a big word when a diminutive one will do."], all bets are suddenly off. Anything can happen. Absolutely anything. Common sense is no match for the voice of God – as the actions of Dan Lafferty vividly attest.<ref name="banner"></ref>{{Rp|xxiii}}

Actually, we see that the opposite is true. The actions of Adolph Hitler attest that common sense is no match for the relentless logic of a man with no religious faith to anchor him against the use of atheistic science and heartless reason for his own cruel and violent purposes.

Bob Simplicio took a deep breath.

===Mormon theology leads to murder?===

'''Simplicio''': Justin, you’re taking us off on a tangent. I don’t care if Jon Krakauer’s general statement about religion and violence is supported by careful sociological studies or not. The point is that Mormon theology contributed to a vicious murder, and Krakauer’s book provides the insight and the evidence that this is the case.

'''Justin''': Nonsense. Jon Krakauer’s book is really quite worthless on this score. It provides no insight into the reasons for the murders and it provides no insight into LDS practices or doctrines. The man is simply out of his depth. He has no training in criminology, none in psychology, none in history, none in religion. He is just not the man for the job.

'''Simplicio''': He doesn’t claim to be an expert in these things. He is not a scholar; he is an investigative journalist. He interviews the experts and then synthesizes their insights into a coherent picture that he then communicates to his readers.

'''Justin''': But there is no coherent picture. He rehashes the well-known contributing factors to the brothers’ action – Ron and Dan Lafferty’s father was abusive; their mother was submissive; both boys grew into abusive fathers and husbands themselves; Allen’s wife did not show the proper deference to her brothers-in-law, so she became a target. The defense tried to prove that the two were insane; the prosecution produced witnesses saying the opposite. But where is the coherent picture? What motivated these two men to this horrible crime? Jon Krakauer only answers this in one place. Do you remember it?

'''Simplicio''': I don’t know what you’re referring to.

'''Justin''': Jon is at the point in his book where Ron Lafferty is claiming revelations, one of which supposedly tells him to kill his sister-in-law. Krakauer points out that Lafferty had been examined by a psychiatrist who concluded that his revelations were delusions, “spawned by depression and his deeply entrenched narcissism, with no basis whatever in reality.” But Krakauer will have none of it. “Ron knows that the commandments he’d received were no mere figment of his imagination,” says Krakauer. “The Lord spoke to him.”<ref name="banner"></ref>{{Rp|162}} That is Krakauer’s explanation, the only one he ever gives. What do you think, Mario? Did God really speak to Ron Lafferty and tell him to kill his sister-in-law?

'''Simplicio''': Don’t be ridiculous. Jon Krakauer doesn’t believe in God.

'''Justin''': So what is he trying to say? Look, there are only three possibilities here. Either Lafferty is insane and his revelations are all delusions, or he is sane and knows that he did not really receive revelations, which means he is lying, or he actually received the word of God telling him to murder his sister-in-law.

'''Simplicio''': Jon’s point is that thinking that you can speak with God is a kind of insanity.

===Belief in revelation equals insanity===

'''Justin''': Aha! Now you have it. That is Krakauer’s agenda. He is an admitted atheist and that is the thing he wants to prove. That was his preconceived notion, and – surprise! – that is his conclusion. But it’s nonsense. There is not a Mormon bishop in the church who hasn’t received revelation to guide him in his calling, and Mormon bishops are among the sanest people I know. They do not kill people. But the Lafferty brothers did, and Jon Krakauer simply has no clue as to why.

'''Sagredo''': So that’s why you think the book is useless.

'''Justin''': Yes. That and the fact that he also spends half of his book writing about the history of the LDS church.

'''Sagredo''': What is wrong with that?

'''Justin''': He just doesn’t know very much about it. His only sources seem to be slanted anti-Mormon books – books that he clearly chooses because they support his prejudices. And so he makes one error after another, silly errors that any active member of the church can spot in a minute.

'''Simplicio''': Like what?

===Basic errors of fact and history===

'''Justin''': Like in his chapter about the Hill Cumorah, where he says that “the Hill Cumorah is one of the holiest sites in all of Mormondom, and sooner or later most Latter-day Saints make a pilgrimage there.”<ref name="banner"></ref>{{Rp|63}} He simply has no idea that Mormons do not speak of “holy sites” in that way, that there are no Mormon “pilgrimages,” and that it is simply not true that most Mormons will ever visit the Hill Cumorah. It is not one of our religious duties. It’s just that this is the kind of silly devout behavior he expects of Mormons, so, for him, that makes it a fact. He refers to the Apostle Mark E. Peterson as the President of the Church.<ref name="banner"></ref>{{Rp|75}} Any Mormon could have fixed that mistake for him, but he obviously sought no Mormon fact-checking help for his book. He speaks of the Book of Mormon’s Laban as a “filthy-rich sheep magnate”<ref name="banner"></ref>{{Rp|165}} because he has not read the Book of Mormon closely enough to notice that the Laban in the Book of Mormon is not the same as the Laban in the Old Testament. After all, why should he waste time actually reading the book when he already knows what his opinion of it is going to be?

'''Simplicio''': But he corrected those errors in the second edition.

'''Justin''': Some of them. He still hung onto his Cumorah error. But I especially enjoy what he said in his appendix in the second edition. After the first edition came out, Richard Turley, a Mormon historian, pointed out several of these errors. So, in the second edition, Krakauer concedes five of these mistakes and then proceeds to debate the rest. I love how he justifies his position. Speaking of Turley’s review of his book, Krakauer says, “Some of the ‘errors’ he [Turley] alleges are no more that honest differences of opinion.”<ref name="banner"></ref>{{Rp|357}}

'''Simplicio''': So?

'''Justin''': So do you know what they call it when an author knows that there are other “honest” points of view, but he only presents one of them? They don’t call it scholarship. They don’t even call it investigative journalism. They call it propaganda. That is what Jon Krakauer has written. There is no balance in the book, no acknowledgement of any view but his own. In referring to one historical incident, he states, “I find the version of the tragedy offered by John D. Lee, Juanita Brooks, and Will Bagley ... to be much more credible than the versions offered by Turley and other spokesmen for the LDS Church.” That’s it! No explanation of why he dislikes the LDS versions, no reasons given that would allow a reader to judge anything for himself. Jon thinks that it should be enough for us to know that he - our intellectually-detached rational judge of all things historical - doesn’t find them “credible.” Well, of course we know what he finds wrong with the other versions – they don’t agree with his agenda. And if he were to allow himself to discuss any of these other views, he might have to give the LDS Church one tiny break in his otherwise unremitting, condescending ridicule of a faith he doesn’t understand.

'''Simpicio''': That’s a little harsh.

'''Justin''' : Is it? Do you remember what he said about the Cumorah Pageant he attended?

:The pageant has the energy of a Phish concert, but without the drunkenness, outlandish hairdos (Brother Richards’ comb-over notwithstanding), or clouds of marijuana smoke.... Order, needless to say, prevails. This is a culture that considers obedience to be among the highest virtues.<ref name="banner"></ref>{{Rp|67}}

Besides the mean-spirited ridicule of Brother Richards’ appearance, what about the rest? I’ve been to concerts at the Kennedy Center in Washington, D.C., where order, needless to say, prevailed. But I always chalked that up to the decency and good manners of the concert-goers. Of course, that can’t be the explanation for the behavior of the Mormons at the Cumorah Pageant. After all, Mormons only behave in an orderly way because they are mindless, obsequious little automatons.

'''Sagredo''': You seem to have strong feelings about this book.

Justin smiled.

===Krakauer's Abuse of Elizabeth Smart===

'''Justin''': I must admit that the book makes me a little angry. But we haven’t yet gotten to the part that offends me most of all. That is Krakauer’s treatment of Elizabeth Smart.

'''Simplicio''': Yes. That was a bit over the top.

'''Sagredo''': What is this?

'''Justin''': In 2002, while Jon Krakauer was still writing his book, a pretty, innocent fourteen-year-old girl named Elizabeth Smart was abducted from her home in Salt Lake City by an itinerant street preacher, Brian Mitchell, and his wife, Wanda Barzee. Mitchell cut through the window screen of Elizabeth’s home at night, while the family was asleep. He woke Elizabeth up with a knife at her throat and told her that he would kill her and her family if she did not go with him. She was taken to a campsite in the woods nearby, held captive by chaining her to a tree, and raped repeatedly at knifepoint over a period of nine months.

'''Sagredo''': How horrible. But why did that matter to Krakauer? Was Mitchell a Mormon?

'''Justin''': Both Mitchell and his wife had been raised in the church and excommunicated for apostasy in the mid 1990s. Mitchell claimed that God had told him to take Elizabeth as his polygamous wife.

'''Sagredo''': Ah. I see the connection.

'''Justin''': Yes. But the point here is not what Jon has to say about Mitchell and Barzee; it’s what he has to say about Elizabeth Smart.

'''Sagredo''': What about Elizabeth?

'''Justin''': You see, toward the end of her captivity, she was occasionally left alone, but she did not try to escape. When she was finally recognized on the street, she did not admit who she was, until pressed. And, after the kidnappers were arrested, Elizabeth expressed some concern for their welfare.

'''Sagredo''': But this is typical behavior for someone who is abducted, threatened, and then shown a little kindness. It’s called the Stockholm syndrome.

'''Justin''': Yes. And Krakauer knows it. He mentions the syndrome in connection with another case in his book,<ref>On p. 21, it is used to explain the attitude of a polygamous wife in Colorado City.</ref> but there is no mention of it in reference to Elizabeth Smart. Instead, Jon prefers the time-honored tradition of blaming the victim, and, in this case, the victim’s family. Elizabeth’s problem, according to Jon Krakauer, is that she was “raised to obey figures of Mormon authority unquestioningly, and to believe that LDS doctrine is the law of God.”<ref name="banner"></ref>{{Rp|45}} Of course, he has no idea what they actually taught her; but he is quite sure that all Mormons are taught blind obedience, so that must have been it. He also suggests that “the white robes Mitchell and Barzee wore, and forced Elizabeth to wear, resembled the sacred robes she had donned with her family when they entered the Mormon temple.” Now you can’t really blame Krakauer for a stupid mistake like this, because he is not a Mormon and should not be expected to know that Elizabeth, having been born ‘under the covenant,’ would not need to be sealed to her parents in the temple, and so she would probably never have even seen the robes that her parents wore when they attended the temple. Of course, he could have done a little research here by actually talking to a faithful Mormon, but Jon doesn’t like to use faithful Mormons as sources.

'''Sagredo''': But why wouldn’t he bring up the Stockholm syndrome? Can’t he see that Elizabeth’s case is a classic example?

'''Justin''': Because he has an axe to grind. He doesn’t consult psychologists or other experts on abductions to ask them to comment on Elizabeth’s case. Instead, he goes searching for someone to tell him what he wants to hear. He finds Debbie Palmer, a refugee from a non-LDS polygamous offshoot from the church, who is now an anti-polygamy crusader. It is Debbie’s opinion that “Mitchell would never have been able to have such power over a non-Mormon girl.” Debbie is not a psychologist and was never a Mormon, but she was once a member of a polygamous sect. That’s good enough for Jon. Actually a member of a polygamous sect – what more expertise could you want?

'''Sagredo''': I guess neither of them ever heard of Patricia Hearst. As I remember, she was brainwashed by her captors and ended up strongly sympathetic to them. But no one ever blamed her parents for it.

'''Justin''': No. But Jon Krakauer blames Ed and Lois Smart for Elizabeth’s problems. It’s their fault for teaching Elizabeth to follow her LDS faith. It’s Lois’ fault that Mitchell came to work at their house and meet Elizabeth in the first place, because Lois has “a soft spot for the destitute.” There’s that condescending, ridiculing sense of humor again. Jon has no sympathy for their nine months of anguish, not knowing if their daughter was dead or alive, picturing what may have happened or might still be happening, knowing that whatever it was had to have been a horror for their little girl. And he has no sympathy for Elizabeth Smart. I read his chapter in vain, looking for any vestige of understanding of what Elizabeth and her family suffered. There was nothing. Nothing. I’m sorry, Bob; Jon Krakauer is just a mean man.

'''Simplicio''': So you think Elizabeth Smart’s Mormon upbringing was not a factor in her failing to escape when she could?

'''Justin''': Absolutely not. When non-Mormons are abducted, their responses are commonly identical to Elizabeth’s. But I’ll tell you what effect her religion did have on her. It helped her to recover. She forgave her abductors and got on with her life. And her parents were amazing. They asked her no questions about her ordeal. When she finally testified in court, six years later, most of the details they heard were details they were hearing for the first time. In 2007, she co-wrote a Department of Justice pamphlet for victims of abduction in which she said, “I made a conscious decision that my abductors had already taken away 9 months of my life, and I certainly was not going to give them any more than that.”<ref name="smart">''You’re Not Alone: The Journey from Abduction to Empowerment'', U.S. Department of Justice</ref>{{Rp|29}} That’s the kind of strength and independence that the gospel of Jesus Christ truly fosters in LDS women. She also describes how she once took several members of her family back into the woods to where she had been held, and told them, “This is where I was held hostage, and now I'm showing you. They can't have this anymore.”<ref name="smart"></ref>{{Rp|31}} In 2009, she left to serve an LDS mission in France. She has since returned and was recently married.

'''Simplicio''': There is no question, Justin. Elizabeth Smart is a remarkable woman.

'''Justin''': Actually, the LDS Church is filled with remarkable women.

=== ===
{{Endnotes label}}
<references />

Response to Under the Banner of Heaven: A Story of Violent Faith/The Justin Wise Dialogues

2014-06-18T20:48:19Z

RonHellings1: /* God commanded murder? */

__NOTOC__
The following dialogue is from ''The Justin Wise Dialogues'', an unpublished manuscript by Ron Hellings. The imaginary dialogues in the chapter from which this segment is taken involve three men:
* Justin Wise, a Mormon
* Bob Simplicio, an ex-Mormon who left the church for intellectual reasons but just can't leave it alone
* Mario Sagredo, an Italian investigator

The subject of the discussion in this excerpt is Jon Krakauer's 2003 book, "Under the Banner of Heaven". <ref name="banner">{{CriticalWork:Krakauer:Under the Banner of Heaven}}</ref>

==Dialogue==

'''Simplicio''': You may have a nice logical ethical philosophy in theory, but in practice it is a complete failure. In practice, Mormon doctrine does not lead to moral behavior.

'''Justin''': What are you talking about?

'''Simplicio''': I am referring to the main point of the recent best-seller, “Under the Banner of Heaven”.<ref name="banner"></ref> This is a book in which the author, Jon Krakauer, makes it very clear that religion in general, and the Mormon faith in particular, are powerful forces in motivating people to violent behavior.

'''Justin''': Come on, Bob. I thought you were smarter than that. Did you read the book?

'''Simplicio''': Yes. And it seems to me that…

===Brief summary of the volume===

'''Sagredo''' (interrupting): What is this book about?

'''Simplicio''': I’m sorry. Let me explain. In 2003, Jon Krakauer, an investigative reporter, wrote a book about a sensational murder in Utah in 1984, when two Mormon brothers...

'''Justin''' (interrupting): Bob...

'''Simplicio''': All right. Two excommunicated Mormon brothers, Ron and Dan Lafferty, murdered their younger brother Allen’s wife and baby daughter.

'''Sagredo''': Why?

===God commanded murder?===

'''Simplicio''': That’s just the point. Ron and Dan Lafferty said that God had told them to do it. And that is the premise of Krakauer’s whole book – that it was their Mormon upbringing that allowed them, pushed them, to this horrendous deed.

'''Sagredo''': Are Mormons particularly violent?

'''Justin''': Of course not. Krakauer just says this because he wants it to be the explanation. He has no facts to back it up. No studies of violence among Mormons as opposed to other religions. Nothing. In fact, it isn’t just Mormons he picks on. The premise of his book is that all religion leads to violence. He begins his book with a prologue in which he says, “As a means of motivating people to be cruel or inhumane – as a means of inciting evil, to borrow the vocabulary of the devout – there may be no more potent force than religion.”<ref name="banner"></ref>{{Rp|xxi}} What do you think, Mario? Is this a true statement?

'''Sagredo''': Well, there have been plenty of acts of violence in the name of religion.

'''Justin''': Of course there have. You can find anecdotes to support almost any proposition. In fact, I am thinking of writing a book advancing the idea that, as a means of motivating people to acts of violence, there may be no more potent force than World Cup Soccer.

Mario laughed.

'''Sagredo''': I know of many stories that support that premise.

'''Justin''': Right. But you can’t prove a premise by citing a few anecdotes. You need careful comparative studies. So where are the sociological studies that support Krakauer’s outlandish statement? There are none. None. In fact, the only way he can get away with positing such a ridiculous idea is to ignore overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

'''Simplicio''': What evidence to the contrary? Are you claiming that religious violence never happened?

'''Justin''': Of course not. I’m just saying that religious violence is the work of amateurs. Add up all the religious violence you can think of – the crusades, the inquisition, 400 years of Catholic-Protestant wars in Ireland, Islamic terrorism. Amateurs. If you want really professional cruelty and violence, you need to find yourself a good atheist. These are the guys who know how to do get it done. The reign of terror in revolutionary France was the work of atheists. They called it “The Age of Reason.” Slobodan Milošević was an atheist. So was Pol Pot. So were Josef Stalin and Mao Tse-Tung. Adolf Hitler wasn’t waging a religious campaign against the Jews, he was waging a campaign of scientific racism. And he had hard empirical science on his side. Intelligent Nazi scientists felt that they had evidence that Jews and other races were genetically inferior to Aryans, and that the only rational, ethical way to better the world was through eugenics and systematic genocide.

'''Sagredo''': That’s true. No uncomfortable religious faith got in Hitler’s way.

'''Justin''': And so Krakauer gets it exactly wrong. In the prologue of his book, he also says,

:Faith is the very antithesis of reason, injudiciousness a crucial component of spiritual devotion. And when religious fanaticism supplants ratiocination [a little-used word meaning 'logic,' reminding us of William Safire's famous remark, "Never use a big word when a diminutive one will do."], all bets are suddenly off. Anything can happen. Absolutely anything. Common sense is no match for the voice of God – as the actions of Dan Lafferty vividly attest.<ref name="banner"></ref>{{Rp|xxiii}}

Actually, we see that the opposite is true. The actions of Adolph Hitler attest that common sense is no match for the relentless logic of a man with no religious faith to anchor him against the use of atheistic science and heartless reason for his own cruel and violent purposes.

Bob Simplicio took a deep breath.

===Mormon theology leads to murder?===

'''Simplicio''': Justin, you’re taking us off on a tangent. I don’t care if Jon Krakauer’s general statement about religion and violence is supported by careful sociological studies or not. The point is that Mormon theology contributed to a vicious murder, and Krakauer’s book provides the insight and the evidence that this is the case.

'''Justin''': Nonsense. Jon Krakauer’s book is really quite worthless on this score. It provides no insight into the reasons for the murders and it provides no insight into LDS practices or doctrines. The man is simply out of his depth. He has no training in criminology, none in psychology, none in history, none in religion. He is just not the man for the job.

'''Simplicio''': He doesn’t claim to be an expert in these things. He is not a scholar; he is an investigative journalist. He interviews the experts and then synthesizes their insights into a coherent picture that he then communicates to his readers.

'''Justin''': But there is no coherent picture. He rehashes the well-known contributing factors to the brothers’ action – Ron and Dan Lafferty’s father was abusive; their mother was submissive; both boys grew into abusive fathers and husbands themselves; Allen’s wife did not show the proper deference to her brothers-in-law, so she became a target. The defense tried to prove that the two were insane; the prosecution produced witnesses saying the opposite. But where is the coherent picture? What motivated these two men to this horrible crime? Jon Krakauer only answers this in one place. Do you remember it?

'''Simplicio''': I don’t know what you’re referring to.

'''Justin''': Jon is at the point in his book where Ron Lafferty is claiming revelations, one of which eventually tells him to kill his sister-in-law. Krakauer points out that Lafferty had been examined by a psychiatrist who concluded that his revelations were delusions, “spawned by depression and his deeply entrenched narcissism, with no basis whatever in reality.” But Krakauer will have none of it. “Ron knows that the commandments he’d received were no mere figment of his imagination,” says Krakauer. “The Lord spoke to him.”<ref name="banner"></ref>{{Rp|162}} That is Krakauer’s explanation, the only one he ever gives. What do you think, Mario? Did God really speak to Ron Lafferty and tell him to kill his sister-in-law?

'''Simplicio''': Don’t be ridiculous. Jon Krakauer doesn’t believe in God.

'''Justin''': So what is he trying to say? Look, there are only three possibilities here. Either Lafferty is insane and his revelations are all delusions, or he is sane and knows that he did not really receive revelations, which means he is lying, or he actually received the word of God telling him to murder his sister-in-law.

'''Simplicio''': Jon’s point is that thinking that you can speak with God is a kind of insanity.

===Belief in revelation equals insanity===

'''Justin''': Aha! Now you have it. That is Krakauer’s agenda. He is an admitted atheist and that is the thing he wants to prove. That was his preconceived notion, and – surprise! – that is his conclusion. But it’s nonsense. There is not a Mormon bishop in the church who hasn’t received revelation to guide him in his calling, and Mormon bishops are among the sanest people I know. They do not kill people. But the Lafferty brothers did, and Jon Krakauer simply has no clue as to why.

'''Sagredo''': So that’s why you think the book is useless.

'''Justin''': Yes. That and the fact that he also spends half of his book writing about the history of the LDS church.

'''Sagredo''': What is wrong with that?

'''Justin''': He just doesn’t know very much about it. His only sources seem to be slanted anti-Mormon books – books that he clearly chooses because they support his prejudices. And so he makes one error after another, silly errors that any active member of the church can spot in a minute.

'''Simplicio''': Like what?

===Basic errors of fact and history===

'''Justin''': Like in his chapter about the Hill Cumorah, where he says that “the Hill Cumorah is one of the holiest sites in all of Mormondom, and sooner or later most Latter-day Saints make a pilgrimage there.”<ref name="banner"></ref>{{Rp|63}} He simply has no idea that Mormons do not speak of “holy sites” in that way, that there are no Mormon “pilgrimages,” and that it is simply not true that most Mormons will ever visit the Hill Cumorah. It is not one of our religious duties. It’s just that this is the kind of silly devout behavior he expects of Mormons, so, for him, that makes it a fact. He refers to the Apostle Mark E. Peterson as the President of the Church.<ref name="banner"></ref>{{Rp|75}} Any Mormon could have fixed that mistake for him, but he obviously sought no Mormon fact-checking help for his book. He speaks of the Book of Mormon’s Laban as a “filthy-rich sheep magnate”<ref name="banner"></ref>{{Rp|165}} because he has not read the Book of Mormon closely enough to notice that the Laban in the Book of Mormon is not the same as the Laban in the Old Testament. After all, why should he waste time actually reading the book when he already knows what his opinion of it is going to be?

'''Simplicio''': But he corrected those errors in the second edition.

'''Justin''': Some of them. He still hung onto his Cumorah error. But I especially enjoy what he said in his appendix in the second edition. After the first edition came out, Richard Turley, a Mormon historian, pointed out several of these errors. So, in the second edition, Krakauer concedes five of these mistakes and then proceeds to debate the rest. I love how he justifies his position. Speaking of Turley’s review of his book, Krakauer says, “Some of the ‘errors’ he [Turley] alleges are no more that honest differences of opinion.”<ref name="banner"></ref>{{Rp|357}}

'''Simplicio''': So?

'''Justin''': So do you know what they call it when an author knows that there are other “honest” points of view, but he only presents one of them? They don’t call it scholarship. They don’t even call it investigative journalism. They call it propaganda. That is what Jon Krakauer has written. There is no balance in the book, no acknowledgement of any view but his own. In referring to one historical incident, he states, “I find the version of the tragedy offered by John D. Lee, Juanita Brooks, and Will Bagley ... to be much more credible than the versions offered by Turley and other spokesmen for the LDS Church.” That’s it! No explanation of why he dislikes the LDS versions, no reasons given that would allow a reader to judge anything for himself. Jon thinks that it should be enough for us to know that he - our intellectually-detached rational judge of all things historical - doesn’t find them “credible.” Well, of course we know what he finds wrong with the other versions – they don’t agree with his agenda. And if he were to allow himself to discuss any of these other views, he might have to give the LDS Church one tiny break in his otherwise unremitting, condescending ridicule of a faith he doesn’t understand.

'''Simpicio''': That’s a little harsh.

'''Justin''' : Is it? Do you remember what he said about the Cumorah Pageant he attended?

:The pageant has the energy of a Phish concert, but without the drunkenness, outlandish hairdos (Brother Richards’ comb-over notwithstanding), or clouds of marijuana smoke.... Order, needless to say, prevails. This is a culture that considers obedience to be among the highest virtues.<ref name="banner"></ref>{{Rp|67}}

Besides the mean-spirited ridicule of Brother Richards’ appearance, what about the rest? I’ve been to concerts at the Kennedy Center in Washington, D.C., where order, needless to say, prevailed. But I always chalked that up to the decency and good manners of the concert-goers. Of course, that can’t be the explanation for the behavior of the Mormons at the Cumorah Pageant. After all, Mormons only behave in an orderly way because they are mindless, obsequious little automatons.

'''Sagredo''': You seem to have strong feelings about this book.

Justin smiled.

===Krakauer's Abuse of Elizabeth Smart===

'''Justin''': I must admit that the book makes me a little angry. But we haven’t yet gotten to the part that offends me most of all. That is Krakauer’s treatment of Elizabeth Smart.

'''Simplicio''': Yes. That was a bit over the top.

'''Sagredo''': What is this?

'''Justin''': In 2002, while Jon Krakauer was still writing his book, a pretty, innocent fourteen-year-old girl named Elizabeth Smart was abducted from her home in Salt Lake City by an itinerant street preacher, Brian Mitchell, and his wife, Wanda Barzee. Mitchell cut through the window screen of Elizabeth’s home at night, while the family was asleep. He woke Elizabeth up with a knife at her throat and told her that he would kill her and her family if she did not go with him. She was taken to a campsite in the woods nearby, held captive by chaining her to a tree, and raped repeatedly at knifepoint over a period of nine months.

'''Sagredo''': How horrible. But why did that matter to Krakauer? Was Mitchell a Mormon?

'''Justin''': Both Mitchell and his wife had been raised in the church and excommunicated for apostasy in the mid 1990s. Mitchell claimed that God had told him to take Elizabeth as his polygamous wife.

'''Sagredo''': Ah. I see the connection.

'''Justin''': Yes. But the point here is not what Jon has to say about Mitchell and Barzee; it’s what he has to say about Elizabeth Smart.

'''Sagredo''': What about Elizabeth?

'''Justin''': You see, toward the end of her captivity, she was occasionally left alone, but she did not try to escape. When she was finally recognized on the street, she did not admit who she was, until pressed. And, after the kidnappers were arrested, Elizabeth expressed some concern for their welfare.

'''Sagredo''': But this is typical behavior for someone who is abducted, threatened, and then shown a little kindness. It’s called the Stockholm syndrome.

'''Justin''': Yes. And Krakauer knows it. He mentions the syndrome in connection with another case in his book,<ref>On p. 21, it is used to explain the attitude of a polygamous wife in Colorado City.</ref> but there is no mention of it in reference to Elizabeth Smart. Instead, Jon prefers the time-honored tradition of blaming the victim, and, in this case, the victim’s family. Elizabeth’s problem, according to Jon Krakauer, is that she was “raised to obey figures of Mormon authority unquestioningly, and to believe that LDS doctrine is the law of God.”<ref name="banner"></ref>{{Rp|45}} Of course, he has no idea what they actually taught her; but he is quite sure that all Mormons are taught blind obedience, so that must have been it. He also suggests that “the white robes Mitchell and Barzee wore, and forced Elizabeth to wear, resembled the sacred robes she had donned with her family when they entered the Mormon temple.” Now you can’t really blame Krakauer for a stupid mistake like this, because he is not a Mormon and should not be expected to know that Elizabeth, having been born ‘under the covenant,’ would not need to be sealed to her parents in the temple, and so she would probably never have even seen the robes that her parents wore when they attended the temple. Of course, he could have done a little research here by actually talking to a faithful Mormon, but Jon doesn’t like to use faithful Mormons as sources.

'''Sagredo''': But why wouldn’t he bring up the Stockholm syndrome? Can’t he see that Elizabeth’s case is a classic example?

'''Justin''': Because he has an axe to grind. He doesn’t consult psychologists or other experts on abductions to ask them to comment on Elizabeth’s case. Instead, he goes searching for someone to tell him what he wants to hear. He finds Debbie Palmer, a refugee from a non-LDS polygamous offshoot from the church, who is now an anti-polygamy crusader. It is Debbie’s opinion that “Mitchell would never have been able to have such power over a non-Mormon girl.” Debbie is not a psychologist and was never a Mormon, but she was once a member of a polygamous sect. That’s good enough for Jon. Actually a member of a polygamous sect – what more expertise could you want?

'''Sagredo''': I guess neither of them ever heard of Patricia Hearst. As I remember, she was brainwashed by her captors and ended up strongly sympathetic to them. But no one ever blamed her parents for it.

'''Justin''': No. But Jon Krakauer blames Ed and Lois Smart for Elizabeth’s problems. It’s their fault for teaching Elizabeth to follow her LDS faith. It’s Lois’ fault that Mitchell came to work at their house and meet Elizabeth in the first place, because Lois has “a soft spot for the destitute.” There’s that condescending, ridiculing sense of humor again. Jon has no sympathy for their nine months of anguish, not knowing if their daughter was dead or alive, picturing what may have happened or might still be happening, knowing that whatever it was had to have been a horror for their little girl. And he has no sympathy for Elizabeth Smart. I read his chapter in vain, looking for any vestige of understanding of what Elizabeth and her family suffered. There was nothing. Nothing. I’m sorry, Bob; Jon Krakauer is just a mean man.

'''Simplicio''': So you think Elizabeth Smart’s Mormon upbringing was not a factor in her failing to escape when she could?

'''Justin''': Absolutely not. When non-Mormons are abducted, their responses are commonly identical to Elizabeth’s. But I’ll tell you what effect her religion did have on her. It helped her to recover. She forgave her abductors and got on with her life. And her parents were amazing. They asked her no questions about her ordeal. When she finally testified in court, six years later, most of the details they heard were details they were hearing for the first time. In 2007, she co-wrote a Department of Justice pamphlet for victims of abduction in which she said, “I made a conscious decision that my abductors had already taken away 9 months of my life, and I certainly was not going to give them any more than that.”<ref name="smart">''You’re Not Alone: The Journey from Abduction to Empowerment'', U.S. Department of Justice</ref>{{Rp|29}} That’s the kind of strength and independence that the gospel of Jesus Christ truly fosters in LDS women. She also describes how she once took several members of her family back into the woods to where she had been held, and told them, “This is where I was held hostage, and now I'm showing you. They can't have this anymore.”<ref name="smart"></ref>{{Rp|31}} In 2009, she left to serve an LDS mission in France. She has since returned and was recently married.

'''Simplicio''': There is no question, Justin. Elizabeth Smart is a remarkable woman.

'''Justin''': Actually, the LDS Church is filled with remarkable women.

=== ===
{{Endnotes label}}
<references />

Response to Under the Banner of Heaven: A Story of Violent Faith/The Justin Wise Dialogues

2014-06-16T02:35:12Z

RonHellings1:

__NOTOC__
The following dialogue is from ''The Justin Wise Dialogues'', an unpublished manuscript by Ron Hellings. The imaginary dialogues in the chapter from which this segment is taken involve three men:
* Justin Wise, a Mormon
* Bob Simplicio, an ex-Mormon who left the church for intellectual reasons but just can't leave it alone
* Mario Sagredo, an Italian investigator

The subject of the discussion in this excerpt is Jon Krakauer's 2003 book, "Under the Banner of Heaven". <ref name="banner">{{CriticalWork:Krakauer:Under the Banner of Heaven}}</ref>

==Dialogue==

'''Simplicio''': You may have a nice logical ethical philosophy in theory, but in practice it is a complete failure. In practice, Mormon doctrine does not lead to moral behavior.

'''Justin''': What are you talking about?

'''Simplicio''': I am referring to the main point of the recent best-seller, “Under the Banner of Heaven”.<ref name="banner"></ref> This is a book in which the author, Jon Krakauer, makes it very clear that religion in general, and the Mormon faith in particular, are powerful forces in motivating people to violent behavior.

'''Justin''': Come on, Bob. I thought you were smarter than that. Did you read the book?

'''Simplicio''': Yes. And it seems to me that…

===Brief summary of the volume===

'''Sagredo''' (interrupting): What is this book about?

'''Simplicio''': I’m sorry. Let me explain. In 2003, Jon Krakauer, an investigative reporter, wrote a book about a sensational murder in Utah in 1984, when two Mormon brothers...

'''Justin''' (interrupting): Bob...

'''Simplicio''': All right. Two excommunicated Mormon brothers, Ron and Dan Lafferty, murdered their younger brother Allen’s wife and baby daughter.

'''Sagredo''': Why?

===God commanded murder?===

'''Simplicio''': That’s just the point. Ron and Dan Lafferty said that God had told them to do it. And that is the premise of Krakauer’s whole book – that it was their Mormon upbringing that allowed them, pushed them, to this horrendous deed.

'''Sagredo''': Are Mormons particularly violent?

'''Justin''': Of course not. Krakauer just says this because he wants it to be the explanation. He has no facts to back it up. No studies of violence among Mormons as opposed to other religions. Nothing. In fact, it isn’t just Mormons he picks on. The premise of his book is that all religion leads to violence. He begins his book with a prologue in which he says, “As a means of motivating people to be cruel or inhumane – as a means of inciting evil, to borrow the vocabulary of the devout – there may be no more potent force than religion.”<ref name="banner"></ref>{{Rp|xxi}} What do you think, Mario? Is this a true statement?

'''Sagredo''': Well, there have been plenty of acts of violence in the name of religion.

'''Justin''': Of course there have. You can find anecdotes to support almost any proposition. In fact, I am thinking of writing a book advancing the idea that, as a means of motivating people to acts of violence, there may be no more potent force than World Cup Soccer.

Mario laughed.

'''Sagredo''': I know of many stories that support that premise.

'''Justin''': Right. But you can’t prove a premise by citing a few anecdotes. You need careful comparative studies. So where are the sociological studies that support Krakauer’s outlandish statement? There are none. None. In fact, the only way he can get away with positing such a ridiculous idea is to ignore overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

'''Simplicio''': What evidence to the contrary? Are you claiming that religious violence never happened?

'''Justin''': Of course not. I’m just saying that religious violence is the work of amateurs. Add up all the religious violence you can think of – the crusades, the inquisition, 400 years of Catholic-Protestant wars in Ireland, Islamic terrorism. Amateurs. If you want really professional cruelty and violence, you need to find yourself a good atheist. These are the guys who know how to do get it done. The reign of terror in revolutionary France was the work of atheists. They called it “The Age of Reason.” Slobodan Milošević was an atheist. So was Pol Pot. So were Josef Stalin and Mao Tse-Tung. Adolf Hitler wasn’t waging a religious campaign against the Jews, he was waging a campaign of scientific racism. And he had hard empirical science on his side. Intelligent Nazi scientists felt that they had evidence that Jews and other races were genetically inferior to Aryans, and that the only rational, ethical way to better the world was through eugenics and systematic genocide.

'''Sagredo''': That’s true. No uncomfortable religious faith got in Hitler’s way.

'''Justin''': And so Krakauer gets it exactly wrong. In the prologue of his book, he also says,

:Faith is the very antithesis of reason, injudiciousness a crucial component of spiritual devotion. And when religious fanaticism supplants ratiocination [a little-used word meaning 'logic.' reminding us of William Safire's famous remark, "Never use a big word when a diminutive one will do."], all bets are suddenly off. Anything can happen. Absolutely anything. Common sense is no match for the voice of God – as the actions of Dan Lafferty vividly attest.<ref name="banner"></ref>{{Rp|xxiii}}

Actually, we see that the opposite is true. The actions of Adolph Hitler attest that common sense is no match for the relentless logic of a man with no religious faith to anchor him against the use of atheistic science and heartless reason for his own cruel and violent purposes.

Bob Simplicio took a deep breath.

===Mormon theology leads to murder?===

'''Simplicio''': Justin, you’re taking us off on a tangent. I don’t care if Jon Krakauer’s general statement about religion and violence is supported by careful sociological studies or not. The point is that Mormon theology contributed to a vicious murder, and Krakauer’s book provides the insight and the evidence that this is the case.

'''Justin''': Nonsense. Jon Krakauer’s book is really quite worthless on this score. It provides no insight into the reasons for the murders and it provides no insight into LDS practices or doctrines. The man is simply out of his depth. He has no training in criminology, none in psychology, none in history, none in religion. He is just not the man for the job.

'''Simplicio''': He doesn’t claim to be an expert in these things. He is not a scholar; he is an investigative journalist. He interviews the experts and then synthesizes their insights into a coherent picture that he then communicates to his readers.

'''Justin''': But there is no coherent picture. He rehashes the well-known contributing factors to the brothers’ action – Ron and Dan Lafferty’s father was abusive; their mother was submissive; both boys grew into abusive fathers and husbands themselves; Allen’s wife did not show the proper deference to her brothers-in-law, so she became a target. The defense tried to prove that the two were insane; the prosecution produced witnesses saying the opposite. But where is the coherent picture? What motivated these two men to this horrible crime? Jon Krakauer only answers this in one place. Do you remember it?

'''Simplicio''': I don’t know what you’re referring to.

'''Justin''': Jon is at the point in his book where Ron Lafferty is claiming revelations, one of which eventually tells him to kill his sister-in-law. Krakauer points out that Lafferty had been examined by a psychiatrist who concluded that his revelations were delusions, “spawned by depression and his deeply entrenched narcissism, with no basis whatever in reality.” But Krakauer will have none of it. “Ron knows that the commandments he’d received were no mere figment of his imagination,” says Krakauer. “The Lord spoke to him.”<ref name="banner"></ref>{{Rp|162}} That is Krakauer’s explanation, the only one he ever gives. What do you think, Mario? Did God really speak to Ron Lafferty and tell him to kill his sister-in-law?

'''Simplicio''': Don’t be ridiculous. Jon Krakauer doesn’t believe in God.

'''Justin''': So what is he trying to say? Look, there are only three possibilities here. Either Lafferty is insane and his revelations are all delusions, or he is sane and knows that he did not really receive revelations, which means he is lying, or he actually received the word of God telling him to murder his sister-in-law.

'''Simplicio''': Jon’s point is that thinking that you can speak with God is a kind of insanity.

===Belief in revelation equals insanity===

'''Justin''': Aha! Now you have it. That is Krakauer’s agenda. He is an admitted atheist and that is the thing he wants to prove. That was his preconceived notion, and – surprise! – that is his conclusion. But it’s nonsense. There is not a Mormon bishop in the church who hasn’t received revelation to guide him in his calling, and Mormon bishops are among the sanest people I know. They do not kill people. But the Lafferty brothers did, and Jon Krakauer simply has no clue as to why.

'''Sagredo''': So that’s why you think the book is useless.

'''Justin''': Yes. That and the fact that he also spends half of his book writing about the history of the LDS church.

'''Sagredo''': What is wrong with that?

'''Justin''': He just doesn’t know very much about it. His only sources seem to be slanted anti-Mormon books – books that he clearly chooses because they support his prejudices. And so he makes one error after another, silly errors that any active member of the church can spot in a minute.

'''Simplicio''': Like what?

===Basic errors of fact and history===

'''Justin''': Like in his chapter about the Hill Cumorah, where he says that “the Hill Cumorah is one of the holiest sites in all of Mormondom, and sooner or later most Latter-day Saints make a pilgrimage there.”<ref name="banner"></ref>{{Rp|63}} He simply has no idea that Mormons do not speak of “holy sites” in that way, that there are no Mormon “pilgrimages,” and that it is simply not true that most Mormons will ever visit the Hill Cumorah. It is not one of our religious duties. It’s just that this is the kind of silly devout behavior he expects of Mormons, so, for him, that makes it a fact. He refers to the Apostle Mark E. Peterson as the President of the Church.<ref name="banner"></ref>{{Rp|75}} Any Mormon could have fixed that mistake for him, but he obviously sought no Mormon fact-checking help for his book. He speaks of the Book of Mormon’s Laban as a “filthy-rich sheep magnate”<ref name="banner"></ref>{{Rp|165}} because he has not read the Book of Mormon closely enough to notice that the Laban in the Book of Mormon is not the same as the Laban in the Old Testament. After all, why should he waste time actually reading the book when he already knows what his opinion of it is going to be?

'''Simplicio''': But he corrected those errors in the second edition.

'''Justin''': Some of them. He still hung onto his Cumorah error. But I especially enjoy what he said in his appendix in the second edition. After the first edition came out, Richard Turley, a Mormon historian, pointed out several of these errors. So, in the second edition, Krakauer concedes five of these mistakes and then proceeds to debate the rest. I love how he justifies his position. Speaking of Turley’s review of his book, Krakauer says, “Some of the ‘errors’ he [Turley] alleges are no more that honest differences of opinion.”<ref name="banner"></ref>{{Rp|357}}

'''Simplicio''': So?

'''Justin''': So do you know what they call it when an author knows that there are other “honest” points of view, but he only presents one of them? They don’t call it scholarship. They don’t even call it investigative journalism. They call it propaganda. That is what Jon Krakauer has written. There is no balance in the book, no acknowledgement of any view but his own. In referring to one historical incident, he states, “I find the version of the tragedy offered by John D. Lee, Juanita Brooks, and Will Bagley ... to be much more credible than the versions offered by Turley and other spokesmen for the LDS Church.” That’s it! No explanation of why he dislikes the LDS versions, no reasons given that would allow a reader to judge anything for himself. Jon thinks that it should be enough for us to know that he - our intellectually-detached rational judge of all things historical - doesn’t find them “credible.” Well, of course we know what he finds wrong with the other versions – they don’t agree with his agenda. And if he were to allow himself to discuss any of these other views, he might have to give the LDS Church one tiny break in his otherwise unremitting, condescending ridicule of a faith he doesn’t understand.

'''Simpicio''': That’s a little harsh.

'''Justin''' : Is it? Do you remember what he said about the Cumorah Pageant he attended?

:The pageant has the energy of a Phish concert, but without the drunkenness, outlandish hairdos (Brother Richards’ comb-over notwithstanding), or clouds of marijuana smoke.... Order, needless to say, prevails. This is a culture that considers obedience to be among the highest virtues.<ref name="banner"></ref>{{Rp|67}}

Besides the mean-spirited ridicule of Brother Richards’ appearance, what about the rest? I’ve been to concerts at the Kennedy Center in Washington, D.C., where order, needless to say, prevailed. But I always chalked that up to the decency and good manners of the concert-goers. Of course, that can’t be the explanation for the behavior of the Mormons at the Cumorah Pageant. After all, Mormons only behave in an orderly way because they are mindless, obsequious little automatons.

'''Sagredo''': You seem to have strong feelings about this book.

Justin smiled.

===Krakauer's Abuse of Elizabeth Smart===

'''Justin''': I must admit that the book makes me a little angry. But we haven’t yet gotten to the part that offends me most of all. That is Krakauer’s treatment of Elizabeth Smart.

'''Simplicio''': Yes. That was a bit over the top.

'''Sagredo''': What is this?

'''Justin''': In 2002, while Jon Krakauer was still writing his book, a pretty, innocent fourteen-year-old girl named Elizabeth Smart was abducted from her home in Salt Lake City by an itinerant street preacher, Brian Mitchell, and his wife, Wanda Barzee. Mitchell cut through the window screen of Elizabeth’s home at night, while the family was asleep. He woke Elizabeth up with a knife at her throat and told her that he would kill her and her family if she did not go with him. She was taken to a campsite in the woods nearby, held captive by chaining her to a tree, and raped repeatedly at knifepoint over a period of nine months.

'''Sagredo''': How horrible. But why did that matter to Krakauer? Was Mitchell a Mormon?

'''Justin''': Both Mitchell and his wife had been raised in the church and excommunicated for apostasy in the mid 1990s. Mitchell claimed that God had told him to take Elizabeth as his polygamous wife.

'''Sagredo''': Ah. I see the connection.

'''Justin''': Yes. But the point here is not what Jon has to say about Mitchell and Barzee; it’s what he has to say about Elizabeth Smart.

'''Sagredo''': What about Elizabeth?

'''Justin''': You see, toward the end of her captivity, she was occasionally left alone, but she did not try to escape. When she was finally recognized on the street, she did not admit who she was, until pressed. And, after the kidnappers were arrested, Elizabeth expressed some concern for their welfare.

'''Sagredo''': But this is typical behavior for someone who is abducted, threatened, and then shown a little kindness. It’s called the Stockholm syndrome.

'''Justin''': Yes. And Krakauer knows it. He mentions the syndrome in connection with another case in his book,<ref>On p. 21, it is used to explain the attitude of a polygamous wife in Colorado City.</ref> but there is no mention of it in reference to Elizabeth Smart. Instead, Jon prefers the time-honored tradition of blaming the victim, and, in this case, the victim’s family. Elizabeth’s problem, according to Jon Krakauer, is that she was “raised to obey figures of Mormon authority unquestioningly, and to believe that LDS doctrine is the law of God.”<ref name="banner"></ref>{{Rp|45}} Of course, he has no idea what they actually taught her; but he is quite sure that all Mormons are taught blind obedience, so that must have been it. He also suggests that “the white robes Mitchell and Barzee wore, and forced Elizabeth to wear, resembled the sacred robes she had donned with her family when they entered the Mormon temple.” Now you can’t really blame Krakauer for a stupid mistake like this, because he is not a Mormon and should not be expected to know that Elizabeth, having been born ‘under the covenant,’ would not need to be sealed to her parents in the temple, and so she would probably never have even seen the robes that her parents wore when they attended the temple. Of course, he could have done a little research here by actually talking to a faithful Mormon, but Jon doesn’t like to use faithful Mormons as sources.

'''Sagredo''': But why wouldn’t he bring up the Stockholm syndrome? Can’t he see that Elizabeth’s case is a classic example?

'''Justin''': Because he has an axe to grind. He doesn’t consult psychologists or other experts on abductions to ask them to comment on Elizabeth’s case. Instead, he goes searching for someone to tell him what he wants to hear. He finds Debbie Palmer, a refugee from a non-LDS polygamous offshoot from the church, who is now an anti-polygamy crusader. It is Debbie’s opinion that “Mitchell would never have been able to have such power over a non-Mormon girl.” Debbie is not a psychologist and was never a Mormon, but she was once a member of a polygamous sect. That’s good enough for Jon. Actually a member of a polygamous sect – what more expertise could you want?

'''Sagredo''': I guess neither of them ever heard of Patricia Hearst. As I remember, she was brainwashed by her captors and ended up strongly sympathetic to them. But no one ever blamed her parents for it.

'''Justin''': No. But Jon Krakauer blames Ed and Lois Smart for Elizabeth’s problems. It’s their fault for teaching Elizabeth to follow her LDS faith. It’s Lois’ fault that Mitchell came to work at their house and meet Elizabeth in the first place, because Lois has “a soft spot for the destitute.” There’s that condescending, ridiculing sense of humor again. Jon has no sympathy for their nine months of anguish, not knowing if their daughter was dead or alive, picturing what may have happened or might still be happening, knowing that whatever it was had to have been a horror for their little girl. And he has no sympathy for Elizabeth Smart. I read his chapter in vain, looking for any vestige of understanding of what Elizabeth and her family suffered. There was nothing. Nothing. I’m sorry, Bob; Jon Krakauer is just a mean man.

'''Simplicio''': So you think Elizabeth Smart’s Mormon upbringing was not a factor in her failing to escape when she could?

'''Justin''': Absolutely not. When non-Mormons are abducted, their responses are commonly identical to Elizabeth’s. But I’ll tell you what effect her religion did have on her. It helped her to recover. She forgave her abductors and got on with her life. And her parents were amazing. They asked her no questions about her ordeal. When she finally testified in court, six years later, most of the details they heard were details they were hearing for the first time. In 2007, she co-wrote a Department of Justice pamphlet for victims of abduction in which she said, “I made a conscious decision that my abductors had already taken away 9 months of my life, and I certainly was not going to give them any more than that.”<ref name="smart">''You’re Not Alone: The Journey from Abduction to Empowerment'', U.S. Department of Justice</ref>{{Rp|29}} That’s the kind of strength and independence that the gospel of Jesus Christ truly fosters in LDS women. She also describes how she once took several members of her family back into the woods to where she had been held, and told them, “This is where I was held hostage, and now I'm showing you. They can't have this anymore.”<ref name="smart"></ref>{{Rp|31}} In 2009, she left to serve an LDS mission in France. She has since returned and was recently married.

'''Simplicio''': There is no question, Justin. Elizabeth Smart is a remarkable woman.

'''Justin''': Actually, the LDS Church is filled with remarkable women.

=== ===
{{Endnotes label}}
<references />

Mormonism and church leadership/Independent thought

2014-02-10T00:56:57Z

RonHellings1: /* Response from President George Albert Smith regarding the statement: "The passage quoted does not express the true position of the Church" */

Mormonism and church leadership/Independent thought

2014-02-09T20:21:05Z

RonHellings1: /* Response from President George Albert Smith regarding the statement */

Mormonism and church leadership/Independent thought

2014-02-09T20:06:49Z

RonHellings1: /* */

Question: Is the Mormon doctrine of "agency" or "free will" false, since all human choices are predetermined by the laws of physics?

2013-07-13T15:48:42Z

RonHellings1: /* {{Conclusion label}} */

Countercult ministries/Tower to Truth Ministries/50 Questions to Ask Mormons

2013-03-18T06:27:47Z

RonHellings1: /* */

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

=Answers to "50 Questions to Ask Mormons"=

Anti-Mormon literature tends to recycle the same themes. Some ministries are using a series of fifty questions, which they believe will help "cultists" like the Mormons. One ministry seems to suggest that such questions are a good way to deceive Latter-day Saints, since the questions "give...them hope that you are genuinely interested in learning more about their religion."

This ministry tells its readers what their real intent should be with their Mormon friend: "to get them thinking about things they may have never thought about and researching into the false teachings of their church." Thus, the questions are not sincere attempts to understand what the Latter-day Saints believe, but are a smokescreen or diversionary tactic to introduce anti-Mormon material.{{ref|anti1}}

The questions are not difficult to answer, nor are they new. This page provides links to answers to the questions. It should be noted that the questions virtually all do at least one of the following:

# misunderstand or misread LDS doctrine or scripture;
# give unofficial material the status of official belief;
# assume that Mormons must have inerrantist ideas about scripture or prophets like conservative evangelical Protestants do;
# apply a strict standard to LDS ideas, but use a double standard to avoid condemning the Bible or their own beliefs if the standard was applied fairly to both.

'''NOTE:''' It should be remembered that this particular list of questions was put together by an Evangelical Christian ministry. The answers provided here by FAIR are directed to Christians of any denomination who might use such a list or to Mormon Christians who might be bothered by such a list. There are also secular critics of the Church who would not be bothered by or have any use for many of the questions on this list. We recognize that the answers provided here may not be satisfactory to such individuals; that is fine. If anyone knows of such critical lists produced by secularists or secular organizations, we would be interested to know about them and might consider them for similar treatment.

==Questions About LDS Prophets==

==== ====
{{CountercultQuestion
|question=1. Why does the Mormon church still teach that Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God after he made a false prophecy about a temple built in Missouri in his generation ({{s||DC|84|1-5}})
|response=
*This was not a prophecy, but a command from God to build the temple. There's a difference. Jesus said people should repent; just because many didn't doesn't make Him a false messenger, simply a messenger that fallible people didn't heed.
* ''Learn more here:'' [[Independence temple to be built "in this generation"]]
}}

==== ====
{{CountercultQuestion
|question=2. Since the time when Brigham Young taught that both the moon and the sun were inhabited by people, has the Mormon church ever found scientific evidence of that to be true? (''Journal of Discourses'' (1870), 13:271)
|response=
*In Brigham (and Joseph's) day, there had been newspaper articles reporting that a famous astronomer had reported that there were men on the moon and elsewhere. This was published in LDS areas; the retraction of this famous hoax never was publicized, and so they may not have even heard about it.
*Brigham and others were most likely repeating what had been told them by the science of the day. (Lots of Biblical prophets talked about the earth being [[Mormonism and the Bible/Cosmology|flat]], the sky being a dome, etc.—it is inconsistent for conservative Protestants to complain that a false belief about the physical world shared by others in their culture condemns Brigham and Joseph, but does not condemn Bible prophets.)
*In any case, Brigham made it clear that he was expressing his ''opinion'': "Do you think it is inhabited? I rather think it is." Prophets are entitled to their opinions; in fact, the point of Brigham's discourse is that the only fanatic is one who insists upon clinging to a false idea.
* ''Learn more here:'' [[Brigham Young and moonmen]] 
* ''Learn more here:'' [[Joseph Smith and moonmen]]
}}

==== ====
{{CountercultQuestion
|question=3. Why did Brigham Young teach that Adam is "our Father and our God" when both the Bible and the Book of Mormon ({{s||Mormon|9|12}}) say that Adam is a creation of God? ({{JDfairwiki|author=Brigham Young|vol=1|disc=8|start=50}})
|response=
*The problem with "Adam-God" is that we don't understand what Brigham meant. All of his statements cannot be reconciled with each other. In any case, Latter-day Saints are not inerrantists—they believe prophets can have their own opinions. Only the united voice of the First Presidency and the Twelve can establish official LDS doctrine. That never happened with any variety of "Adam-God" doctrine. Since Brigham seemed to also agree with statements like Mormon 9:12, and the Biblical record, it seems likely that we do not entirely understand how he fit all of these ideas together.
* ''Learn more here:'' [[Adam-God]]
}}

==== ====
{{CountercultQuestion
|question=4. If Brigham Young was a true prophet, how come one of your later prophets overturned his declaration which stated that the black man could never hold the priesthood in the LDS Church until after the resurrection of all other races ({{JDfairwiki|author=Brigham Young|vol=2|disc=26|start=142|end=143}})
|response=
*Peter and the other apostles likewise misunderstood the timing of gospel blessings to non-Israelites. Even following a revelation to Peter, many members of the early Christian Church continued to fight about this point and how to implement it—even Peter and Paul had disagreements. Yet, Bible-believing Christians, such as the Latter-day Saints, continue to consider both as prophets. Critics should be careful that they do not have a double standard, or they will condemn Bible prophets as well.
*The Latter-day Saints are not [[Mormonism and the Bible/Inerrancy|scriptural]] or [[Mormonism and doctrine/Prophets are not infallible|prophetic inerrantists]]. They are not troubled when prophets have personal opinions which turn out to be incorrect. In the case of the [[Blacks and the priesthood|priesthood ban]], members of the modern Church accepted the change with more joy and obedience than many first century members accepted the extension of the gospel to the Gentiles without the need for keeping the Mosaic Law.
}}

==== ====
{{CountercultQuestion
|question=5. Since the Bible's test of determine whether someone is a true prophet of God is 100% accuracy in all his prophecies ({{b||Deuteronomy|18|20-22}}), has the LDS Church ever reconsidered its teaching that Joseph Smith and Brigham Young were true prophets?
|response=
*Believing Christians should be careful. Unless they want to be guilty of a double standard, they will end up condemning many Biblical prophets by this standard.
*''Learn more here:'' [[Joseph Smith and prophetic test in Deuteronomy 18]]
}}

==== ====
{{CountercultQuestion
|question=6. Since the current LDS prophets sometimes contradict the former ones, how do you decide which one is correct?
|response=
*Most "contradictions" are actually misunderstandings or misrepresentations of LDS doctrine and teachings by critics. The LDS standard for doctrine is the scriptures, and united statements of the First Presidency and the Twelve.
*The Saints believe they must be led by revelation, adapted to the circumstances in which they now find themselves. Noah was told to build an ark, but not all people required that message. Moses told them to put the Passover lamb’s blood on their door; that was changed with the coming of Christ, etc.
*No member is expected to follow prophetic advice "just because the prophet said so." Each member is to receive his or her own revelatory witness from the Holy Ghost. We cannot be led astray in matters of importance if we always appeal to God for His direction.
}}

==== ====
{{CountercultQuestion
|question=7. Since there are several different contradictory accounts of Joseph Smith's first vision, how did the LDS Church choose the correct one?
|response=
*The First Vision accounts are not contradictory. No early member of the Church claimed that Joseph changed his story, or contradicted himself. Critics of the Church have not been familiar with the data on this point.
*The shortest answer is that the Saints believe the First Vision not because of textual evidence, but because of personal revelation.
*The Church didn't really "choose" one of many accounts; many of the accounts we have today were in diaries, some of which were not known till recently (1832; 1835 (2); Richards, Neibaur). The 1840 (Orson Pratt) and 1842 (Orson Hyde) accounts were secondary recitals of what happened to the Prophet; the Wentworth letter and interview for the Pittsburgh paper were synopsis accounts (at best). The account which the Church uses in the ''Pearl of Great Price'' (written in 1838) was published in 1842 by Joseph Smith as part of his personal history. As new accounts were discovered they were widely published in places like ''BYU Studies''.
* For the most common claim about a contradiction, see here: [[Only one Personage appears in the 1832 account]] 
* Many questions about the First Vision are addressed here: [[First Vision accounts]]
}}

==== ====
{{CountercultQuestion
|question=8. Can you show me in the Bible the LDS teaching that we must all stand before Joseph Smith on the Day of Judgment?
|response=
*This is a misunderstanding and caricature of LDS doctrine. There is, however, the Biblical doctrine that the apostles will help judge Israel:
<blockquote>
Ye [the apostles] are they which have continued with me in my temptations. And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me; that ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. ({{b||Luke|22|28-30}}; see also {{b||Matthew|19|28}})
</blockquote>
*Since the saints believe in modern apostles, they believe that those modern apostles (including Joseph) will have a role in judgment appointed to them by Jesus.
*Those who condemn Joseph on these grounds must also condemn Peter and the rest of the Twelve.
* ''Learn more here:'' [[Joseph Smith's status in LDS belief]]
}}

==Questions About LDS Scripture (excluding the Bible)==
==== ====
{{CountercultQuestion
|question=9. Can you show me archeological and historical proof from non-Mormon sources that prove that the peoples and places named in the Book of Mormon are true?
|response=
*This question is based on the mistaken assumption that the Bible message that Jesus is Christ and Lord is somehow "proved" by archeology, which is not true. It also ignores differences between Old and New World archeology. For example, since we don't know how to pronounce the names of ANY Nephite-era city in the American archeological record, how would we know if we had found a Nephite city or not?
* ''To learn more:'' [[Archeology and the Bible]]
* For physical Book of Mormon evidence specifically, see:
** [[Book_of_Mormon_geography:Old_World|Old World geography]]
** [[Book_of_Mormon_and_warfare|Warfare]]
}}

==== ====
{{CountercultQuestion
|question=10. If the words "familiar spirit" in {{b||Isaiah|29|4}} refer to the Book of Mormon, why does "familiar spirit" always refer to occult practices such as channeling and necromancy everywhere else in the Old Testament?
|response=
*The term "familiar spirit," quoted in the often-poetic Isaiah (and used by Nephi to prophesy about the modern publication of the Book of Mormon) is a ''metaphor'', not a description of any text or its origin.
* ''To learn more:'' [[Book of Mormon as a "familiar spirit"]]
}}

==== ====
{{CountercultQuestion
|question=11. Why did Joseph Smith condone polygamy as an ordinance from God (D. & C. 132) when the Book of Mormon had already condemned the practice (Jacob 1:15, 2:24)
|response=
*The critics need to read the next verses. The Book of Mormon says that God may command polygamy, just a few verses later. ({{s||Jacob|2|30}}).
* ''To learn more:'' [[Book of Mormon condemns polygamy]]
*Many Biblical prophets had more than one wife, and there is no indication that God condemned them. And, the Law of Moses had laws about plural wives—why not just forbid them if it was evil, instead of telling people how they were to conduct it?
* ''To learn more:'' [[Polygamy not Biblical]]
*And, many early Christians didn't think polygamy was inherently evil:
* ''To learn more:'' [[Early Christians on plural marriage]]
}}

==== ====
{{CountercultQuestion
|question=12. Why were the words "white and delightsome" in 2 Nephi 30:6 changed to "pure and delightsome" right on the heels of the Civil Rights campaign for blacks?
|response=
*The critics have their history wrong. The change dates to 1837. The change was made by Joseph Smith in the 1837 edition of the Book of Mormon, though it was not carried through in some other editions, which mistakenly followed the 1830 instead of Joseph’s change. It was restored in the 1981 edition, but that was nearly 150 years after the change was made by Joseph.
*This issue has been discussed extensively in the Church's magazines (e.g. the ''Ensign''), and the scholarly publication ''BYU Studies.''
* ''To learn more:'' {{Dialogue1|author=Douglas Campbell|article='White' or 'Pure': Five Vignettes|vol=29|num=4|date=Winter 1996|start=?}}{{link|url=http://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V29N04_131.pdf}}
}}

==== ====
{{CountercultQuestion
|question=13. If God is an exalted man with a body of flesh and bones, why does {{s||Alma|18|26-28}} and {{b||John|4|24}} say that God is a spirit?
|response=
*In Alma, the reference is to Jesus Christ, who before His birth did not have a physical body—though this is likely not the intent of the verse, since it involves a missionary teaching a non-believer, for whom the missionary describes God as the equivalent non-believer's "Great Spirit." It is misleading to see this attempt to build on common beliefs as a definitive statement about the nature of God.
*John 4:24 does not say God is "a" spirit, but says "God is spirit." There is no "a" in the Greek. The Bible also says "God is truth" or "God is light." Those things are true, but we don't presume God is JUST truth, or JUST light—or JUST spirit.
*As one non-LDS commentary puts it:
<blockquote>
''That God is spirit is not meant as a definition of God's being—though this is how the Stoics [a branch of Greek philosophy] would have understood it. It is a metaphor of his mode of operation, as life-giving power, and it is no more to be taken literally than 1John 1:5, "God is light," or Deut. 4:24, "Your God is a devouring fire." It is only those who have received this power through Christ who can offer God a real worship.'' 
—J. N. Sanders, ''A Commentary on the Gospel According to St. John'', edited and completed by B. A. Mastin, (New York, Harper & Row, 1968), 147–148.
</blockquote>
* ''To learn more:'' [[God is a Spirit]]
}}

==== ====
{{CountercultQuestion
|question=14. Why did God encourage Abraham & Sarah to lie in {{s||Abraham|2|24}}? Isn't lying a sin according to the 10 commandments? Why did God tell Abraham and Sarah to lie when 2 Nephi condemns liars to hell?
|response=
*In the Bible, there are accounts of God commanding or approving less than complete disclosure. These examples seem to involve the protection of the innocent from the wicked, which fits the case of Abraham and his wife nicely.
* ''To learn more:'' [[Why would Abraham lie?]]
}}

==== ====
{{CountercultQuestion
|question=15. Why does the Book of Mormon state that Jesus was born in Jerusalem (Alma 7:10) when history and the Bible state that he was born outside of Jerusalem, in Bethlehem?
|response=
*The Book of Mormon does not say that Jesus would be born in Jerusalem; it says that Jesus would be born in the "Land of Jerusalem."
*Bethlehem is seven miles from Jerusalem. El Amarna letter #287 reports that "a town of the land of Jerusalem, Bit-Lahmi [Bethlehem] by name, a town belonging to the king, has gone over to the side of the people of Keilah." Thus, The Book of Mormon gets the ancient usage exactly right. There was an ancient "Land of Jerusalem" and Bethlehem, Jesus' birthplace, was in it.
* ''To learn more:'' [[Book of Mormon anachronisms/Jerusalem vs Bethlehem]]
}}

==== ====
{{CountercultQuestion
|question=16. If the Book of Mormon is the most correct of any book on earth, as Joseph Smith said, why does it contain over 4000 changes from the original 1830 edition?
|response=
*Christians should be careful with such attacks. If they don’t want to have a double standard, they'd have to realize that there are more differences in Biblical manuscripts of the New Testament than there are words in the New Testament! Yet, Latter-day Saints and other Christians still believe the Bible.
*Most of the changes to the Book of Mormon were issues of spelling, typos, and the like. A few changes were for clarification, but the original Book of Mormon text would easily serve members and scholars.
* ''To learn more:'': [[Book of Mormon textual changes]]
}}

==== ====
{{CountercultQuestion
|question=17. If the Book of Mormon contains the "fulness of the everlasting gospel," why does the LDS Church need additional works?
|response=
*The Book of Mormon's definition of "fulness of the gospel" is not "all truths taught in the Church." The fulness of the gospel is simply defined as the core doctrines of Christ's atonement and the first principles and ordinances of the gospel. Critics do not trouble to understand what the Book of Mormon says before attacking it.
* ''To learn more:'' [[Book of Mormon and the fulness of the gospel]]
}}

==== ====
{{CountercultQuestion
|question=18. If the Book of Mormon contains the "fulness of the everlasting gospel," why doesn't it say anything about so many important teachings such as eternal progression, celestial marriage, the Word of Wisdom, the plurality of Gods, the pre-existence of man, our mother in heaven, baptism for the dead, etc?
|response=
*The Book of Mormon's definition of "fulness of the gospel" is not "all truths taught in the Church." The fulness of the gospel is simply defined as the core doctrines of Christ's atonement and the first principles and ordinances of the gospel. Critics do not trouble to understand what the Book of Mormon says before attacking it. Making the same attack twice (see #17) makes it no more convincing the second time.
* ''To learn more:'' [[Book of Mormon and the fulness of the gospel]]
}}

==== ====
{{CountercultQuestion
|question=19. Why do you baptize for the dead when both {{s||Mosiah|3|25}} and the Bible state that there is no chance of salvation after death?
|response=
*The passage in Mosiah 3:25, and any passages in the Bible which also imply there is no chance of salvation after death, are clearly addressed to those who have the opportunity to repent in this life. Those who have not, by no fault of their own, embraced the everlasting gospel in this life will have the opportunity to do so after death.
*The critics are on thin ice with this attack—do they wish us to believe in a God so unjust that He would damn someone for all eternity, simply because they never had the opportunity to hear about Jesus?
*Why ''wouldn't'' members of the Church baptize for the dead, when the Bible teaches this idea? (See {{b|1|Corinthians|15|29}}.)
* ''To learn more:''[[Template:BaptismDeadWiki|Baptism for the dead]]
}}

==== ====
{{CountercultQuestion
|question=20. Since the word grace means a free gift that can't be earned, why does the Book of Mormon state "for we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do." ({{s|2|Nephi|25|23}})
|response=
*The Book of Mormon does not state that "all we can do" is a way of earning the grace of Christ. And there is not one member of the LDS church who believes that our obedience can ever be payment in full for the free gift of the atonement. By the same token, we reject the "cheap grace" ideas suggested by many modern Protestant churches that seem to require no effort on the sinner's part. The correct meaning of the Book of Mormon phrase "after all we can do" is clear in light of other Book of Mormon passages which define it as repentance and being forgiven of sin and cleansed of guilt (see {{s||Alma|24|10-12}}).
*In fact, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believes the same thing about grace that the earliest Christians believed. Modern Protestant ideas are different from earlier teachings. They are entitled to their opinion, but it doesn't make Mormon ideas "false" if we agree with how the earliest followers of Jesus saw the matter.
*One Evangelical Christian author wrote of his sudden discovery that his previous beliefs about salvation were very different from those held by the early Christians:
<blockquote>
If there's any single doctrine that we would expect to find the faithful associates of the apostles teaching, it's the doctrine of salvation by faith alone. After all, that is the cornerstone doctrine of the Reformation. In fact, we frequently say that persons who don't hold to this doctrine aren't really Christians…
 
Our problem is that Augustine, Luther, and other Western theologians have convinced us that there's an irreconcilable conflict between salvation based on grace and salvation conditioned on works or obedience. They have used a fallacious form of argumentation known as the "false dilemma," by asserting that there are only two possibilities regarding salvation: it's either (1) a gift from God or (2) it's something we earn by our works.
 
The early Christians [and the Latter-day Saints!] would have replied that a gift is no less a gift simply because it's conditioned on obedience....
 
The early Christians believed that salvation is a gift from God but that God gives His gift to whomever He chooses. And He chooses to give it to those who love and obey him. 
—David W. Bercot, ''Will The Real Heretics Please Stand Up: A New Look at Today's Evangelical Church in the Light of Early Christianity'', 3rd edition, (Tyler, Texas: Scroll Publishing Company, 1999[1989]), 57, 61–62. ISBN 0924722002.
</blockquote>
*The Latter-day Saints are pleased to be in the company of the earliest Christians. And it is ridiculous to try to exclude LDS from the community of Christians because they have not embraced the modified doctrines that were clearly adopted later.
*The LDS doctrine of salvation and grace are thoroughly explained in the 1998 conference talk by Elder Dallin H. Oaks, one of the present-day apostles. We advise any who want to find out what Mormons truly believe on this subject, instead of some caricature of our doctrine, to read his talk at:
*{{Ensign1|author=Dallin H. Oaks|article=Have You Been Saved?|date=May 1998|start=55}}{{link|url=http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=83db605ff590c010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1}}
*''To learn more:''
{{GraceWiki}}
}}

==== ====
{{CountercultQuestion
|question=21. Does the LDS Church still regard the Book of Abraham in the Pearl of Great Price as Holy Scripture even after several prominent Egyptologists proved it was an ancient funeral scroll?
|response=
*The LDS Church announced that fragments of the papyrus were from the Book of Breathings within two months of their acquisition.
*The big print in the Church magazine published as soon as the scrolls were recovered can be seen [[Search for the Truth DVD:Book of Abraham:Book of Dead Scan (full size zoom)|here]].
*Critics often don't tell people that we are missing at least 85% of the scrolls that Joseph Smith had. We don't have papyrus with the Book of Abraham on it (except Facsimile #1) and have never claimed to.
* ''To learn more:'': [[Book of Abraham:Book of the Dead]]
}}

==== ====
{{CountercultQuestion
|question=22. Why does the Book of Abraham, chapters 4 & 5, contradict Alma 11 in stating that there is more than one God.
|response=
*The term "God" may be used in more than one way. Latter-day Saints are not Nicene [[Godhead_and_the_Trinity|Trinitarians]], but still believe in "one God."
* ''To learn more:'' [[Polytheism]]
}}

==== ====
{{CountercultQuestion
|question=23. Why does D. & C. 42:18 say there is no forgiveness for a murderer when 3 Nephi 30:2 says there is forgiveness for him?'
|response=
*[http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/42/ Doctrine and Covenants 42] is "the law of the Church" and pertains to those who are baptized members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who by baptism are adopted into the house of Israel. {{s|3|Nephi|30|2}} pertains to those who are still "Gentiles" and who are not yet "numbered with [God's] people who are of the house of Israel." For a member of the Church to commit murder there is no escape from some consequences of that act, whereas a person who has not yet made baptismal covenants may, under certain conditions, be forgiven and inherit celestial glory. For example, some Lamanites repented and were forgiven of their murders (see {{S||Alma|24|10-12}}), though their sins were committed, to an extent, in ignorance.
}}

==== ====
{{CountercultQuestion
|question=24. If the Adam-God doctrine isn't true, how come D. & C. 27:11 calls Adam the Ancient of Days which is clearly a title for God in Daniel Chapter 7?
|response=
*The real question should be how do LDS justify their interpretation of Ancient of Days as Adam. LDS are not dependent upon biblical interpretation for a complete understanding of the meaning of this or any other term. Since LDS have a more expanded idea of Adam's role, it is not surprising that they interpret some verses differently.
*The ''Encyclopedia of Mormonism'' notes:
<blockquote>
For Latter-day Saints, Adam stands as one of the noblest and greatest of all men. Information found in the scriptures and in declarations of latter-day apostles and prophets reveals details about Adam and his important roles in the pre-earth life, in Eden, in mortality, and in his postmortal life. They identify Adam by such names and titles as Michael ({{s||DC|27|11}}; {{s||DC|29|26}}), archangel ({{s||DC|88|112}}), and Ancient of Days ({{s||DC|138|38}}).{{ref|eom1}}
</blockquote>
*Joseph Smith is one source for this view of Adam:
<blockquote>
"‘Ancient of Days’ appears to be his title because he is ‘the first and oldest of all.'{{ref|tpjs1}}
</blockquote>
*The critics are also perhaps too confident in their ability to definitively interpret an isolated verse of scripture. This section of Daniel is written in Aramaic, while the rest of the Old Testament is in Hebrew. The phrase translated "Ancient of Days" (''attiq yômîn'') as one non-LDS source notes, "in reference to God...is unprecedented in the Hebrew texts." Thus, reading this phrase as referring to God (and, in the critics' reading, ''only'' God) relies on parallels from Canaanite myth and Baal imagery in, for example, the Ugaritic texts. {{ref|eerdmans1}} Latter-day Saints are pleased to have a more expanded view through the addition of revelatory insights.
*Like many other Christians, the LDS see many parallels between Christ (who is God) and Adam. Christ is even called, on occasion, the "second Adam." It is thus not surprising that {{s||DC|27|11}} associates Adam with a divine title or status when resurrected and exalted—after all, LDS theology anticipates human deification, so God and Adam are not seen as totally "other" or "different" from each other. LDS would have no problem, then, in seeing Adam granted a type of divine title or epithet—they do not see this as necessarily an either/or situation.
*This does not mean, however, that Adam and God are the same being, merely that they can ultimately share the same divine nature. Such a reading would be strange to creedal Christians who see God as completely different from His creation. Once again, the theological preconceptions with which we approach the Biblical text affects how we read it.
*''To learn more:''[[Template:AdamWiki|Adam wiki articles]]
*''To learn more:''[[Ancient of Days]]
}}

==== ====
{{CountercultQuestion
|question=25. Why does the Book of Mormon contain extensive, word-for-word quotes from the Bible if the LDS Church is correct in teaching that the Bible has been corrupted?
|response=
*It would be more correct to say that the Book of Mormon teaches that plain and precious things have been removed from the Bible {{s|1|Nephi|13|28}}. The vast majority of that which has remained in the Bible is both true and valuable.
*Latter-day Saints take two years of every four in Sunday School studying the Bible. They cherish it. They merely refuse to believe that the Bible is all that God has said, or can say. God can speak whenever He wishes.
* ''To learn more:'' [[Bible basics]]
*For extensive evidence that the Bible both underwent change ''and'' deletions in the very early years, see [[Mormonism and the Bible/Inerrancy|here]].
* ''To learn more:'' [[Mormonism and the Bible/Completeness]]
}}

==== ====
{{CountercultQuestion
|question=26. Why do the Bible verses quoted in the Book of Mormon contain the italicized words from the King James Version that were added into the KJV text by the translators in the 16th and 17th centuries?
|response=
*The italics do indeed identify words added by the translators. They were "added" because they were necessary words for making sense of the translation: in Hebrew and Greek the words are sometimes implied, but necessary for English to make sense. (Italics can mislead us, however, in suggesting that there is such a thing as a word-for-word translation without interpretation, save for the italics.)
*Thus, in some cases the italic words are necessary, and Joseph or another translator would have had to put them in. In other cases, Joseph removed the italic words. (It's not clear that Joseph even owned a Bible during the Book of Mormon translation era, much less that he knew what the italics meant.)
*This is really a question about why the Book of Mormon text is often very close (or, in some cases, identical to) the King James Version. If Joseph was trying to forge a book (as the critics claim) then why did he quote from the Bible, the one book his readers would be sure to know?
*''To learn more:'' [[Joseph Smith Translation and the Book of Mormon]]
}}

==== ====
{{CountercultQuestion
|question=27. If the Book of Mormon was engraved on gold plates thousands of years ago, why does it read in perfect 1611 King James Version English?
|response=
*Because Joseph translated it as King James English.
*Why do modern translations of the Greek and Hebrew Bible sound like modern English, even though the texts are hundreds or thousands of years old? Because that's how the translators translated them. It doesn't say anything about what the language is like on the original.
*(French translators make totally different translations than English translators, but the manuscripts remain the same!)
*Do Christians condemn the Bible as an inauthentic record because their translations sound like 21st century English? This question is a good example of how insincere these "questions" from an anti-Mormon ministry are.
}}

==Questions About the Bible==

==== ====
{{CountercultQuestion
|question=28. If marriage is essential to achieve exaltation, why did Paul say that it is good for a man not to marry? ({{b|1|Corinthians|7|1}})
|response=
*Paul does not say it is good not to marry, but quotes the ''Corinthian Saints''' comments in a previous letter to him. Paul is responding to this claim, and he critiques it.
* ''To learn more:'' [[Paul says good not to marry?]]
}}

==== ====
{{CountercultQuestion
|question=29. Since the Word of Wisdom teaches us to abstain from alcohol, why did Paul encourage Timothy to drink wine for the stomach? ({{b|1|Timothy|5|23}})
|response=
*In Timothy's day, water was often not safe to drink. (Historically, it is interesting that the temperance movement opposing alcohol only took off in the United States once relatively clean water supplies were available to most people—prior to that, alcohol mixed with water was a necessary way of keeping water drinkable.)
*The Word of Wisdom was given to modern saints as protection against "the designs of conspiring men in the last days." Certainly we don't have to look far to see such conspiracy against the health of customers at work today in tobacco companies or street drug dealers.
*This shows why modern revelation is so important—what was dangerous for us in the modern age (cigarette manufacturers, illicit drugs, alcohol marketing, etc.) may need different advice from God than that given 2000 years ago where dying from dysentery transmitted by contaminated water was a far bigger risk than dying of cirrhosis or stomach cancer.
*A related question which Christian critics ought to ask themselves might be, "Since we know now that alcohol—including wine—can cause gastritis, ulcers, or stomach bleeding why did Paul (a prophet!) tell Timothy to use it?"
*This is a lot like earlier questions about Joseph Smith or Brigham Young expressing a false, though popular, opinion about scientific matters. Paul isn't any less an apostle because he expressed a false idea about the benefits of alcohol on stomach problems.
* ''To learn more:'' [[Wine for the stomach and the Word of Wisdom]]
}}

==== ====
{{CountercultQuestion
|question=30. If obeying the Word of Wisdom—which tells us to abstain from coffee, tea, alcohol and tobacco—is important for our exaltation, why did Jesus say that there is nothing that can enter a man to make him defiled ({{b||Mark|7|15}})?
|response=
*The Word of Wisdom says nothing about such substances "defiling us." Members believe it is important to obey the Word of Wisdom because God has commanded us not to do something, and we have promised not to do it. We should keep our promises to God.
*The Jews promised not to eat pork, and so it was a sin for them to eat pork—not because pork contaminates or "defiles" them, but because disobedience (that which comes OUT of us, as Jesus said) shows we do not love and trust God. The underlying principle here is obedience to God, not the Word of Wisdom, ''per se.''
* ''To learn more:'' [[Template:WoWWiki|Word of Wisdom]]
}}

==== ====
{{CountercultQuestion
|question=31. If Jesus is the Jehovah of the Old Testament and Elohim is referred to as God in the Old Testament, can you explain Deuteronomy 6:4 to me "Hear, O Israel: the Lord (Jehovah) our God (Elohim) is one Lord (Jehovah)?
|response=
*An alternate translation of the passage is "Hear, O Israel: The LORD [Jehovah] is our God [Elohim], the LORD alone" (ESV footnote). In this case, "Elohim" is used as a title meaning "God" while "Jehovah" is used as a proper name. This translation also would suggest the possibility of other gods for other non-Israelite nations as seen in Deuteronomy 32:8-9. Moreover, we must not make the mistake of thinking that the name-titles "Jehovah" and "Elohim" had those meanings anciently, or were always used that way in scripture—they did not, and were not.
*These titles as used in the LDS Church for the Father and the Son are modern (i.e., 20th century) and are used for clarity when distinguishing members of the Godhead. It is not to be expected that ancient writers used the terms always in the same way. The use of the term such as "Elohim" could mean, depending on the context and grammar, "God," "gods," or even what would be better termed "angels" or "heavenly beings."
* ''To learn more:'' [[Elohim and Jehovah]]
}}

==== ====
{{CountercultQuestion
|question=32. Why does the Mormon Church teach that we can be married in heaven when Jesus said in {{b||Matthew|22|30}} that in the resurrection man neither marry, nor are they given in marriage?
|response=
*Marriages persist after resurrection if done by proper authority; they are not entered into after the resurrection. Yet, the Bible teaches that men and women are not complete before God without each other (See {{b|1|Corinthians|11|11}}).
*The Church teaches that marriages need to be performed either in person or by proxy here on the earth. Thus all such marriages will be arranged either here or in the spirit world, and conducted either now or during the millennium on earth.
*''To learn more:'' [[Marriage not needed for exaltation]]
}}

==== ====
{{CountercultQuestion
|question=33. How can worthy Mormon males become Gods in the afterlife when God already said that before him no God was formed, nor will there be any Gods formed after him ({{b||Isaiah|43|10}})
|response=
*Critics often misunderstand the doctrine of [[Deification_of_man|''theosis'', or human deification]]. Yet, it is a doctrine shared by many early Christians and much of modern Eastern Christianity (e.g., Eastern Orthodox). However, the question asked here represents a misunderstanding of the Isaiah scripture in its ancient context when compared with the rest of the Bible.
* ''To learn more:'' [["No God beside me"]]
}}

==== ====
{{CountercultQuestion
|question=34. If God had a father who was a God, how come Isaiah 44:8 says that he doesn't know him?
|response=
*Again, the interpretation of this verse is mistaken.
* ''To learn more:'' [["No God beside me"]]
* ''See also:'' [[Infinite regress of Gods?]]
}}

==== ====
{{CountercultQuestion
|question=35. If God was once just a man who progressed to becoming a God, how do you explain Psalm 90:2:…"even from everlasting to everlasting, thou are [sic] God"
|response=
*The only aspect of this about which we are certain is that God the Father underwent a mortal experience like Christ did. Jesus was, however, God before He underwent His mortal experience, and the Father may have been too. We simply don't know.
* ''To learn more:'' [[Unchanging Nature of God]]
}}

==== ====
{{CountercultQuestion
|question=36. How can God be an exalted man when Numbers 23:19 says that God is not a man?
|response=
*The verse actually says (NET Bible version):
<blockquote>
God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a human being, that he should change his mind. Has he said, and will he not do it? ({{B||Numbers|23|19}})
</blockquote>
*Thus, the teaching here is that God is not a fallible mortal who will change his goals or say He will do something and then not do it. There is, by contrast, abundant Biblical evidence of God's physical form upon which man's body was patterned:
* ''To learn more:'' [[Corporeality of God]]
}}

==== ====
{{CountercultQuestion
|question=37. Why does the Mormon Church teach that Elohim had sexual relations with Mary to produce Jesus when both Matthew and Luke teach she was a virgin (''The Seer'', January 1853, p. 158)?
|response=
*''The Seer'' was a publication that was [[The_Seer|officially disavowed]] by the First Presidency soon after it was published. So, this is not LDS doctrine. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believes in the virgin birth of Christ, but has no doctrine about ''how'' such a miracle occurred.
* ''To learn more:'' [[Jesus Christ's conception]]
}}

==== ====
{{CountercultQuestion
|question=38. Why does the LDS Church teach that Jesus paid for our sins in the garden of Gethsemane when {{b|1|Peter|2|24}} says that it was on the cross?
|response=
*The atoning sacrifice began in the Garden of Gethsemane and culminated on the cross. We can see from the Gospels that the suffering began in the Garden and went on until Jesus said on the cross "it is finished." Neither aspect was unimportant, and both involved suffering which we cannot fathom (see {{S||DC|19|18}}). The LDS Church has no quarrel with this doctrine. This hostile question seems to be an attempt to suggest that Latter-day Saints do not value or appreciate Christ's saving death on the cross, but this is false.
*It may be that the Church sometimes emphasizes Gethsemane, because traditional Christianity has long focused on the cross in art, iconography, and ritual. Yet, Gethsemane must not be overlooked, where Christ "sweat...as it were great drops of blood" for the sins of all humanity ({{b||Luke|22|44}}; see also {{s||Alma|7|11}}, {{s||DC|19|18}}).
*''To learn more:'' [[Was Jesus crucified on a cross?]]
}}

==== ====
{{CountercultQuestion
|question=39. Why did Bruce McConkie write that a man may commit a sin so grievous that it will place him beyond the atoning blood of Christ (''Mormon Doctrine'', 1979, p. 93) when the Bible says that the blood of Christ cleanses us from all sin ({{b|1|John|1|7}})?
|response=
*"Mormon Doctrine" is not an [[Fallibility_of_prophets#Standard_of_doctrine_in_the_Church|official publication]] of the LDS Church.
*In this case, however, Elder McConkie is in good company since Jesus taught that there was an unforgivable sin:
<blockquote>
31 Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.
: 32 And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, '''it shall not be forgiven him''', neither in this world, neither in the world to come. ({{b||Matthew|12|31–32}}, emphasis added)
</blockquote>
*Thus, it seems that 1 John is best interpreted as meaning that any forgivable sin is cleansed through—and only through—the blood of Christ. Latter-day Saints understand the "blasphemy against the Holy Ghost" to be rejecting the atonement of Christ when one has a perfect knowledge of it.
*John later qualifies his statement making clear there is a sin that is unforgivable.
<blockquote>
If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it [http://scriptures.lds.org/en/1_jn/5/16#16 1 John 5:1].
</blockquote>
*The counsel here is to pray for those who sin unless they have committed the "sin unto death" which cannot be forgiven. Obviously, if one rejects the atonement of Christ, one cannot be saved by it, and so one will not be forgiven for that sin.
* ''To learn more'': [[Unforgivable sin]]
}}

==== ====
{{CountercultQuestion
|question=40. Why does the LDS Church teach that man first existed as spirits in heaven when {{b|1|Corinthians|15|46}} says that the physical body comes before the spiritual?
|response=
*1 Corinthians is not talking about the order of creation, but is talking about the regeneration of the wicked person into a spiritual, born again person. Thus, of course the physical (i.e., carnal) person comes first, and the spiritual (i.e., born again) person comes next when regenerated through Christ.
*Biblical statements indicate that God is the father of our spirits and we were known to him before our birth (e.g., {{b||Jeremiah|1|5}}).
* ''To learn more'': [[First Corinthians 15 and spirit bodies]]
}}

==== ====
{{CountercultQuestion
|question=41. Since Jesus statement, "be ye therefore perfect" ({{b||Matthew|5|48}}) is in the present tense, are you perfect right now? Do you expect to be perfect soon? According to {{b||Hebrews|10|14}}, how are we made perfect?
|response=
*In this life, perfection is something that can only be achieved by God's grace and '''in Christ'''. His perfection becomes ours through our covenant relationship with Him.
<blockquote>
Yea, come unto Christ, and be '''perfected in him''', and deny yourselves of all ungodliness; and if ye shall deny yourselves of all ungodliness, and love God with all your might, mind and strength, then is his grace sufficient for you, that by his grace ye may be '''perfect in Christ'''; and if by the grace of God ye are perfect in Christ, ye can in nowise deny the power of God. And again, if ye by the grace of God are '''perfect in Christ''', and deny not his power, then are ye '''sanctified in Christ''' by the grace of God, through the shedding of the blood of Christ, which is in the covenant of the Father unto the remission of your sins, that ye become holy, without spot. [http://scriptures.lds.org/en/moro/10/32-33 Moroni 10:32-33]
</blockquote>
*However, Matt. 5:48 suggests there will be a time when we will actually and independently be perfect like God. This, however, is not to be achieved in this life nor for a long time after death.
*''To learn more'': [[Deification of man|''Theosis''/deification of man]]
}}

==== ====
{{CountercultQuestion
|question=42. Why do Mormons say the sticks in Ezekiel 37 represent the Bible and the Book of Mormon when Ezekiel 37:20-22 tells us that the sticks represent two nations, not two books?
|response=
*The two symbols are not exclusive. The sticks can be nations, and each nation has a witness of Christ which helps in restoring scattered Israel. The use of the Ezekiel passage is a modern one for Latter-day Saints. It does not mean that this is the only interpretation, or the use to which Ezekiel intended it to be put.
* ''To learn more:'' [[Book of Mormon as the stick of Ephraim]]
}}

==== ====
{{CountercultQuestion
|question=43. Why does the LDS Church teach that Jesus and Lucifer are spirit brothers when both the first chapter of John and Colossians teach that Jesus is the Creator of all things, including Lucifer?
|response=
*This is another question intended more to sensationalize beliefs and polarize rather than lead to meaningful communication. Presumably, something akin to guilt by association is intended. The short answer a similarly rhetorical statement—the critic, Judas, and Hitler are brothers too! But the reality of that relationship obviously need not taint the good standing of the critic. All sons of Adam (including all subsequent generations) are brothers.
*Latter-day Saints do indeed believe that in a meaningful sense Jesus, angels (including the fallen angel Lucifer), and Adam and all his sons are sons of God—and hence, brothers. The Bible corroborates our respective sonships. No Christian should disagree with that. Perhaps the criticism stems from the fact that Latter-day Saints happen to believe that all the sons of God existed together pre-existently? However, this belief need not change the general equation for brotherhood upon which all Christians agree. Suffice it to say that Latter-day Saints believe Jesus Christ had a unique status as God in the pre-existence—a status other sons of God did not have! Jesus Christ's earliest introduction in Scripture uniquely embraced by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints makes that clear—''... one among them that was like unto God'' -- [http://scriptures.lds.org/abr/3/24#28 Abraham 3:24–28]). None other had Christ's status. And that unique status Jesus Christ had in the pre-existence means Lucifer's brotherhood and our brotherhood with Him there were exactly the same as our common brotherhood with Him is based on His dwelling on the Earth. Brothers yes. Different yes.
* ''On Colossians, see:'' [[Creation in Colossians 1:16]]
* ''To learn more:'' [[Jesus Christ is the brother of Satan]]
*Also, note a caution on uses of the word on "all" in scripture from Evangelical leader, Charles Spurgeon:
<blockquote>
"The whole world is gone after Him." Did all the world go after Christ? "Then went all Judea, and were baptized of him in Jordan." Was all Judea, or all Jerusalem baptized in Jordan? "Ye are of God, little children," and "the whole world lieth in the wicked one." Does "the whole world" there mean everybody? If so, how was it, then, that there were some who were "of God?" The words "world" and "all" are used in seven or eight senses in Scripture; and it is very rarely that "all" means all persons , taken individually. (''Particular Redemption'', 28 February 1858)
</blockquote>
*In other words, if the Bible is to be deemed to be ''always'' plain/perspicacious, if such a philosophically absolute interpretation of the word "all" were intended by John or Paul, they would certainly have provided the necessary academic/philosophical clarification, in the immediate context, and the Bible would be much more of a systematic theology and less of a compilation of religious history and moral teaching, and simple witness of God's existence and love.
}}

==== ====
{{CountercultQuestion
|question=44. Why do worthy Mormon males hold the Aaronic Priesthood since {{b||Hebrews|7|11-12}} clearly teaches that it was changed and superseded by something better?
|response=
*Elder M. Russell Ballard of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles illustrated the doctrine clearly:
<blockquote>
Since all priesthood is Melchizedek, the Aaronic Priesthood being a portion of it, one does not lose the Aaronic Priesthood when he is ordained to the Melchizedek Priesthood [...]
</blockquote>
*The Church uses the Aaronic priesthood as a "preparatory" priesthood, but has no disagreement with the idea that the Melchizedek priesthood contains greater power and authority, and is vital to the government of the Church of Christ.
*It should be noted that all priesthood was not equivalent in the New Testament Church either. For example, many members had been baptized with water (an ordinance of the Aaronic priesthood) but had not yet received the Holy Ghost until one of the apostles laid hands upon them (a Melchizedek priesthood function). (See [http://scriptures.lds.org/en/acts/8/15-19#15 Acts 8:15–19], [http://scriptures.lds.org/en/acts/19/2-6#2 Acts 19:2–6]).
* ''To learn more:'' [[Hebrews 7 and the Aaronic Priesthood]]
}}

==== ====
{{CountercultQuestion
|question=45. If your leaders are correct about the complete falling away of the true church on earth, was Jesus in error when he said that the gates of hell would not prevail against it ({{b||Matthew|16|18}})
|response=
*The critics again make a mistake by misunderstanding the original Greek text. In this case, "hell" is not a reference to the powers or evil, or Satan.
*The word translated as "hell" in the KJV is actually ''Hades'', the dwelling place of all departed spirits. For the gates of Hades to not prevail against the church could mean that the gates would not be able to stop the church from entering therein. (By comparison, in ''The Gospel of Nicodemus'' the "gates" mentioned in Psalm 24 refer to the gates of Hades and the attempt made there to keep out Jesus in the period between his death and resurrection. [See ''The Gospel of Nicodemus'', Part II, 6 in ANF 8:436-437.]) In other words, Christ’s Church, his disciples, would preach the gospel not only among the living, but also among the dead—not even the gates of Hades could keep them out.
*Another interpretation is that "prevail" has reference to keeping inhabitants inside. In this thought, gates could only prevail against something that is already inside of them and not external to them. This interpretation would be that Christ was saying that His Church would soon be inside the gates of the spirit world alone because of apostasy on earth, but that the Church would later come out from the world of the dead and back to earth—that His Church would shortly be confined to the spirit world, held back by its gates, but that later, members of Christ's Ancient Church (such as Peter, James, and John) would come, by revelation, out from behind the gates of Hades to restore the gospel to the earth.
*Both of the above readings are distinct possibilities. Both reconcile all the Biblical data.
* ''To learn more:'' [[Apostasy and the "gates of hell"]]
}}

==Miscellaneous / General Questions==

==== ====
{{CountercultQuestion
|question=46. If having a physical body is necessary to become a god, how did Jesus become a god before he had a body?
|response=
*Having a body is necessary for a fullness of joy ({{s||DC|93|33}}). It was necessary that at some point Jesus receive a body, but the timeframe in which He did so is not particularly important. (To travel to another country, one needs both a passport and an airplane ticket. It doesn't matter in which order one gets the passport or the ticket, but one must eventually have both in order to reach one's destination.) If correct sequence is an absolutely requirement, then all Christians would need to explain how Christ's atonement could be efficacious to those who were born, lived, and died prior to His crucifixion. The fact that the atonement ''was'' effective should caution us against adopting an absolute requirement for sequence concerning Christ's receipt of a physical body.
* ''To learn more'': [[Jesus Christ/Deification_before_mortality|Christ divine before birth]]
}}

==== ====
{{CountercultQuestion
|question=47. Do you think the LDS Church will reconsider its teachings that the American Indians are descendants of the Jewish race now that DNA has proven that they are actually descendants of the Asian race?
|response=
*It was never LDS doctrine that the Book of Mormon peoples were "Jewish." They were from Ephraim and Manasseh, two other tribes of Israel, but not Judah explicitly. They can only be considered "Jewish" in that they came from Jerusalem.
*LDS doctrine only holds that some of the ancestors of the Amerindians were from the Middle East of circa 600 BC. Most scholarship on this matter since at least the 1950s (and stretching back to the turn of the century) has seen the Nephite contribution as numerically small.
*If Lehi left any descendants at all, then [[Amerindians_as_Lamanites#All_From_Lehi|all Amerindians share Lehi]] as an ancestor. Many people do not realize that everyone alive today is directly descended from such people as Charlemagne, Muhammad, Confucius, and the Egyptian queen Nefertiti. (Click [http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200205/olson here] for more information.)
*There is a huge literature on this matter:
* ''To learn more'': [[Amerindians as Lamanites]]
* ''To learn more'': [[Book of Mormon and DNA evidence]]
* ''To learn more'': [[Book of Mormon and DNA evidence:Geography issues|Geography and DNA]]
}}

==== ====
{{CountercultQuestion
|question=48. If polygamy was officially re-instituted by the Mormon Church, how would your wife feel about you taking another woman?
|response=
*This is obviously a leading question—entirely hypothetical and intended to be negatively emotive. The general principle, however, is that each member always has the responsibility to determine if new policies are from God, and then to act accordingly. This has always been so. People had to decide whether to listen to Moses when he told them what the Lord wanted them to do. People had to decide whether to listen to Samuel, David, or Elijah when they told them what the Lord wanted. They had to decide whether to heed Jesus Himself who, when many chose to stop following Him, asked the apostles, "Will ye also go away?" ({{b||John|6|67}}.)
*Obedience is always an individual decision.
}}

==== ====
{{CountercultQuestion
|question=49. Since the LDS Church teaches that there was a complete apostasy of the true church on earth, does that mean that the 3 living Nephites and the Apostle John went into apostasy also
|response=
*No. "Apostasy" merely means that no organized Church on the earth had the full authority or doctrine necessary for salvation for mortals. The Nephites and John were not exercising their priesthood authority for others in a church setting. There was no mortal priesthood authority, and no Church authorized to act in God's name.
* ''To learn more:'' [[Apostasy/Priesthood_on_earth_during_the_apostasy|Priesthood on earth during the apostasy?]]
* ''To learn more:'' [[Template:EarlyChristianityPortal|Apostasy portal]]
}}

==== ====
{{CountercultQuestion
|question=50. Why are Mormon Temple ceremonies secret to the public when the Old Testament temple ceremonies were open to public knowledge?
|response=
*Large portions of LDS temple ceremonies are publicly discussed in church publications such as the ''Ensign'', the ''History of the Church'', and the ''Encyclopedia of Mormonism''. There are, however, certain aspects of temple worship that are considered to be of such a sacred character that they are not to be viewed by, nor discussed with, the uninitiated. The same was true with the biblical temple of ancient Israel -- Gentiles were never allowed into the three main temple areas (outer court, holy place, holy of holies) and the entrances throughout the temple complex were guarded by porters and shielded by veils. The vast majority of the Israelites were never allowed to view the ordinances that took place in the temple proper (holy place, holy of holies).
*Many early Christian groups had ceremonies or services (frequently referred to as the "mysteries") that were only open to those who were faithful members in good standing. Would the critics also condemn them?
*Jesus also taught his apostles things which they were not permitted to teach to everyone, and this was done in [http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/basic/christ/forty_day_ministry.html private].
*The Latter-day Saints are merely following a pattern of respect for holy things laid down by Jesus and the early Christians ({{b||Matthew|7|6}}). Latter-day Saints treasure this aspect of Christian life and worship, clearly spelled out in history and scripture.
* ''To learn more'': Hugh W. Nibley, "Evangelium Quadraginta Dierum," ''Vigiliae Christianae'' 20 (1966):1-24; reprinted in {{Nibley4|article=Evangelium Quadraginta Dierum: The Forty-day Mission of Christ-The Forgotten Heritage|start=10|end=44}}{{link1|url=http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?id=114&table=transcripts}}
}}

{{DoYouHaveQuestions}}

==Footnotes==
#{{note|anti1}} Tower to Truth Ministries, "50 Questions to Ask Mormons," ''towertotruth.net'' (accessed 15 November 2007).
#{{note|eom1}} {{EoM|article=Adam|author=Arthur A. Bailey|vol=1|start=15|end=16}}{{link1|url=http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/cgi-bin/showfile.exe?CISOROOT=/EoM&CISOPTR=5448&filename=5449.pdf}}
#{{note|tpjs1}}{{TPJS1|start=167}}
#{{note|eerdmans1}} {{EerdmansBD1|author=Daniel L. Smith-Christopher|article=Ancient of Days|start=62}}
{{Articles Footer 1}} {{Articles Footer 2}} {{Articles Footer 3}} {{Articles Footer 4}} {{Articles Footer 5}} {{Articles Footer 6}} {{Articles Footer 7}} {{Articles Footer 8}} {{Articles Footer 9}} {{Articles Footer 10}}

[[Category:Reviews]]
[[Category:Sectarian]]

[[fr:50 Answers]]

Mormonism and the nature of God/King Follett Discourse

2013-03-14T15:38:06Z

RonHellings1: /* What was Gordon B. Hinckley's opinion about the King Follett Discourse? */

Forgeries related to Mormonism/Oliver Cowdery's 1839 Defence in a Rehearsal of my Grounds for Separating Myself from the Latter Day Saints

2013-03-13T01:39:04Z

RonHellings1: /* Background */

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

=Oliver Cowdery's alleged 1839 "Defence in a Rehearsal of my Grounds for Separating Myself from the Latter Day Saints"=
==Background==
This is a document, critical of Joseph Smith and his prophetic calling, that purports to have been published in 1839 by Oliver Cowdery. The earliest copies in existence are dated 1906. The document was "discovered" by the Reverend R. B. Neal, who was a leader in the American Anti-Mormon Association. No references to this document exist prior to 1906. This document was believed to be authentic for many years, until it was discovered that it consists primarily of three sources: 1) a selection of Cowdery's phrases taken from various issues of the ''Latter Day Saints' Messenger and Advocate'' that were removed from their original context and inserted into statements that are not Oliver's, b) criticisms of Joseph Smith borrowed from David Whitmer's 1887 ''An Address to All Believers in Christ,'' and 3) original material (''i.e.'', written by the forger) in which most of the serious attacks on Joseph Smith are to be found. Historians now agree that the 1906 document is a forgery.

Richard Lloyd Anderson summarized the difficulties with the provenance of the document in an Ensign article in 1987:
<blockquote>
In 1906 the “mountain evangelist” R. B. Neal, a leader in the American Anti-Mormon Association, published a document with much fanfare but without evidence of the document’s authenticity. Reverend Neal claimed that the publication was a reprint of an 1839 document explaining Oliver Cowdery’s apostasy: ''Defence in a Rehearsal of My Grounds for Separating Myself from the Latter Day Saints.'' “No more important document has been unearthed since I have been engaged in this warfare,” R. B. Neal asserted. With such convictions, one can be sure that Reverend Neal would have produced evidence to prove that the original actually existed. But all we have is his 1906 first printing, which is silent about why no one had ever heard of the document until a half century after Oliver Cowdery’s death. —Richard Lloyd Anderson, "I Have a Question," ''Ensign'', April 1987. {{link|url=https://www.lds.org/ensign/1987/04/i-have-a-question?lang=eng}}
</blockquote>

Ronald Huggins has recently summarized the problems with the content of the document:
<blockquote>
This makes it all but certain that the ''Defence'' was plagiarized from the ''Messenger and Advocate''. The only way someone could make a case for its authenticity at this stage would be to prove that Cowdery was in the regular habit of plundering phrases and paragraphs from his earlier writings and dropping them without rhyme or reason into his later ones. —Ronald V. Huggins, "Jerald Tanner's Quest for Truth - Part 3," ''Salt Lake City Messenger'', Issue 111 (November 2008)
</blockquote>

A detailed analysis showing the reliance of the forged Cowdery document on the two historical sources is presented below.

==Comparison against sources==
The text of the alleged Cowdery document was produced using a combination of phrases written by Oliver Cowdery in the ''Messenger and Advocate'' during the time that he was editor, and a rephrasing of information from David Whitmer's ''An Address to All Believers in Christ''.

{| valign="top" border="1" style="width:100%; font-size:100%"
!width="2%"|Index
!width="40%"|Cowdery's alleged "Defence in a Rehearsal of my Grounds for Separating Myself from the Latter Day Saints"
!width="40%"|Source text and/or commentary
!width="18%"|Actual source
|-
|
==== ====
||
Defence in a Rehearsal of my Grounds for Separating Myself from the Latter Day Saints 
By Oliver Cowdery 
Second Elder of the Church of Christ
||
|-
|
==== ====
||
This Defence is not protected by a copyright, as I wish no man to be confined alone to my permission in printing what is meant for the eyes and knowledge of the nations of the earth.
||
The author desires this work circulated as much as possible, and will grant the Privilege of reproduction to any reliable house that will make application to him.
||
{{Book:Whitmer:Address to All Believers in Christ|start=2}}
|-
|
==== ====
||
“God doth not walk in crooked paths; Neither doth he turn to the right hand, Nor the left; neither doth he vary From that which he hath said.”
||
||
|-
|
==== ====
||
Pressley’s Job Office, Norton, Ohio, 1839
||
There was no "Pressley's Job Office" in Norton Ohio
||
|-
|

==== ====
||
DEAR PEOPLE OF GOD:-I offer you a “Defence” which I am grieved to make, but my opposers have put me to the necessity, and so far as my memory serves, I pledge my veracity for the correctness of the account.
||
||
|-
|
==== ====
||
I deny that I have ever conspired with any, or ever exerted any influence to destroy the reputation of the First Elder, although evidence which is to be credited assures me that he has done everything he could to injure my standing and his influence has been considerably exerted to destroy my reputation and, I fear, my life.
||
While employed here he became acquainted with the family of Isaac Hale, of whom you read in several of the productions of those who have sought to destroy the validity of the book of Mormon. It may be necessary hereafter, to refer you more particularly to the conduct of this family, as their influence has been considerably exerted to destroy the reputation of our brother, probably because he married a daughter of the same contrary to some of their wishes
||
{{MAfairwiki|author=Oliver Cowdery|date=|vol=2|num=1|start=200}}
|-
|

==== ====
||
You will remember in the meantime, that those who seek to vilify my character have been constantly encouraged by him.
||
You will remember, in the mean time, that those who seek to vilify his character, say that he has always been notorious for his idleness. This gentleman, whose name is Stowel, resided in the town of Bainbridge, on or near the head waters of the Susquehannah river.
||
{{MAfairwiki|author=Oliver Cowdery|date=|vol=2|num=1|start=200}}
|-
|
==== ====
||
There was a time when I thought myself able to prove to the satisfaction of every man that the translator of the Book of Mormon, was worthy of the appellation of a Seer and a Prophet of the Lord, and in which he held over me a mysterious power which even now I fail to fathom; but I fear I may have been deceived, and especially so fear since knowing that Satan has led his mind astray.
||
I trust I shall be indulged, for the purpose of satisfying many, who have heard so many slanderous reports that they are lead to believe them true because they are not contradicted; and besides, this generation are determined to oppose every item in the form or under the pretence [pretense] of revelation, unless it comes through a man who has always been more pure than Michael the great prince; and as this is the fact, and my opposers have put me to the necessity, I shall be more prolix, and have no doubt, before I give up the point, shall prove to your satisfaction, and to that of every man, that the translator of the book of Mormon is worthy the appellation of a seer and a prophet of the Lord. In this I do not pretend that he is not a man subject to passion like other men, beset with infirmities and encompassed with weaknesses; but if he is, all men were so before him, and a pretence [pretense] to the contrary would argue a more than mortal, which would at once destroy the whole system of the religion of the Lord Jesus; for he anciently chose the weak to overcome the strong, the foolish to confound the wise, (I mean considered so by this world,) and by the foolishness of preaching to save those who believe.
||
{{MAfairwiki|author=Oliver Cowdery|date=|vol=2|num=1|start=200}}
|-
|

==== ====
||
1. When the Church of Christ was set up by revelation, he was called to be First Elder, and I was called to be the Second Elder, and whatever he had of Priesthood (about which I am beginning to doubt) also had I.
||
||
|-
|
==== ====
||
2. But I certainly followed him too far when accepting, and reiterating, that none had authority from God to administer the ordinances of the Gospel, as I had then forgotten that John, the beloved disciple, was tarrying on earth and exempt from death.
||
||
|-
|
==== ====
||
I am well aware that a rehearsal of these things at this day will be unpleasant reading to the First Elder; yet so it is, and it is wisdom that it should be so. Without rehearsing too many things that have caused me to lose my faith in Bro. Joseph’s seership, I regard his frequent predictions that he himself shall tarry on the earth till Christ shall come in glory, and that neither the rage of devils nor the malice of men shall ever cause him to fall by the hand of his enemies until he has seen Christ in the flesh at his final coming, as little short of a piece of blasphemy; and it may be classed with that revelation that some among you will remember which sent Bro. Page and me so unwisely to (3) Toronto with a predication from the Lord by Urim and Thummim that we would there find a man anxious to buy the First Elder’s copyright. I well remember we did not find him, and had to return surprised and disappointed. But so great was my faith, that, in going to Toronto, nothing but calmness pervaded my soul, every doubt was banished, and I as much expected that Bro. Page and I would fulfill the revelation as that we should live. And you may believe, without asking me to relate the particulars, that it would be no easy task to describe our desolation and grief.
||
Brother Hyrum said it had been suggested to him that some of the brethren might go to Toronto, Canada, and sell the copy-right of the Book of Mormon for considerable money: and he persuaded Joseph to inquire of the Lord about it. Joseph concluded to do so. He had not yet given up the stone. Joseph looked into the hat in which he placed the stone, and received a revelation that some of the brethren should go to Toronto, Canada, and that they would sell the copy-right of the Book of Mormon. Hiram Page and Oliver Cowdery went to Toronto on this mission, but they failed entirely to sell the copy-right, returning without any money. Joseph was at my father's house when they returned. I was there also, and am an eye witness to these facts. Jacob Whitmer and John Whitmer were also present when Hiram Page and Oliver Cowdery returned from Canada.
||
{{Book:Whitmer:Address to All Believers in Christ|start=31}}

|-
|

==== ====
||
Bro. Page and I did not think that God would have deceived us through “Urim and Thummim,” exactly as came the Book of Mormon; and I well remember how hard I strove to drive away the foreboding which seized me, that the First Elder had made tools of us, where we thought, in the simplicity of our hearts, that we were divinely commanded.
||
Jacob Whitmer and John Whitmer were also present when Hiram Page and Oliver Cowdery returned from Canada. Well, we were all in great trouble; and we asked Joseph how it was that he had received a revelation from the Lord for some brethren to go to Toronto and sell the copy-right, and the brethren had utterly failed in their undertaking. Joseph did not know how it was, so he enquired of the Lord about it, and behold the following revelation came through the stone: "Some revelations are of God: some revelations are of men: and some revelations are of the devil." So we see that the revelation to go to Toronto and sell the copy-right was not of God, but was of the devil or of the heart of man.
||
{{Book:Whitmer:Address to All Believers in Christ|start=31}}
|-
|

==== ====
||
And what served to render the reflection past expression in its bitterness to me, was, that from ''his'' hand I received baptism, by the direction of the Angel of God whose voice, as it has since struck me, did most mysteriously resemble the voice of Elder Sidney Rigdon, who, I am sure had no part in the transactions of that day, as the Angel was John the Baptist, which I doubt not and deny not.
||
Not only have I been graciously preserved from wicked and unreasonable men, with this our brother, but I have seen the fruit of perseverance in proclaiming the everlasting gospel, immediately after it was declared to the world in these last days, in a manner not to be forgotten while heaven gives my common intellect. And what serves to render the reflection past expression on this point is, that from ''his'' hand I received baptism, by the direction of the angel of God—the first received into this church, in this day.
||
{{MAfairwiki|author=Oliver Cowdery|date=October 1834|vol=1|num=1|start=14}}
|-
|

==== ====
||
When I afterward first heard Elder Rigdon, whose voice is so strikingly similar, I felt that this “dear” brother was to be in some sense, to me unknown, the herald of this church as the Great Baptist was of Christ.
4. I never dreamed however, that he would influence the Prophet, Seer and Revelator to the Church of the Latter Day Saints, in to the formation of a secret band at Far West, committed to depredations upon Gentiles and the actual assassination of apostates from the church, which was done in June last and was only one of many wrong steps.
||
Sydney Rigdon was the cause of almost all the errors which were introduced while he was in the church. I believe Rigdon to have been the instigator of the secret organization known as the "Danites" which was formed in Far West Missouri in June, 1838.
||
{{Book:Whitmer:Address to All Believers in Christ|start=35}}
|-
|

==== ====
||
These are facts which I am rehearsing, and if they shall be called in question, I am able to establish them by evidence which I can bring forward in abundance.
||
I have now given you a rehearsal of what was communicated to our brother, when he was directed to go and obtain the record of the Nephites. I may have missed in arrangement in some instances, but the principle is preserved, and you will be able to bring forward abundance of corroborating scripture upon the subject of the gospel and of the gathering.
||
{{MAfairwiki|author=Oliver Cowdery|date=|vol=1|num=7|start=112}}
|-
|

==== ====
||
Still, although favored fo God as a chosen witness to bear testimony to the divine authority of the Book of Mormon, and honored of the Lord in being permitted, without money and without price, to serve as scribe during the translation of the Book of Mormon, I have sometimes had seasons of skepticism, in which I did seriously wonder whether the Prophet and I were men in our sober senses when he would be translating from plates through “the Urim and Thummim” and the plates not be in sight at all.
||
No men in their sober senses, could translate and write the directions given to the Nephites, from the mouth of the Savior, of the precise manner in which men should build up his church, and especially, when corruption had spread an uncertainty over all forms and systems practiced among men, without desiring a privilege of showing the willingness of the heart by being buried in the liquid grave, to answer a "good conscience by the resurrection of Jesus Christ."
||
{{MAfairwiki|author=Oliver Cowdery|date=|vol=1|num=7|start=15}}
|-
|

==== ====
||
But I believed both in the Seer and in the “Seer Stone,” and what the First Elder announced as revelation from God, I accepted as such, and committed to paper with a glad mind and happy heart and swift pen; for I believed him to be the soul of honor and truth, a young man who would die before he would lie.
||
||
|-
|
==== ====
||
Man may deceive his fellow man, deception may follow deception, and the children of the wicked one may seduce the unstable, untaught in the ways of righteousness and peace, for I felt a solemn awe about me, being deep in the faith, that the First Elder was a Seer and Prophet of God, giving the truth unsullied through “Urim and Thummim,” dictated by the will of the Lord, and that he was persecuted for the sake of the truth which he loved. Could I have been deceived in him?
||
Man may deceive his fellow man; deception may follow deception, and the children of the wicked one may have power to seduce the foolish and untaught, till nought but fiction feeds the many, and the fruit of falsehood carries in its current the giddy to the grave; but one touch with the finger of his love, yes, one ray of glory from the upper world, or one word from the mouth of the Savior, from the bosom of eternity, strikes it all into insignificance, and blots it forever from the mind! The assurance that we were in the presence of an angel; the certainty that we heard the voice of Jesus, and the truth unsullied as it flowed from a pure personage, dictated by the will of God, is to me, past description, and I shall ever look upon this expression of the Savior's goodness with wonder and thanksgiving while I am permitted to tarry, and in those mansions where perfection dwells and sin never comes, I hope to adore in that DAY which shall never cease!*
||
{{MAfairwiki|author=Oliver Cowdery|date=October 1834|vol=1|num=1|start=16}}
|-
|

==== ====
||
I could rehearse a number of things to show either that I as then deceived, or that he has since fallen from the lofty place in which fond affection had deemed him secure.
||
||
|-
|
==== ====
||
I remembered his experience as he had related it to me, and lacking wisdom, I went to God in prayer. I said: “O! Lord, how dark everything is! Let thy glory lighten it, and make bright the path for me. Show me my duty. Let me be led of thy Spirit.”
||
||
|-
|

==== ====
||
Shall I relate what transpired? I had a message from the Most High, as from the midst of eternity; for the vail was parted and the Redeemer Himself, clothed in glory, stood before me. And He said:
||
This was not long desired before it was realized. The Lord, who is rich in mercy, and ever willing to answer the consistent prayer of the humble, after we had called upon him in a fervent manner, aside from the abodes of men, condescended to manifest to us his will. On a sudden, as from the midst of eternity, the voice of the Redeemer spake peace to us, while the vail was parted and the angel of God came down clothed with glory, and delivered the anxiously looked for message, and the keys of the gospel of repentance!
||
{{MAfairwiki|author=Oliver Cowdery|date=|vol=1|num=1|start=15}}
|-
|

==== ====
||
“After reproving the Latter Day Saints for their corruption and blindness in permitting their President, Joseph Smith, Jr., to lead them forth into errors, where I led him not, nor commanded him, and saying unto them,
||
The revelation on polygamy was given fourteen years after the translation of the Book of Mormon, and after Brother Joseph had drifted into error and blindness. As I have stated, the scriptures are plain concerning the matter of a prophet or any man once chosen of God, being afterwards deceived and led into error.
||
{{Book:Whitmer:Address to All Believers in Christ|start=42}}
|-
|
==== ====
||
‘Thus saith the Lord,’ when I said it not unto him, thou shalt withdraw thyself from among them.”
||
God spake to me again by his own voice from the heavens, and told me to "separate myself from among the Latter Day Saints, for as they sought to do unto me, so should it be done unto them."
||
{{Book:Whitmer:Address to All Believers in Christ|start=27}}
|-
|

==== ====
||
And I testify that Jesus whose words I have been rehearsing, hath even so commanded me in an open vision.
||
I believe that the angel Moroni, whose words I have been rehearsing, who communicated the knowledge of the record of the Nephites, in this age
||
{{MAfairwiki|author=Oliver Cowdery|date=April 1835|vol=1|num=7|start=112}}
|-
|

==== ====
||
The Lord revealed to me that the First Elder is leading the Saints astray, and ordered me to quit them after delivering the message which this “Defence” delivers. I shall ever remember this expression of the Saviour’s grace with thanksgiving, and look upon his amazing goodness to me with wonder.
||
We have seen from a revelation given to Brother Joseph, that he broke the commandments of God from the beginning. Now, as the wicked will be cut off, the people being clean before the Lord, and this Choice Seer being a holy man, the people in this condition will be fitted to give heed to him, and they will not be led astray by him
||
{{Book:Whitmer:Address to All Believers in Christ|start=45}}
|-
|

==== ====
||
When I had sufficiently recovered my selfpossession to ask in regard to the errors into which Joseph Smith, Jr., was taking the Saints,
||
God only knows how I have grieved and suffered and plead with him for you for the past forty-eight years, that you might repent and be enlightened by the Holy Ghost to see the errors into which you have been led.
||
{{Book:Whitmer:Address to All Believers in Christ|start=27}}
|-
|
==== ====
||
the Redeemer instructed me plainly: “He hath given revelations from his own heart and from a defiled conscience as coming from my mouth and hath corrupted the covenant and altered words which I had spoken. He hath brought in high priests, apostles and other officers, which in these days, when the written Word sufficeth, are not in my church, and some of his deeds have brought shame to my heritage by the shedding of blood.
||
You have changed the revelations from the way they were first given and as they are to-day in the Book of Commandments, to support the error of Brother Joseph in taking upon himself the office of Seer to the church. You have changed the revelations to support the error of high priests. You have changed the revelations to support the error of a President of the high priesthood, high counselors, etc.
||
{{Book:Whitmer:Address to All Believers in Christ|start=49}}
|-
|
==== ====
||
He walketh in the vain imaginations of his heart, and my Spirit is holy and does not dwell in an unholy temple, nor are angels sent to reveal the great work of God to hypocrites.”
||
But so it is, and it is wisdom that it should be so, because the Holy Spirit does not dwell in unholy temples, nor angels reveal the great work of God to hypocrites.
||
{{Book:Whitmer:Address to All Believers in Christ|start=95}}
|-
|

==== ====
||
I bowed my face in shame and said: “Lord! I intreat thee, give me grace to bear thy message in print where I fear to take it by word of mouth.” 
And he said, “The grace is given thee,” and he vanished out of my sight.
||
||
|-
|

==== ====
||
Prepare your hearts, O ye Saints of the Most High, and come to understanding. The prophet hath erred and the people are gone astray through his error. God’s word is open. We may read it.
||
Prepare your hearts, O ye saints of the Most High, for great things await you! Hasten ye, hasten ye, to the places of gathering, for after a little the indignation of the Lord will cease toward those who are called by his name, and when his arm must fall upon the wicked. His sword is bathed in heaven, and must fall upon Idumea, and who can stand amid the crash and fall of empires?
||
{{MAfairwiki|author=Oliver Cowdery|date=October 1835|vol=2|num=1|start=204}}
|-
|
==== ====
||
There is no “First Presidency” there, no “High Priesthood” save that of Christ himself, no Patriarch to the church, and wonderful to tell, the “First Elder” hath departed from god in giving us these things,
||
High Priests were only in the church before Christ; and to have this office in the "Church of Christ" is not according to the teachings of Christ in either of the sacred books: Christ himself is our great and last High Priest.
||
{{Book:Whitmer:Address to All Believers in Christ|start=62}}
|-
|

==== ====
||
and in changing the name of the church.
||
but when the heads of the church changed the name of the church to "The Church of Latter Day Saints," (leaving out the name of "Christ" entirely) when they did this, and compiled the Doctrine and Covenants in 1835, God had then given them over to blindness of mind
||
{{Book:Whitmer:Address to All Believers in Christ|start=61}}
|-
|

==== ====
||
Oh, the misery, the distress and evil attendant upon giving heed unto the “doctrines of men!” The gospel has been perverted and the Saints are wandering in darkness, which a full cup of suffering is poured upon them. A society has been organized among them to inflict death upon those who are deemed apostates, with the knowledge and sanction of the First Elder.
||
Alas, the calamity of war, the extinction of nations, the ruin of kingdoms, the fall of empires and the dissolution of governments! O the misery, distress and evil attendant on these! Who can contemplate like scenes without sorrowing, and who so destitute of commiseration as not to be pained that man has fallen so low, so far beneath the station in which he was created?
||
{{MAfairwiki|author=Oliver Cowdery|date=|vol=1|num=10|start=159}}
|-
|

==== ====
||
This, I confess, is a dark picture to spread before those whom I am to warn, but they will pardon my plainness when I assure them of the truth of what I have written.
||
On Friday, the 5th, in company with our brother JOSEPH SMITH jr. I left Kirtland for this place (New Portage,) to attend the conference previously appointed. To be permitted, once more, to travel with this brother, occasions reflections of no ordinary kind. Many have been the fateagues [fatigues] and privations which have fallen to my lot to endure, for the gospel's sake, since 1828, with this brother. Our road has frequently been spread with the "fowler's snare," and our persons sought with the eagerness, of the Savage's ferocity, for innocent blood, by men, either heated to desperation by the insinuations of those who professed to be "guides and way—marks" to the kingdom of glory, or the individuals themselves!—This, I confess, is a dark picture to spread before our patrons, but they will pardon my plainness when I assure them of the truth. In fact, God has so ordered, that the reflections which I am permitted to cast upon my past life, relative to a knowledge of the way of salvation, are rendered "doubly endearing."
||
{{MAfairwiki|author=Oliver Cowdery|vol=1|num=1|start=14|date=October 1834}}
|-
|

==== ====
||
Bearing this message to them is the hardest work of my life, although many have been the privations and fatigues which have fallen to my lot to endure for the Gospel’s sake since April 5th, 1829.
||
She was driven, last fall, from Jackson county, by the mob, and was necessarily compelled to endure, with others, further afflictions and privations.
||
{{MAfairwiki|author=Oliver Cowdery|date=|vol=1|num=1|start=13}}
|-
|

==== ====
||
It is disgraceful to be led by a man who does not scruple to follow his own vain imagination, announcing his own schemes as revelations from the Lord. And I fear he is led by a groundless hope, no better than the idle wind or the spider’s web. Having cleared my soul by delivering the message, I do not deem it necessary to write further on the subject now.
||
The mind is easily called up to reflection upon a matter of such deep importance, and it is just that it should be; but there is a regret occupying the heart when we consider the deep anxiety of thousands, who are lead away with a vain imagination, or a groundless hope, no better than the idle wind or the spider's web.
||
{{MAfairwiki|author=Oliver Cowdery|date=|vol=1|num=5|start=78}}
|-
|

==== ====
||
Jesus has saved men in all ages and saves them now, and not by our Priesthood either. The “First Elder” errs as to that. The Lord has said, long since, and his word remains steadfast as the eternal hills, that to him who knocks it shall be opened, and whosoever will, may come and partake of the waters of life freely; but a curse will surely fall upon those who draw near to God with their mouths, and honor him with their lips, while their hearts are far from him.
||
"This cannot be brought about until first certain preparatory things are accomplished, for so has the Lord purposed in his own mind. He has therefore chosen you as an instrument in his hand to bring to light that which shall; perform his act, his strange act, and bring to pass a marvelous work and a wonder. Wherever the sound shall go it shall cause the ears of men to tingle, and wherever it shall be proclaimed, the pure in heart shall rejoice, while those who draw near to God with their mouths, and honor him with their lips, while their hearts are far from him, will seek its overthrow, and the destruction of those by whose hands it is carried. Therefore, marvel not if your name is made a derision, and had as a by-word among such, if you are the instrument in bringing it, by the gift of God, to the knowledge of the people."
||
{{MAfairwiki|author=Oliver Cowdery|date=|vol=1|num=5|start=79|end=80}}
|-
|

==== ====
||
I no longer believe that all the other churches are wrong.
||
||
|-
|
==== ====
||
Get right, O! ye people, get right with God, and may the Lord remove his judgments from you, preserve you in his kingdom from all evil, and crown you in Christ.
||
May the Lord preserve you from evil and reward you richly for all your afflictions, and crown you in his kingdom. Amen.
||
{{MAfairwiki|author=Oliver Cowdery|date=|vol=1|num=7|start=112}}
|-
|

==== ====
||
Amen. 
March 3, 1839 
O. COWDERY

Forgeries related to Mormonism/Oliver Cowdery's 1839 Defence in a Rehearsal of my Grounds for Separating Myself from the Latter Day Saints

2013-03-13T01:38:09Z

RonHellings1: /* Background */

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

=Oliver Cowdery's alleged 1839 "Defence in a Rehearsal of my Grounds for Separating Myself from the Latter Day Saints"=
==Background==
This is a document, critical of Joseph Smith and his prophetic calling, that purports to have been published in 1839 by Oliver Cowdery. The earliest copies in existence are dated 1906. The document was "discovered" by the Reverend R. B. Neal, who was a leader in the American Anti-Mormon Association. No references to this document exist prior to 1906. This document was believed to be authentic for many years, until it was discovered that it consists primarily of three sources: 1) a selection of Cowdery's phrases taken from various issues of the ''Latter Day Saints' Messenger and Advocate'' that were removed from their original context and inserted into statements that are not Oliver's, b) criticisms of Joseph Smith borrowed from David Whitmer's 1887 ''An Address to All Believers in Christ,'' and 3) original material (''i.e.'', written by the forger) in which most of the serious attacks on Joseph Smith are to be found. Historians now agree that this document is a forgery.

Richard Lloyd Anderson summarized the difficulties with the provenance of the document in an Ensign article in 1987:
<blockquote>
In 1906 the “mountain evangelist” R. B. Neal, a leader in the American Anti-Mormon Association, published a document with much fanfare but without evidence of the document’s authenticity. Reverend Neal claimed that the publication was a reprint of an 1839 document explaining Oliver Cowdery’s apostasy: ''Defence in a Rehearsal of My Grounds for Separating Myself from the Latter Day Saints.'' “No more important document has been unearthed since I have been engaged in this warfare,” R. B. Neal asserted. With such convictions, one can be sure that Reverend Neal would have produced evidence to prove that the original actually existed. But all we have is his 1906 first printing, which is silent about why no one had ever heard of the document until a half century after Oliver Cowdery’s death. —Richard Lloyd Anderson, "I Have a Question," ''Ensign'', April 1987. {{link|url=https://www.lds.org/ensign/1987/04/i-have-a-question?lang=eng}}
</blockquote>

Ronald Huggins has recently summarized the problems with the content of the document:
<blockquote>
This makes it all but certain that the ''Defence'' was plagiarized from the ''Messenger and Advocate''. The only way someone could make a case for its authenticity at this stage would be to prove that Cowdery was in the regular habit of plundering phrases and paragraphs from his earlier writings and dropping them without rhyme or reason into his later ones. —Ronald V. Huggins, "Jerald Tanner's Quest for Truth - Part 3," ''Salt Lake City Messenger'', Issue 111 (November 2008)
</blockquote>

A detailed analysis showing the reliance of the forged Cowdery document on the two historical sources is presented below.

==Comparison against sources==
The text of the alleged Cowdery document was produced using a combination of phrases written by Oliver Cowdery in the ''Messenger and Advocate'' during the time that he was editor, and a rephrasing of information from David Whitmer's ''An Address to All Believers in Christ''.

{| valign="top" border="1" style="width:100%; font-size:100%"
!width="2%"|Index
!width="40%"|Cowdery's alleged "Defence in a Rehearsal of my Grounds for Separating Myself from the Latter Day Saints"
!width="40%"|Source text and/or commentary
!width="18%"|Actual source
|-
|
==== ====
||
Defence in a Rehearsal of my Grounds for Separating Myself from the Latter Day Saints 
By Oliver Cowdery 
Second Elder of the Church of Christ
||
|-
|
==== ====
||
This Defence is not protected by a copyright, as I wish no man to be confined alone to my permission in printing what is meant for the eyes and knowledge of the nations of the earth.
||
The author desires this work circulated as much as possible, and will grant the Privilege of reproduction to any reliable house that will make application to him.
||
{{Book:Whitmer:Address to All Believers in Christ|start=2}}
|-
|
==== ====
||
“God doth not walk in crooked paths; Neither doth he turn to the right hand, Nor the left; neither doth he vary From that which he hath said.”
||
||
|-
|
==== ====
||
Pressley’s Job Office, Norton, Ohio, 1839
||
There was no "Pressley's Job Office" in Norton Ohio
||
|-
|

==== ====
||
DEAR PEOPLE OF GOD:-I offer you a “Defence” which I am grieved to make, but my opposers have put me to the necessity, and so far as my memory serves, I pledge my veracity for the correctness of the account.
||
||
|-
|
==== ====
||
I deny that I have ever conspired with any, or ever exerted any influence to destroy the reputation of the First Elder, although evidence which is to be credited assures me that he has done everything he could to injure my standing and his influence has been considerably exerted to destroy my reputation and, I fear, my life.
||
While employed here he became acquainted with the family of Isaac Hale, of whom you read in several of the productions of those who have sought to destroy the validity of the book of Mormon. It may be necessary hereafter, to refer you more particularly to the conduct of this family, as their influence has been considerably exerted to destroy the reputation of our brother, probably because he married a daughter of the same contrary to some of their wishes
||
{{MAfairwiki|author=Oliver Cowdery|date=|vol=2|num=1|start=200}}
|-
|

==== ====
||
You will remember in the meantime, that those who seek to vilify my character have been constantly encouraged by him.
||
You will remember, in the mean time, that those who seek to vilify his character, say that he has always been notorious for his idleness. This gentleman, whose name is Stowel, resided in the town of Bainbridge, on or near the head waters of the Susquehannah river.
||
{{MAfairwiki|author=Oliver Cowdery|date=|vol=2|num=1|start=200}}
|-
|
==== ====
||
There was a time when I thought myself able to prove to the satisfaction of every man that the translator of the Book of Mormon, was worthy of the appellation of a Seer and a Prophet of the Lord, and in which he held over me a mysterious power which even now I fail to fathom; but I fear I may have been deceived, and especially so fear since knowing that Satan has led his mind astray.
||
I trust I shall be indulged, for the purpose of satisfying many, who have heard so many slanderous reports that they are lead to believe them true because they are not contradicted; and besides, this generation are determined to oppose every item in the form or under the pretence [pretense] of revelation, unless it comes through a man who has always been more pure than Michael the great prince; and as this is the fact, and my opposers have put me to the necessity, I shall be more prolix, and have no doubt, before I give up the point, shall prove to your satisfaction, and to that of every man, that the translator of the book of Mormon is worthy the appellation of a seer and a prophet of the Lord. In this I do not pretend that he is not a man subject to passion like other men, beset with infirmities and encompassed with weaknesses; but if he is, all men were so before him, and a pretence [pretense] to the contrary would argue a more than mortal, which would at once destroy the whole system of the religion of the Lord Jesus; for he anciently chose the weak to overcome the strong, the foolish to confound the wise, (I mean considered so by this world,) and by the foolishness of preaching to save those who believe.
||
{{MAfairwiki|author=Oliver Cowdery|date=|vol=2|num=1|start=200}}
|-
|

==== ====
||
1. When the Church of Christ was set up by revelation, he was called to be First Elder, and I was called to be the Second Elder, and whatever he had of Priesthood (about which I am beginning to doubt) also had I.
||
||
|-
|
==== ====
||
2. But I certainly followed him too far when accepting, and reiterating, that none had authority from God to administer the ordinances of the Gospel, as I had then forgotten that John, the beloved disciple, was tarrying on earth and exempt from death.
||
||
|-
|
==== ====
||
I am well aware that a rehearsal of these things at this day will be unpleasant reading to the First Elder; yet so it is, and it is wisdom that it should be so. Without rehearsing too many things that have caused me to lose my faith in Bro. Joseph’s seership, I regard his frequent predictions that he himself shall tarry on the earth till Christ shall come in glory, and that neither the rage of devils nor the malice of men shall ever cause him to fall by the hand of his enemies until he has seen Christ in the flesh at his final coming, as little short of a piece of blasphemy; and it may be classed with that revelation that some among you will remember which sent Bro. Page and me so unwisely to (3) Toronto with a predication from the Lord by Urim and Thummim that we would there find a man anxious to buy the First Elder’s copyright. I well remember we did not find him, and had to return surprised and disappointed. But so great was my faith, that, in going to Toronto, nothing but calmness pervaded my soul, every doubt was banished, and I as much expected that Bro. Page and I would fulfill the revelation as that we should live. And you may believe, without asking me to relate the particulars, that it would be no easy task to describe our desolation and grief.
||
Brother Hyrum said it had been suggested to him that some of the brethren might go to Toronto, Canada, and sell the copy-right of the Book of Mormon for considerable money: and he persuaded Joseph to inquire of the Lord about it. Joseph concluded to do so. He had not yet given up the stone. Joseph looked into the hat in which he placed the stone, and received a revelation that some of the brethren should go to Toronto, Canada, and that they would sell the copy-right of the Book of Mormon. Hiram Page and Oliver Cowdery went to Toronto on this mission, but they failed entirely to sell the copy-right, returning without any money. Joseph was at my father's house when they returned. I was there also, and am an eye witness to these facts. Jacob Whitmer and John Whitmer were also present when Hiram Page and Oliver Cowdery returned from Canada.
||
{{Book:Whitmer:Address to All Believers in Christ|start=31}}

|-
|

==== ====
||
Bro. Page and I did not think that God would have deceived us through “Urim and Thummim,” exactly as came the Book of Mormon; and I well remember how hard I strove to drive away the foreboding which seized me, that the First Elder had made tools of us, where we thought, in the simplicity of our hearts, that we were divinely commanded.
||
Jacob Whitmer and John Whitmer were also present when Hiram Page and Oliver Cowdery returned from Canada. Well, we were all in great trouble; and we asked Joseph how it was that he had received a revelation from the Lord for some brethren to go to Toronto and sell the copy-right, and the brethren had utterly failed in their undertaking. Joseph did not know how it was, so he enquired of the Lord about it, and behold the following revelation came through the stone: "Some revelations are of God: some revelations are of men: and some revelations are of the devil." So we see that the revelation to go to Toronto and sell the copy-right was not of God, but was of the devil or of the heart of man.
||
{{Book:Whitmer:Address to All Believers in Christ|start=31}}
|-
|

==== ====
||
And what served to render the reflection past expression in its bitterness to me, was, that from ''his'' hand I received baptism, by the direction of the Angel of God whose voice, as it has since struck me, did most mysteriously resemble the voice of Elder Sidney Rigdon, who, I am sure had no part in the transactions of that day, as the Angel was John the Baptist, which I doubt not and deny not.
||
Not only have I been graciously preserved from wicked and unreasonable men, with this our brother, but I have seen the fruit of perseverance in proclaiming the everlasting gospel, immediately after it was declared to the world in these last days, in a manner not to be forgotten while heaven gives my common intellect. And what serves to render the reflection past expression on this point is, that from ''his'' hand I received baptism, by the direction of the angel of God—the first received into this church, in this day.
||
{{MAfairwiki|author=Oliver Cowdery|date=October 1834|vol=1|num=1|start=14}}
|-
|

==== ====
||
When I afterward first heard Elder Rigdon, whose voice is so strikingly similar, I felt that this “dear” brother was to be in some sense, to me unknown, the herald of this church as the Great Baptist was of Christ.
4. I never dreamed however, that he would influence the Prophet, Seer and Revelator to the Church of the Latter Day Saints, in to the formation of a secret band at Far West, committed to depredations upon Gentiles and the actual assassination of apostates from the church, which was done in June last and was only one of many wrong steps.
||
Sydney Rigdon was the cause of almost all the errors which were introduced while he was in the church. I believe Rigdon to have been the instigator of the secret organization known as the "Danites" which was formed in Far West Missouri in June, 1838.
||
{{Book:Whitmer:Address to All Believers in Christ|start=35}}
|-
|

==== ====
||
These are facts which I am rehearsing, and if they shall be called in question, I am able to establish them by evidence which I can bring forward in abundance.
||
I have now given you a rehearsal of what was communicated to our brother, when he was directed to go and obtain the record of the Nephites. I may have missed in arrangement in some instances, but the principle is preserved, and you will be able to bring forward abundance of corroborating scripture upon the subject of the gospel and of the gathering.
||
{{MAfairwiki|author=Oliver Cowdery|date=|vol=1|num=7|start=112}}
|-
|

==== ====
||
Still, although favored fo God as a chosen witness to bear testimony to the divine authority of the Book of Mormon, and honored of the Lord in being permitted, without money and without price, to serve as scribe during the translation of the Book of Mormon, I have sometimes had seasons of skepticism, in which I did seriously wonder whether the Prophet and I were men in our sober senses when he would be translating from plates through “the Urim and Thummim” and the plates not be in sight at all.
||
No men in their sober senses, could translate and write the directions given to the Nephites, from the mouth of the Savior, of the precise manner in which men should build up his church, and especially, when corruption had spread an uncertainty over all forms and systems practiced among men, without desiring a privilege of showing the willingness of the heart by being buried in the liquid grave, to answer a "good conscience by the resurrection of Jesus Christ."
||
{{MAfairwiki|author=Oliver Cowdery|date=|vol=1|num=7|start=15}}
|-
|

==== ====
||
But I believed both in the Seer and in the “Seer Stone,” and what the First Elder announced as revelation from God, I accepted as such, and committed to paper with a glad mind and happy heart and swift pen; for I believed him to be the soul of honor and truth, a young man who would die before he would lie.
||
||
|-
|
==== ====
||
Man may deceive his fellow man, deception may follow deception, and the children of the wicked one may seduce the unstable, untaught in the ways of righteousness and peace, for I felt a solemn awe about me, being deep in the faith, that the First Elder was a Seer and Prophet of God, giving the truth unsullied through “Urim and Thummim,” dictated by the will of the Lord, and that he was persecuted for the sake of the truth which he loved. Could I have been deceived in him?
||
Man may deceive his fellow man; deception may follow deception, and the children of the wicked one may have power to seduce the foolish and untaught, till nought but fiction feeds the many, and the fruit of falsehood carries in its current the giddy to the grave; but one touch with the finger of his love, yes, one ray of glory from the upper world, or one word from the mouth of the Savior, from the bosom of eternity, strikes it all into insignificance, and blots it forever from the mind! The assurance that we were in the presence of an angel; the certainty that we heard the voice of Jesus, and the truth unsullied as it flowed from a pure personage, dictated by the will of God, is to me, past description, and I shall ever look upon this expression of the Savior's goodness with wonder and thanksgiving while I am permitted to tarry, and in those mansions where perfection dwells and sin never comes, I hope to adore in that DAY which shall never cease!*
||
{{MAfairwiki|author=Oliver Cowdery|date=October 1834|vol=1|num=1|start=16}}
|-
|

==== ====
||
I could rehearse a number of things to show either that I as then deceived, or that he has since fallen from the lofty place in which fond affection had deemed him secure.
||
||
|-
|
==== ====
||
I remembered his experience as he had related it to me, and lacking wisdom, I went to God in prayer. I said: “O! Lord, how dark everything is! Let thy glory lighten it, and make bright the path for me. Show me my duty. Let me be led of thy Spirit.”
||
||
|-
|

==== ====
||
Shall I relate what transpired? I had a message from the Most High, as from the midst of eternity; for the vail was parted and the Redeemer Himself, clothed in glory, stood before me. And He said:
||
This was not long desired before it was realized. The Lord, who is rich in mercy, and ever willing to answer the consistent prayer of the humble, after we had called upon him in a fervent manner, aside from the abodes of men, condescended to manifest to us his will. On a sudden, as from the midst of eternity, the voice of the Redeemer spake peace to us, while the vail was parted and the angel of God came down clothed with glory, and delivered the anxiously looked for message, and the keys of the gospel of repentance!
||
{{MAfairwiki|author=Oliver Cowdery|date=|vol=1|num=1|start=15}}
|-
|

==== ====
||
“After reproving the Latter Day Saints for their corruption and blindness in permitting their President, Joseph Smith, Jr., to lead them forth into errors, where I led him not, nor commanded him, and saying unto them,
||
The revelation on polygamy was given fourteen years after the translation of the Book of Mormon, and after Brother Joseph had drifted into error and blindness. As I have stated, the scriptures are plain concerning the matter of a prophet or any man once chosen of God, being afterwards deceived and led into error.
||
{{Book:Whitmer:Address to All Believers in Christ|start=42}}
|-
|
==== ====
||
‘Thus saith the Lord,’ when I said it not unto him, thou shalt withdraw thyself from among them.”
||
God spake to me again by his own voice from the heavens, and told me to "separate myself from among the Latter Day Saints, for as they sought to do unto me, so should it be done unto them."
||
{{Book:Whitmer:Address to All Believers in Christ|start=27}}
|-
|

==== ====
||
And I testify that Jesus whose words I have been rehearsing, hath even so commanded me in an open vision.
||
I believe that the angel Moroni, whose words I have been rehearsing, who communicated the knowledge of the record of the Nephites, in this age
||
{{MAfairwiki|author=Oliver Cowdery|date=April 1835|vol=1|num=7|start=112}}
|-
|

==== ====
||
The Lord revealed to me that the First Elder is leading the Saints astray, and ordered me to quit them after delivering the message which this “Defence” delivers. I shall ever remember this expression of the Saviour’s grace with thanksgiving, and look upon his amazing goodness to me with wonder.
||
We have seen from a revelation given to Brother Joseph, that he broke the commandments of God from the beginning. Now, as the wicked will be cut off, the people being clean before the Lord, and this Choice Seer being a holy man, the people in this condition will be fitted to give heed to him, and they will not be led astray by him
||
{{Book:Whitmer:Address to All Believers in Christ|start=45}}
|-
|

==== ====
||
When I had sufficiently recovered my selfpossession to ask in regard to the errors into which Joseph Smith, Jr., was taking the Saints,
||
God only knows how I have grieved and suffered and plead with him for you for the past forty-eight years, that you might repent and be enlightened by the Holy Ghost to see the errors into which you have been led.
||
{{Book:Whitmer:Address to All Believers in Christ|start=27}}
|-
|
==== ====
||
the Redeemer instructed me plainly: “He hath given revelations from his own heart and from a defiled conscience as coming from my mouth and hath corrupted the covenant and altered words which I had spoken. He hath brought in high priests, apostles and other officers, which in these days, when the written Word sufficeth, are not in my church, and some of his deeds have brought shame to my heritage by the shedding of blood.
||
You have changed the revelations from the way they were first given and as they are to-day in the Book of Commandments, to support the error of Brother Joseph in taking upon himself the office of Seer to the church. You have changed the revelations to support the error of high priests. You have changed the revelations to support the error of a President of the high priesthood, high counselors, etc.
||
{{Book:Whitmer:Address to All Believers in Christ|start=49}}
|-
|
==== ====
||
He walketh in the vain imaginations of his heart, and my Spirit is holy and does not dwell in an unholy temple, nor are angels sent to reveal the great work of God to hypocrites.”
||
But so it is, and it is wisdom that it should be so, because the Holy Spirit does not dwell in unholy temples, nor angels reveal the great work of God to hypocrites.
||
{{Book:Whitmer:Address to All Believers in Christ|start=95}}
|-
|

==== ====
||
I bowed my face in shame and said: “Lord! I intreat thee, give me grace to bear thy message in print where I fear to take it by word of mouth.” 
And he said, “The grace is given thee,” and he vanished out of my sight.
||
||
|-
|

==== ====
||
Prepare your hearts, O ye Saints of the Most High, and come to understanding. The prophet hath erred and the people are gone astray through his error. God’s word is open. We may read it.
||
Prepare your hearts, O ye saints of the Most High, for great things await you! Hasten ye, hasten ye, to the places of gathering, for after a little the indignation of the Lord will cease toward those who are called by his name, and when his arm must fall upon the wicked. His sword is bathed in heaven, and must fall upon Idumea, and who can stand amid the crash and fall of empires?
||
{{MAfairwiki|author=Oliver Cowdery|date=October 1835|vol=2|num=1|start=204}}
|-
|
==== ====
||
There is no “First Presidency” there, no “High Priesthood” save that of Christ himself, no Patriarch to the church, and wonderful to tell, the “First Elder” hath departed from god in giving us these things,
||
High Priests were only in the church before Christ; and to have this office in the "Church of Christ" is not according to the teachings of Christ in either of the sacred books: Christ himself is our great and last High Priest.
||
{{Book:Whitmer:Address to All Believers in Christ|start=62}}
|-
|

==== ====
||
and in changing the name of the church.
||
but when the heads of the church changed the name of the church to "The Church of Latter Day Saints," (leaving out the name of "Christ" entirely) when they did this, and compiled the Doctrine and Covenants in 1835, God had then given them over to blindness of mind
||
{{Book:Whitmer:Address to All Believers in Christ|start=61}}
|-
|

==== ====
||
Oh, the misery, the distress and evil attendant upon giving heed unto the “doctrines of men!” The gospel has been perverted and the Saints are wandering in darkness, which a full cup of suffering is poured upon them. A society has been organized among them to inflict death upon those who are deemed apostates, with the knowledge and sanction of the First Elder.
||
Alas, the calamity of war, the extinction of nations, the ruin of kingdoms, the fall of empires and the dissolution of governments! O the misery, distress and evil attendant on these! Who can contemplate like scenes without sorrowing, and who so destitute of commiseration as not to be pained that man has fallen so low, so far beneath the station in which he was created?
||
{{MAfairwiki|author=Oliver Cowdery|date=|vol=1|num=10|start=159}}
|-
|

==== ====
||
This, I confess, is a dark picture to spread before those whom I am to warn, but they will pardon my plainness when I assure them of the truth of what I have written.
||
On Friday, the 5th, in company with our brother JOSEPH SMITH jr. I left Kirtland for this place (New Portage,) to attend the conference previously appointed. To be permitted, once more, to travel with this brother, occasions reflections of no ordinary kind. Many have been the fateagues [fatigues] and privations which have fallen to my lot to endure, for the gospel's sake, since 1828, with this brother. Our road has frequently been spread with the "fowler's snare," and our persons sought with the eagerness, of the Savage's ferocity, for innocent blood, by men, either heated to desperation by the insinuations of those who professed to be "guides and way—marks" to the kingdom of glory, or the individuals themselves!—This, I confess, is a dark picture to spread before our patrons, but they will pardon my plainness when I assure them of the truth. In fact, God has so ordered, that the reflections which I am permitted to cast upon my past life, relative to a knowledge of the way of salvation, are rendered "doubly endearing."
||
{{MAfairwiki|author=Oliver Cowdery|vol=1|num=1|start=14|date=October 1834}}
|-
|

==== ====
||
Bearing this message to them is the hardest work of my life, although many have been the privations and fatigues which have fallen to my lot to endure for the Gospel’s sake since April 5th, 1829.
||
She was driven, last fall, from Jackson county, by the mob, and was necessarily compelled to endure, with others, further afflictions and privations.
||
{{MAfairwiki|author=Oliver Cowdery|date=|vol=1|num=1|start=13}}
|-
|

==== ====
||
It is disgraceful to be led by a man who does not scruple to follow his own vain imagination, announcing his own schemes as revelations from the Lord. And I fear he is led by a groundless hope, no better than the idle wind or the spider’s web. Having cleared my soul by delivering the message, I do not deem it necessary to write further on the subject now.
||
The mind is easily called up to reflection upon a matter of such deep importance, and it is just that it should be; but there is a regret occupying the heart when we consider the deep anxiety of thousands, who are lead away with a vain imagination, or a groundless hope, no better than the idle wind or the spider's web.
||
{{MAfairwiki|author=Oliver Cowdery|date=|vol=1|num=5|start=78}}
|-
|

==== ====
||
Jesus has saved men in all ages and saves them now, and not by our Priesthood either. The “First Elder” errs as to that. The Lord has said, long since, and his word remains steadfast as the eternal hills, that to him who knocks it shall be opened, and whosoever will, may come and partake of the waters of life freely; but a curse will surely fall upon those who draw near to God with their mouths, and honor him with their lips, while their hearts are far from him.
||
"This cannot be brought about until first certain preparatory things are accomplished, for so has the Lord purposed in his own mind. He has therefore chosen you as an instrument in his hand to bring to light that which shall; perform his act, his strange act, and bring to pass a marvelous work and a wonder. Wherever the sound shall go it shall cause the ears of men to tingle, and wherever it shall be proclaimed, the pure in heart shall rejoice, while those who draw near to God with their mouths, and honor him with their lips, while their hearts are far from him, will seek its overthrow, and the destruction of those by whose hands it is carried. Therefore, marvel not if your name is made a derision, and had as a by-word among such, if you are the instrument in bringing it, by the gift of God, to the knowledge of the people."
||
{{MAfairwiki|author=Oliver Cowdery|date=|vol=1|num=5|start=79|end=80}}
|-
|

==== ====
||
I no longer believe that all the other churches are wrong.
||
||
|-
|
==== ====
||
Get right, O! ye people, get right with God, and may the Lord remove his judgments from you, preserve you in his kingdom from all evil, and crown you in Christ.
||
May the Lord preserve you from evil and reward you richly for all your afflictions, and crown you in his kingdom. Amen.
||
{{MAfairwiki|author=Oliver Cowdery|date=|vol=1|num=7|start=112}}
|-
|

==== ====
||
Amen. 
March 3, 1839 
O. COWDERY

Forgeries related to Mormonism/Oliver Cowdery's 1839 Defence in a Rehearsal of my Grounds for Separating Myself from the Latter Day Saints

2013-03-12T16:37:24Z

RonHellings1: /* Background */

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

=Oliver Cowdery's alleged 1839 "Defence in a Rehearsal of my Grounds for Separating Myself from the Latter Day Saints"=
==Background==
This is a document, critical of Joseph Smith and his prophetic calling, that purports to have been published in 1839 by Oliver Cowdery. The earliest copies in existence are dated 1906. The document was "discovered" by the Reverend R. B. Neal, who was a leader in the American Anti-Mormon Association. No references to this document exist prior to 1906. This document was believed to be authentic for many years, until it was discovered that it consists primarily of three sources: 1) a selection of Cowdery's phrases taken from various issues of the ''Latter Day Saints' Messenger and Advocate'' that were removed from their original context, b) reworded statements from David Whitmer's 1887 ''An Address to All Believers in Christ,'' and 3) original material (''i.e.'', written by the forger) in which most of the serious criticisms of Joseph Smith are to be found. Historians now agree that this document is a forgery.

Richard Lloyd Anderson summarized the difficulties with the provenance of the document in an Ensign article in 1987:
<blockquote>
In 1906 the “mountain evangelist” R. B. Neal, a leader in the American Anti-Mormon Association, published a document with much fanfare but without evidence of the document’s authenticity. Reverend Neal claimed that the publication was a reprint of an 1839 document explaining Oliver Cowdery’s apostasy: ''Defence in a Rehearsal of My Grounds for Separating Myself from the Latter Day Saints.'' “No more important document has been unearthed since I have been engaged in this warfare,” R. B. Neal asserted. With such convictions, one can be sure that Reverend Neal would have produced evidence to prove that the original actually existed. But all we have is his 1906 first printing, which is silent about why no one had ever heard of the document until a half century after Oliver Cowdery’s death. —Richard Lloyd Anderson, "I Have a Question," ''Ensign'', April 1987. {{link|url=https://www.lds.org/ensign/1987/04/i-have-a-question?lang=eng}}
</blockquote>

Ronald Huggins has recently summarized the problems with the content of the document:
<blockquote>
This makes it all but certain that the ''Defence'' was plagiarized from the ''Messenger and Advocate''. The only way someone could make a case for its authenticity at this stage would be to prove that Cowdery was in the regular habit of plundering phrases and paragraphs from his earlier writings and dropping them without rhyme or reason into his later ones. —Ronald V. Huggins, "Jerald Tanner's Quest for Truth - Part 3," ''Salt Lake City Messenger'', Issue 111 (November 2008)
</blockquote>

A detailed analysis showing the reliance of the forged Cowdery document on the two historical sources is presented below.

==Comparison against sources==
The text of the alleged Cowdery document was produced using a combination of phrases written by Oliver Cowdery in the ''Messenger and Advocate'' during the time that he was editor, and a rephrasing of information from David Whitmer's ''An Address to All Believers in Christ''.

{| valign="top" border="1" style="width:100%; font-size:100%"
!width="2%"|Index
!width="40%"|Cowdery's alleged "Defence in a Rehearsal of my Grounds for Separating Myself from the Latter Day Saints"
!width="40%"|Source text and/or commentary
!width="18%"|Actual source
|-
|
==== ====
||
Defence in a Rehearsal of my Grounds for Separating Myself from the Latter Day Saints 
By Oliver Cowdery 
Second Elder of the Church of Christ
||
|-
|
==== ====
||
This Defence is not protected by a copyright, as I wish no man to be confined alone to my permission in printing what is meant for the eyes and knowledge of the nations of the earth.
||
The author desires this work circulated as much as possible, and will grant the Privilege of reproduction to any reliable house that will make application to him.
||
{{Book:Whitmer:Address to All Believers in Christ|start=2}}
|-
|
==== ====
||
“God doth not walk in crooked paths; Neither doth he turn to the right hand, Nor the left; neither doth he vary From that which he hath said.”
||
||
|-
|
==== ====
||
Pressley’s Job Office, Norton, Ohio, 1839
||
There was no "Pressley's Job Office" in Norton Ohio
||
|-
|

==== ====
||
DEAR PEOPLE OF GOD:-I offer you a “Defence” which I am grieved to make, but my opposers have put me to the necessity, and so far as my memory serves, I pledge my veracity for the correctness of the account.
||
||
|-
|
==== ====
||
I deny that I have ever conspired with any, or ever exerted any influence to destroy the reputation of the First Elder, although evidence which is to be credited assures me that he has done everything he could to injure my standing and his influence has been considerably exerted to destroy my reputation and, I fear, my life.
||
While employed here he became acquainted with the family of Isaac Hale, of whom you read in several of the productions of those who have sought to destroy the validity of the book of Mormon. It may be necessary hereafter, to refer you more particularly to the conduct of this family, as their influence has been considerably exerted to destroy the reputation of our brother, probably because he married a daughter of the same contrary to some of their wishes
||
{{MAfairwiki|author=Oliver Cowdery|date=|vol=2|num=1|start=200}}
|-
|

==== ====
||
You will remember in the meantime, that those who seek to vilify my character have been constantly encouraged by him.
||
You will remember, in the mean time, that those who seek to vilify his character, say that he has always been notorious for his idleness. This gentleman, whose name is Stowel, resided in the town of Bainbridge, on or near the head waters of the Susquehannah river.
||
{{MAfairwiki|author=Oliver Cowdery|date=|vol=2|num=1|start=200}}
|-
|
==== ====
||
There was a time when I thought myself able to prove to the satisfaction of every man that the translator of the Book of Mormon, was worthy of the appellation of a Seer and a Prophet of the Lord, and in which he held over me a mysterious power which even now I fail to fathom; but I fear I may have been deceived, and especially so fear since knowing that Satan has led his mind astray.
||
I trust I shall be indulged, for the purpose of satisfying many, who have heard so many slanderous reports that they are lead to believe them true because they are not contradicted; and besides, this generation are determined to oppose every item in the form or under the pretence [pretense] of revelation, unless it comes through a man who has always been more pure than Michael the great prince; and as this is the fact, and my opposers have put me to the necessity, I shall be more prolix, and have no doubt, before I give up the point, shall prove to your satisfaction, and to that of every man, that the translator of the book of Mormon is worthy the appellation of a seer and a prophet of the Lord. In this I do not pretend that he is not a man subject to passion like other men, beset with infirmities and encompassed with weaknesses; but if he is, all men were so before him, and a pretence [pretense] to the contrary would argue a more than mortal, which would at once destroy the whole system of the religion of the Lord Jesus; for he anciently chose the weak to overcome the strong, the foolish to confound the wise, (I mean considered so by this world,) and by the foolishness of preaching to save those who believe.
||
{{MAfairwiki|author=Oliver Cowdery|date=|vol=2|num=1|start=200}}
|-
|

==== ====
||
1. When the Church of Christ was set up by revelation, he was called to be First Elder, and I was called to be the Second Elder, and whatever he had of Priesthood (about which I am beginning to doubt) also had I.
||
||
|-
|
==== ====
||
2. But I certainly followed him too far when accepting, and reiterating, that none had authority from God to administer the ordinances of the Gospel, as I had then forgotten that John, the beloved disciple, was tarrying on earth and exempt from death.
||
||
|-
|
==== ====
||
I am well aware that a rehearsal of these things at this day will be unpleasant reading to the First Elder; yet so it is, and it is wisdom that it should be so. Without rehearsing too many things that have caused me to lose my faith in Bro. Joseph’s seership, I regard his frequent predictions that he himself shall tarry on the earth till Christ shall come in glory, and that neither the rage of devils nor the malice of men shall ever cause him to fall by the hand of his enemies until he has seen Christ in the flesh at his final coming, as little short of a piece of blasphemy; and it may be classed with that revelation that some among you will remember which sent Bro. Page and me so unwisely to (3) Toronto with a predication from the Lord by Urim and Thummim that we would there find a man anxious to buy the First Elder’s copyright. I well remember we did not find him, and had to return surprised and disappointed. But so great was my faith, that, in going to Toronto, nothing but calmness pervaded my soul, every doubt was banished, and I as much expected that Bro. Page and I would fulfill the revelation as that we should live. And you may believe, without asking me to relate the particulars, that it would be no easy task to describe our desolation and grief.
||
Brother Hyrum said it had been suggested to him that some of the brethren might go to Toronto, Canada, and sell the copy-right of the Book of Mormon for considerable money: and he persuaded Joseph to inquire of the Lord about it. Joseph concluded to do so. He had not yet given up the stone. Joseph looked into the hat in which he placed the stone, and received a revelation that some of the brethren should go to Toronto, Canada, and that they would sell the copy-right of the Book of Mormon. Hiram Page and Oliver Cowdery went to Toronto on this mission, but they failed entirely to sell the copy-right, returning without any money. Joseph was at my father's house when they returned. I was there also, and am an eye witness to these facts. Jacob Whitmer and John Whitmer were also present when Hiram Page and Oliver Cowdery returned from Canada.
||
{{Book:Whitmer:Address to All Believers in Christ|start=31}}

|-
|

==== ====
||
Bro. Page and I did not think that God would have deceived us through “Urim and Thummim,” exactly as came the Book of Mormon; and I well remember how hard I strove to drive away the foreboding which seized me, that the First Elder had made tools of us, where we thought, in the simplicity of our hearts, that we were divinely commanded.
||
Jacob Whitmer and John Whitmer were also present when Hiram Page and Oliver Cowdery returned from Canada. Well, we were all in great trouble; and we asked Joseph how it was that he had received a revelation from the Lord for some brethren to go to Toronto and sell the copy-right, and the brethren had utterly failed in their undertaking. Joseph did not know how it was, so he enquired of the Lord about it, and behold the following revelation came through the stone: "Some revelations are of God: some revelations are of men: and some revelations are of the devil." So we see that the revelation to go to Toronto and sell the copy-right was not of God, but was of the devil or of the heart of man.
||
{{Book:Whitmer:Address to All Believers in Christ|start=31}}
|-
|

==== ====
||
And what served to render the reflection past expression in its bitterness to me, was, that from ''his'' hand I received baptism, by the direction of the Angel of God whose voice, as it has since struck me, did most mysteriously resemble the voice of Elder Sidney Rigdon, who, I am sure had no part in the transactions of that day, as the Angel was John the Baptist, which I doubt not and deny not.
||
Not only have I been graciously preserved from wicked and unreasonable men, with this our brother, but I have seen the fruit of perseverance in proclaiming the everlasting gospel, immediately after it was declared to the world in these last days, in a manner not to be forgotten while heaven gives my common intellect. And what serves to render the reflection past expression on this point is, that from ''his'' hand I received baptism, by the direction of the angel of God—the first received into this church, in this day.
||
{{MAfairwiki|author=Oliver Cowdery|date=October 1834|vol=1|num=1|start=14}}
|-
|

==== ====
||
When I afterward first heard Elder Rigdon, whose voice is so strikingly similar, I felt that this “dear” brother was to be in some sense, to me unknown, the herald of this church as the Great Baptist was of Christ.
4. I never dreamed however, that he would influence the Prophet, Seer and Revelator to the Church of the Latter Day Saints, in to the formation of a secret band at Far West, committed to depredations upon Gentiles and the actual assassination of apostates from the church, which was done in June last and was only one of many wrong steps.
||
Sydney Rigdon was the cause of almost all the errors which were introduced while he was in the church. I believe Rigdon to have been the instigator of the secret organization known as the "Danites" which was formed in Far West Missouri in June, 1838.
||
{{Book:Whitmer:Address to All Believers in Christ|start=35}}
|-
|

==== ====
||
These are facts which I am rehearsing, and if they shall be called in question, I am able to establish them by evidence which I can bring forward in abundance.
||
I have now given you a rehearsal of what was communicated to our brother, when he was directed to go and obtain the record of the Nephites. I may have missed in arrangement in some instances, but the principle is preserved, and you will be able to bring forward abundance of corroborating scripture upon the subject of the gospel and of the gathering.
||
{{MAfairwiki|author=Oliver Cowdery|date=|vol=1|num=7|start=112}}
|-
|

==== ====
||
Still, although favored fo God as a chosen witness to bear testimony to the divine authority of the Book of Mormon, and honored of the Lord in being permitted, without money and without price, to serve as scribe during the translation of the Book of Mormon, I have sometimes had seasons of skepticism, in which I did seriously wonder whether the Prophet and I were men in our sober senses when he would be translating from plates through “the Urim and Thummim” and the plates not be in sight at all.
||
No men in their sober senses, could translate and write the directions given to the Nephites, from the mouth of the Savior, of the precise manner in which men should build up his church, and especially, when corruption had spread an uncertainty over all forms and systems practiced among men, without desiring a privilege of showing the willingness of the heart by being buried in the liquid grave, to answer a "good conscience by the resurrection of Jesus Christ."
||
{{MAfairwiki|author=Oliver Cowdery|date=|vol=1|num=7|start=15}}
|-
|

==== ====
||
But I believed both in the Seer and in the “Seer Stone,” and what the First Elder announced as revelation from God, I accepted as such, and committed to paper with a glad mind and happy heart and swift pen; for I believed him to be the soul of honor and truth, a young man who would die before he would lie.
||
||
|-
|
==== ====
||
Man may deceive his fellow man, deception may follow deception, and the children of the wicked one may seduce the unstable, untaught in the ways of righteousness and peace, for I felt a solemn awe about me, being deep in the faith, that the First Elder was a Seer and Prophet of God, giving the truth unsullied through “Urim and Thummim,” dictated by the will of the Lord, and that he was persecuted for the sake of the truth which he loved. Could I have been deceived in him?
||
Man may deceive his fellow man; deception may follow deception, and the children of the wicked one may have power to seduce the foolish and untaught, till nought but fiction feeds the many, and the fruit of falsehood carries in its current the giddy to the grave; but one touch with the finger of his love, yes, one ray of glory from the upper world, or one word from the mouth of the Savior, from the bosom of eternity, strikes it all into insignificance, and blots it forever from the mind! The assurance that we were in the presence of an angel; the certainty that we heard the voice of Jesus, and the truth unsullied as it flowed from a pure personage, dictated by the will of God, is to me, past description, and I shall ever look upon this expression of the Savior's goodness with wonder and thanksgiving while I am permitted to tarry, and in those mansions where perfection dwells and sin never comes, I hope to adore in that DAY which shall never cease!*
||
{{MAfairwiki|author=Oliver Cowdery|date=October 1834|vol=1|num=1|start=16}}
|-
|

==== ====
||
I could rehearse a number of things to show either that I as then deceived, or that he has since fallen from the lofty place in which fond affection had deemed him secure.
||
||
|-
|
==== ====
||
I remembered his experience as he had related it to me, and lacking wisdom, I went to God in prayer. I said: “O! Lord, how dark everything is! Let thy glory lighten it, and make bright the path for me. Show me my duty. Let me be led of thy Spirit.”
||
||
|-
|

==== ====
||
Shall I relate what transpired? I had a message from the Most High, as from the midst of eternity; for the vail was parted and the Redeemer Himself, clothed in glory, stood before me. And He said:
||
This was not long desired before it was realized. The Lord, who is rich in mercy, and ever willing to answer the consistent prayer of the humble, after we had called upon him in a fervent manner, aside from the abodes of men, condescended to manifest to us his will. On a sudden, as from the midst of eternity, the voice of the Redeemer spake peace to us, while the vail was parted and the angel of God came down clothed with glory, and delivered the anxiously looked for message, and the keys of the gospel of repentance!
||
{{MAfairwiki|author=Oliver Cowdery|date=|vol=1|num=1|start=15}}
|-
|

==== ====
||
“After reproving the Latter Day Saints for their corruption and blindness in permitting their President, Joseph Smith, Jr., to lead them forth into errors, where I led him not, nor commanded him, and saying unto them,
||
The revelation on polygamy was given fourteen years after the translation of the Book of Mormon, and after Brother Joseph had drifted into error and blindness. As I have stated, the scriptures are plain concerning the matter of a prophet or any man once chosen of God, being afterwards deceived and led into error.
||
{{Book:Whitmer:Address to All Believers in Christ|start=42}}
|-
|
==== ====
||
‘Thus saith the Lord,’ when I said it not unto him, thou shalt withdraw thyself from among them.”
||
God spake to me again by his own voice from the heavens, and told me to "separate myself from among the Latter Day Saints, for as they sought to do unto me, so should it be done unto them."
||
{{Book:Whitmer:Address to All Believers in Christ|start=27}}
|-
|

==== ====
||
And I testify that Jesus whose words I have been rehearsing, hath even so commanded me in an open vision.
||
I believe that the angel Moroni, whose words I have been rehearsing, who communicated the knowledge of the record of the Nephites, in this age
||
{{MAfairwiki|author=Oliver Cowdery|date=April 1835|vol=1|num=7|start=112}}
|-
|

==== ====
||
The Lord revealed to me that the First Elder is leading the Saints astray, and ordered me to quit them after delivering the message which this “Defence” delivers. I shall ever remember this expression of the Saviour’s grace with thanksgiving, and look upon his amazing goodness to me with wonder.
||
We have seen from a revelation given to Brother Joseph, that he broke the commandments of God from the beginning. Now, as the wicked will be cut off, the people being clean before the Lord, and this Choice Seer being a holy man, the people in this condition will be fitted to give heed to him, and they will not be led astray by him
||
{{Book:Whitmer:Address to All Believers in Christ|start=45}}
|-
|

==== ====
||
When I had sufficiently recovered my selfpossession to ask in regard to the errors into which Joseph Smith, Jr., was taking the Saints,
||
God only knows how I have grieved and suffered and plead with him for you for the past forty-eight years, that you might repent and be enlightened by the Holy Ghost to see the errors into which you have been led.
||
{{Book:Whitmer:Address to All Believers in Christ|start=27}}
|-
|
==== ====
||
the Redeemer instructed me plainly: “He hath given revelations from his own heart and from a defiled conscience as coming from my mouth and hath corrupted the covenant and altered words which I had spoken. He hath brought in high priests, apostles and other officers, which in these days, when the written Word sufficeth, are not in my church, and some of his deeds have brought shame to my heritage by the shedding of blood.
||
You have changed the revelations from the way they were first given and as they are to-day in the Book of Commandments, to support the error of Brother Joseph in taking upon himself the office of Seer to the church. You have changed the revelations to support the error of high priests. You have changed the revelations to support the error of a President of the high priesthood, high counselors, etc.
||
{{Book:Whitmer:Address to All Believers in Christ|start=49}}
|-
|
==== ====
||
He walketh in the vain imaginations of his heart, and my Spirit is holy and does not dwell in an unholy temple, nor are angels sent to reveal the great work of God to hypocrites.”
||
But so it is, and it is wisdom that it should be so, because the Holy Spirit does not dwell in unholy temples, nor angels reveal the great work of God to hypocrites.
||
{{Book:Whitmer:Address to All Believers in Christ|start=95}}
|-
|

==== ====
||
I bowed my face in shame and said: “Lord! I intreat thee, give me grace to bear thy message in print where I fear to take it by word of mouth.” 
And he said, “The grace is given thee,” and he vanished out of my sight.
||
||
|-
|

==== ====
||
Prepare your hearts, O ye Saints of the Most High, and come to understanding. The prophet hath erred and the people are gone astray through his error. God’s word is open. We may read it.
||
Prepare your hearts, O ye saints of the Most High, for great things await you! Hasten ye, hasten ye, to the places of gathering, for after a little the indignation of the Lord will cease toward those who are called by his name, and when his arm must fall upon the wicked. His sword is bathed in heaven, and must fall upon Idumea, and who can stand amid the crash and fall of empires?
||
{{MAfairwiki|author=Oliver Cowdery|date=October 1835|vol=2|num=1|start=204}}
|-
|
==== ====
||
There is no “First Presidency” there, no “High Priesthood” save that of Christ himself, no Patriarch to the church, and wonderful to tell, the “First Elder” hath departed from god in giving us these things,
||
High Priests were only in the church before Christ; and to have this office in the "Church of Christ" is not according to the teachings of Christ in either of the sacred books: Christ himself is our great and last High Priest.
||
{{Book:Whitmer:Address to All Believers in Christ|start=62}}
|-
|

==== ====
||
and in changing the name of the church.
||
but when the heads of the church changed the name of the church to "The Church of Latter Day Saints," (leaving out the name of "Christ" entirely) when they did this, and compiled the Doctrine and Covenants in 1835, God had then given them over to blindness of mind
||
{{Book:Whitmer:Address to All Believers in Christ|start=61}}
|-
|

==== ====
||
Oh, the misery, the distress and evil attendant upon giving heed unto the “doctrines of men!” The gospel has been perverted and the Saints are wandering in darkness, which a full cup of suffering is poured upon them. A society has been organized among them to inflict death upon those who are deemed apostates, with the knowledge and sanction of the First Elder.
||
Alas, the calamity of war, the extinction of nations, the ruin of kingdoms, the fall of empires and the dissolution of governments! O the misery, distress and evil attendant on these! Who can contemplate like scenes without sorrowing, and who so destitute of commiseration as not to be pained that man has fallen so low, so far beneath the station in which he was created?
||
{{MAfairwiki|author=Oliver Cowdery|date=|vol=1|num=10|start=159}}
|-
|

==== ====
||
This, I confess, is a dark picture to spread before those whom I am to warn, but they will pardon my plainness when I assure them of the truth of what I have written.
||
On Friday, the 5th, in company with our brother JOSEPH SMITH jr. I left Kirtland for this place (New Portage,) to attend the conference previously appointed. To be permitted, once more, to travel with this brother, occasions reflections of no ordinary kind. Many have been the fateagues [fatigues] and privations which have fallen to my lot to endure, for the gospel's sake, since 1828, with this brother. Our road has frequently been spread with the "fowler's snare," and our persons sought with the eagerness, of the Savage's ferocity, for innocent blood, by men, either heated to desperation by the insinuations of those who professed to be "guides and way—marks" to the kingdom of glory, or the individuals themselves!—This, I confess, is a dark picture to spread before our patrons, but they will pardon my plainness when I assure them of the truth. In fact, God has so ordered, that the reflections which I am permitted to cast upon my past life, relative to a knowledge of the way of salvation, are rendered "doubly endearing."
||
{{MAfairwiki|author=Oliver Cowdery|vol=1|num=1|start=14|date=October 1834}}
|-
|

==== ====
||
Bearing this message to them is the hardest work of my life, although many have been the privations and fatigues which have fallen to my lot to endure for the Gospel’s sake since April 5th, 1829.
||
She was driven, last fall, from Jackson county, by the mob, and was necessarily compelled to endure, with others, further afflictions and privations.
||
{{MAfairwiki|author=Oliver Cowdery|date=|vol=1|num=1|start=13}}
|-
|

==== ====
||
It is disgraceful to be led by a man who does not scruple to follow his own vain imagination, announcing his own schemes as revelations from the Lord. And I fear he is led by a groundless hope, no better than the idle wind or the spider’s web. Having cleared my soul by delivering the message, I do not deem it necessary to write further on the subject now.
||
The mind is easily called up to reflection upon a matter of such deep importance, and it is just that it should be; but there is a regret occupying the heart when we consider the deep anxiety of thousands, who are lead away with a vain imagination, or a groundless hope, no better than the idle wind or the spider's web.
||
{{MAfairwiki|author=Oliver Cowdery|date=|vol=1|num=5|start=78}}
|-
|

==== ====
||
Jesus has saved men in all ages and saves them now, and not by our Priesthood either. The “First Elder” errs as to that. The Lord has said, long since, and his word remains steadfast as the eternal hills, that to him who knocks it shall be opened, and whosoever will, may come and partake of the waters of life freely; but a curse will surely fall upon those who draw near to God with their mouths, and honor him with their lips, while their hearts are far from him.
||
"This cannot be brought about until first certain preparatory things are accomplished, for so has the Lord purposed in his own mind. He has therefore chosen you as an instrument in his hand to bring to light that which shall; perform his act, his strange act, and bring to pass a marvelous work and a wonder. Wherever the sound shall go it shall cause the ears of men to tingle, and wherever it shall be proclaimed, the pure in heart shall rejoice, while those who draw near to God with their mouths, and honor him with their lips, while their hearts are far from him, will seek its overthrow, and the destruction of those by whose hands it is carried. Therefore, marvel not if your name is made a derision, and had as a by-word among such, if you are the instrument in bringing it, by the gift of God, to the knowledge of the people."
||
{{MAfairwiki|author=Oliver Cowdery|date=|vol=1|num=5|start=79|end=80}}
|-
|

==== ====
||
I no longer believe that all the other churches are wrong.
||
||
|-
|
==== ====
||
Get right, O! ye people, get right with God, and may the Lord remove his judgments from you, preserve you in his kingdom from all evil, and crown you in Christ.
||
May the Lord preserve you from evil and reward you richly for all your afflictions, and crown you in his kingdom. Amen.
||
{{MAfairwiki|author=Oliver Cowdery|date=|vol=1|num=7|start=112}}
|-
|

==== ====
||
Amen. 
March 3, 1839 
O. COWDERY

Forgeries related to Mormonism/Oliver Cowdery's 1839 Defence in a Rehearsal of my Grounds for Separating Myself from the Latter Day Saints

2013-03-12T16:36:21Z

RonHellings1: /* Background */

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

=Oliver Cowdery's alleged 1839 "Defence in a Rehearsal of my Grounds for Separating Myself from the Latter Day Saints"=
==Background==
This is a document, critical of Joseph Smith and his prophetic calling, that purports to have been published in 1839 by Oliver Cowdery. The earliest copies in existence are dated 1906. The document was "discovered" by the Reverend R. B. Neal, who was a leader in the American Anti-Mormon Association. No references to this document exist prior to 1906. This document was believed to be authentic for many years, until it was discovered that it consists primarily of three sources: 1) a selection of Cowdery's phrases taken from various issues of the ''Latter Day Saints' Messenger and Advocate'' that were removed from their original context, b) reworded statements from David Whitmer's 1887 ''An Address to All Believers in Christ,'' and 3) original material (''i.e.'', written by the forger) in which most of the serious criticisms of Joseph Smith are to be found. Historians now agree that this document is a forgery.

Richard Lloyd Anderson summarized the difficulties with the provenance of the document in an Ensign article in 1987:
<blockquote>
Similar faults appear in a better-known historical forgery claiming to come from Oliver Cowdery the year after he left the Church. In 1906 the “mountain evangelist” R. B. Neal, a leader in the American Anti-Mormon Association, published a document with much fanfare but without evidence of the document’s authenticity. Reverend Neal claimed that the publication was a reprint of an 1839 document explaining Oliver Cowdery’s apostasy: ''Defence in a Rehearsal of My Grounds for Separating Myself from the Latter Day Saints.'' “No more important document has been unearthed since I have been engaged in this warfare,” R. B. Neal asserted. With such convictions, one can be sure that Reverend Neal would have produced evidence to prove that the original actually existed. But all we have is his 1906 first printing, which is silent about why no one had ever heard of the document until a half century after Oliver Cowdery’s death. —Richard Lloyd Anderson, "I Have a Question," ''Ensign'', April 1987. {{link|url=https://www.lds.org/ensign/1987/04/i-have-a-question?lang=eng}}
</blockquote>

Ronald Huggins has recently summarized the problems with the content of the document:
<blockquote>
This makes it all but certain that the ''Defence'' was plagiarized from the ''Messenger and Advocate''. The only way someone could make a case for its authenticity at this stage would be to prove that Cowdery was in the regular habit of plundering phrases and paragraphs from his earlier writings and dropping them without rhyme or reason into his later ones. —Ronald V. Huggins, "Jerald Tanner's Quest for Truth - Part 3," ''Salt Lake City Messenger'', Issue 111 (November 2008)
</blockquote>

A detailed analysis showing the reliance of the forged Cowdery document on the two historical sources is presented below.

==Comparison against sources==
The text of the alleged Cowdery document was produced using a combination of phrases written by Oliver Cowdery in the ''Messenger and Advocate'' during the time that he was editor, and a rephrasing of information from David Whitmer's ''An Address to All Believers in Christ''.

{| valign="top" border="1" style="width:100%; font-size:100%"
!width="2%"|Index
!width="40%"|Cowdery's alleged "Defence in a Rehearsal of my Grounds for Separating Myself from the Latter Day Saints"
!width="40%"|Source text and/or commentary
!width="18%"|Actual source
|-
|
==== ====
||
Defence in a Rehearsal of my Grounds for Separating Myself from the Latter Day Saints 
By Oliver Cowdery 
Second Elder of the Church of Christ
||
|-
|
==== ====
||
This Defence is not protected by a copyright, as I wish no man to be confined alone to my permission in printing what is meant for the eyes and knowledge of the nations of the earth.
||
The author desires this work circulated as much as possible, and will grant the Privilege of reproduction to any reliable house that will make application to him.
||
{{Book:Whitmer:Address to All Believers in Christ|start=2}}
|-
|
==== ====
||
“God doth not walk in crooked paths; Neither doth he turn to the right hand, Nor the left; neither doth he vary From that which he hath said.”
||
||
|-
|
==== ====
||
Pressley’s Job Office, Norton, Ohio, 1839
||
There was no "Pressley's Job Office" in Norton Ohio
||
|-
|

==== ====
||
DEAR PEOPLE OF GOD:-I offer you a “Defence” which I am grieved to make, but my opposers have put me to the necessity, and so far as my memory serves, I pledge my veracity for the correctness of the account.
||
||
|-
|
==== ====
||
I deny that I have ever conspired with any, or ever exerted any influence to destroy the reputation of the First Elder, although evidence which is to be credited assures me that he has done everything he could to injure my standing and his influence has been considerably exerted to destroy my reputation and, I fear, my life.
||
While employed here he became acquainted with the family of Isaac Hale, of whom you read in several of the productions of those who have sought to destroy the validity of the book of Mormon. It may be necessary hereafter, to refer you more particularly to the conduct of this family, as their influence has been considerably exerted to destroy the reputation of our brother, probably because he married a daughter of the same contrary to some of their wishes
||
{{MAfairwiki|author=Oliver Cowdery|date=|vol=2|num=1|start=200}}
|-
|

==== ====
||
You will remember in the meantime, that those who seek to vilify my character have been constantly encouraged by him.
||
You will remember, in the mean time, that those who seek to vilify his character, say that he has always been notorious for his idleness. This gentleman, whose name is Stowel, resided in the town of Bainbridge, on or near the head waters of the Susquehannah river.
||
{{MAfairwiki|author=Oliver Cowdery|date=|vol=2|num=1|start=200}}
|-
|
==== ====
||
There was a time when I thought myself able to prove to the satisfaction of every man that the translator of the Book of Mormon, was worthy of the appellation of a Seer and a Prophet of the Lord, and in which he held over me a mysterious power which even now I fail to fathom; but I fear I may have been deceived, and especially so fear since knowing that Satan has led his mind astray.
||
I trust I shall be indulged, for the purpose of satisfying many, who have heard so many slanderous reports that they are lead to believe them true because they are not contradicted; and besides, this generation are determined to oppose every item in the form or under the pretence [pretense] of revelation, unless it comes through a man who has always been more pure than Michael the great prince; and as this is the fact, and my opposers have put me to the necessity, I shall be more prolix, and have no doubt, before I give up the point, shall prove to your satisfaction, and to that of every man, that the translator of the book of Mormon is worthy the appellation of a seer and a prophet of the Lord. In this I do not pretend that he is not a man subject to passion like other men, beset with infirmities and encompassed with weaknesses; but if he is, all men were so before him, and a pretence [pretense] to the contrary would argue a more than mortal, which would at once destroy the whole system of the religion of the Lord Jesus; for he anciently chose the weak to overcome the strong, the foolish to confound the wise, (I mean considered so by this world,) and by the foolishness of preaching to save those who believe.
||
{{MAfairwiki|author=Oliver Cowdery|date=|vol=2|num=1|start=200}}
|-
|

==== ====
||
1. When the Church of Christ was set up by revelation, he was called to be First Elder, and I was called to be the Second Elder, and whatever he had of Priesthood (about which I am beginning to doubt) also had I.
||
||
|-
|
==== ====
||
2. But I certainly followed him too far when accepting, and reiterating, that none had authority from God to administer the ordinances of the Gospel, as I had then forgotten that John, the beloved disciple, was tarrying on earth and exempt from death.
||
||
|-
|
==== ====
||
I am well aware that a rehearsal of these things at this day will be unpleasant reading to the First Elder; yet so it is, and it is wisdom that it should be so. Without rehearsing too many things that have caused me to lose my faith in Bro. Joseph’s seership, I regard his frequent predictions that he himself shall tarry on the earth till Christ shall come in glory, and that neither the rage of devils nor the malice of men shall ever cause him to fall by the hand of his enemies until he has seen Christ in the flesh at his final coming, as little short of a piece of blasphemy; and it may be classed with that revelation that some among you will remember which sent Bro. Page and me so unwisely to (3) Toronto with a predication from the Lord by Urim and Thummim that we would there find a man anxious to buy the First Elder’s copyright. I well remember we did not find him, and had to return surprised and disappointed. But so great was my faith, that, in going to Toronto, nothing but calmness pervaded my soul, every doubt was banished, and I as much expected that Bro. Page and I would fulfill the revelation as that we should live. And you may believe, without asking me to relate the particulars, that it would be no easy task to describe our desolation and grief.
||
Brother Hyrum said it had been suggested to him that some of the brethren might go to Toronto, Canada, and sell the copy-right of the Book of Mormon for considerable money: and he persuaded Joseph to inquire of the Lord about it. Joseph concluded to do so. He had not yet given up the stone. Joseph looked into the hat in which he placed the stone, and received a revelation that some of the brethren should go to Toronto, Canada, and that they would sell the copy-right of the Book of Mormon. Hiram Page and Oliver Cowdery went to Toronto on this mission, but they failed entirely to sell the copy-right, returning without any money. Joseph was at my father's house when they returned. I was there also, and am an eye witness to these facts. Jacob Whitmer and John Whitmer were also present when Hiram Page and Oliver Cowdery returned from Canada.
||
{{Book:Whitmer:Address to All Believers in Christ|start=31}}

|-
|

==== ====
||
Bro. Page and I did not think that God would have deceived us through “Urim and Thummim,” exactly as came the Book of Mormon; and I well remember how hard I strove to drive away the foreboding which seized me, that the First Elder had made tools of us, where we thought, in the simplicity of our hearts, that we were divinely commanded.
||
Jacob Whitmer and John Whitmer were also present when Hiram Page and Oliver Cowdery returned from Canada. Well, we were all in great trouble; and we asked Joseph how it was that he had received a revelation from the Lord for some brethren to go to Toronto and sell the copy-right, and the brethren had utterly failed in their undertaking. Joseph did not know how it was, so he enquired of the Lord about it, and behold the following revelation came through the stone: "Some revelations are of God: some revelations are of men: and some revelations are of the devil." So we see that the revelation to go to Toronto and sell the copy-right was not of God, but was of the devil or of the heart of man.
||
{{Book:Whitmer:Address to All Believers in Christ|start=31}}
|-
|

==== ====
||
And what served to render the reflection past expression in its bitterness to me, was, that from ''his'' hand I received baptism, by the direction of the Angel of God whose voice, as it has since struck me, did most mysteriously resemble the voice of Elder Sidney Rigdon, who, I am sure had no part in the transactions of that day, as the Angel was John the Baptist, which I doubt not and deny not.
||
Not only have I been graciously preserved from wicked and unreasonable men, with this our brother, but I have seen the fruit of perseverance in proclaiming the everlasting gospel, immediately after it was declared to the world in these last days, in a manner not to be forgotten while heaven gives my common intellect. And what serves to render the reflection past expression on this point is, that from ''his'' hand I received baptism, by the direction of the angel of God—the first received into this church, in this day.
||
{{MAfairwiki|author=Oliver Cowdery|date=October 1834|vol=1|num=1|start=14}}
|-
|

==== ====
||
When I afterward first heard Elder Rigdon, whose voice is so strikingly similar, I felt that this “dear” brother was to be in some sense, to me unknown, the herald of this church as the Great Baptist was of Christ.
4. I never dreamed however, that he would influence the Prophet, Seer and Revelator to the Church of the Latter Day Saints, in to the formation of a secret band at Far West, committed to depredations upon Gentiles and the actual assassination of apostates from the church, which was done in June last and was only one of many wrong steps.
||
Sydney Rigdon was the cause of almost all the errors which were introduced while he was in the church. I believe Rigdon to have been the instigator of the secret organization known as the "Danites" which was formed in Far West Missouri in June, 1838.
||
{{Book:Whitmer:Address to All Believers in Christ|start=35}}
|-
|

==== ====
||
These are facts which I am rehearsing, and if they shall be called in question, I am able to establish them by evidence which I can bring forward in abundance.
||
I have now given you a rehearsal of what was communicated to our brother, when he was directed to go and obtain the record of the Nephites. I may have missed in arrangement in some instances, but the principle is preserved, and you will be able to bring forward abundance of corroborating scripture upon the subject of the gospel and of the gathering.
||
{{MAfairwiki|author=Oliver Cowdery|date=|vol=1|num=7|start=112}}
|-
|

==== ====
||
Still, although favored fo God as a chosen witness to bear testimony to the divine authority of the Book of Mormon, and honored of the Lord in being permitted, without money and without price, to serve as scribe during the translation of the Book of Mormon, I have sometimes had seasons of skepticism, in which I did seriously wonder whether the Prophet and I were men in our sober senses when he would be translating from plates through “the Urim and Thummim” and the plates not be in sight at all.
||
No men in their sober senses, could translate and write the directions given to the Nephites, from the mouth of the Savior, of the precise manner in which men should build up his church, and especially, when corruption had spread an uncertainty over all forms and systems practiced among men, without desiring a privilege of showing the willingness of the heart by being buried in the liquid grave, to answer a "good conscience by the resurrection of Jesus Christ."
||
{{MAfairwiki|author=Oliver Cowdery|date=|vol=1|num=7|start=15}}
|-
|

==== ====
||
But I believed both in the Seer and in the “Seer Stone,” and what the First Elder announced as revelation from God, I accepted as such, and committed to paper with a glad mind and happy heart and swift pen; for I believed him to be the soul of honor and truth, a young man who would die before he would lie.
||
||
|-
|
==== ====
||
Man may deceive his fellow man, deception may follow deception, and the children of the wicked one may seduce the unstable, untaught in the ways of righteousness and peace, for I felt a solemn awe about me, being deep in the faith, that the First Elder was a Seer and Prophet of God, giving the truth unsullied through “Urim and Thummim,” dictated by the will of the Lord, and that he was persecuted for the sake of the truth which he loved. Could I have been deceived in him?
||
Man may deceive his fellow man; deception may follow deception, and the children of the wicked one may have power to seduce the foolish and untaught, till nought but fiction feeds the many, and the fruit of falsehood carries in its current the giddy to the grave; but one touch with the finger of his love, yes, one ray of glory from the upper world, or one word from the mouth of the Savior, from the bosom of eternity, strikes it all into insignificance, and blots it forever from the mind! The assurance that we were in the presence of an angel; the certainty that we heard the voice of Jesus, and the truth unsullied as it flowed from a pure personage, dictated by the will of God, is to me, past description, and I shall ever look upon this expression of the Savior's goodness with wonder and thanksgiving while I am permitted to tarry, and in those mansions where perfection dwells and sin never comes, I hope to adore in that DAY which shall never cease!*
||
{{MAfairwiki|author=Oliver Cowdery|date=October 1834|vol=1|num=1|start=16}}
|-
|

==== ====
||
I could rehearse a number of things to show either that I as then deceived, or that he has since fallen from the lofty place in which fond affection had deemed him secure.
||
||
|-
|
==== ====
||
I remembered his experience as he had related it to me, and lacking wisdom, I went to God in prayer. I said: “O! Lord, how dark everything is! Let thy glory lighten it, and make bright the path for me. Show me my duty. Let me be led of thy Spirit.”
||
||
|-
|

==== ====
||
Shall I relate what transpired? I had a message from the Most High, as from the midst of eternity; for the vail was parted and the Redeemer Himself, clothed in glory, stood before me. And He said:
||
This was not long desired before it was realized. The Lord, who is rich in mercy, and ever willing to answer the consistent prayer of the humble, after we had called upon him in a fervent manner, aside from the abodes of men, condescended to manifest to us his will. On a sudden, as from the midst of eternity, the voice of the Redeemer spake peace to us, while the vail was parted and the angel of God came down clothed with glory, and delivered the anxiously looked for message, and the keys of the gospel of repentance!
||
{{MAfairwiki|author=Oliver Cowdery|date=|vol=1|num=1|start=15}}
|-
|

==== ====
||
“After reproving the Latter Day Saints for their corruption and blindness in permitting their President, Joseph Smith, Jr., to lead them forth into errors, where I led him not, nor commanded him, and saying unto them,
||
The revelation on polygamy was given fourteen years after the translation of the Book of Mormon, and after Brother Joseph had drifted into error and blindness. As I have stated, the scriptures are plain concerning the matter of a prophet or any man once chosen of God, being afterwards deceived and led into error.
||
{{Book:Whitmer:Address to All Believers in Christ|start=42}}
|-
|
==== ====
||
‘Thus saith the Lord,’ when I said it not unto him, thou shalt withdraw thyself from among them.”
||
God spake to me again by his own voice from the heavens, and told me to "separate myself from among the Latter Day Saints, for as they sought to do unto me, so should it be done unto them."
||
{{Book:Whitmer:Address to All Believers in Christ|start=27}}
|-
|

==== ====
||
And I testify that Jesus whose words I have been rehearsing, hath even so commanded me in an open vision.
||
I believe that the angel Moroni, whose words I have been rehearsing, who communicated the knowledge of the record of the Nephites, in this age
||
{{MAfairwiki|author=Oliver Cowdery|date=April 1835|vol=1|num=7|start=112}}
|-
|

==== ====
||
The Lord revealed to me that the First Elder is leading the Saints astray, and ordered me to quit them after delivering the message which this “Defence” delivers. I shall ever remember this expression of the Saviour’s grace with thanksgiving, and look upon his amazing goodness to me with wonder.
||
We have seen from a revelation given to Brother Joseph, that he broke the commandments of God from the beginning. Now, as the wicked will be cut off, the people being clean before the Lord, and this Choice Seer being a holy man, the people in this condition will be fitted to give heed to him, and they will not be led astray by him
||
{{Book:Whitmer:Address to All Believers in Christ|start=45}}
|-
|

==== ====
||
When I had sufficiently recovered my selfpossession to ask in regard to the errors into which Joseph Smith, Jr., was taking the Saints,
||
God only knows how I have grieved and suffered and plead with him for you for the past forty-eight years, that you might repent and be enlightened by the Holy Ghost to see the errors into which you have been led.
||
{{Book:Whitmer:Address to All Believers in Christ|start=27}}
|-
|
==== ====
||
the Redeemer instructed me plainly: “He hath given revelations from his own heart and from a defiled conscience as coming from my mouth and hath corrupted the covenant and altered words which I had spoken. He hath brought in high priests, apostles and other officers, which in these days, when the written Word sufficeth, are not in my church, and some of his deeds have brought shame to my heritage by the shedding of blood.
||
You have changed the revelations from the way they were first given and as they are to-day in the Book of Commandments, to support the error of Brother Joseph in taking upon himself the office of Seer to the church. You have changed the revelations to support the error of high priests. You have changed the revelations to support the error of a President of the high priesthood, high counselors, etc.
||
{{Book:Whitmer:Address to All Believers in Christ|start=49}}
|-
|
==== ====
||
He walketh in the vain imaginations of his heart, and my Spirit is holy and does not dwell in an unholy temple, nor are angels sent to reveal the great work of God to hypocrites.”
||
But so it is, and it is wisdom that it should be so, because the Holy Spirit does not dwell in unholy temples, nor angels reveal the great work of God to hypocrites.
||
{{Book:Whitmer:Address to All Believers in Christ|start=95}}
|-
|

==== ====
||
I bowed my face in shame and said: “Lord! I intreat thee, give me grace to bear thy message in print where I fear to take it by word of mouth.” 
And he said, “The grace is given thee,” and he vanished out of my sight.
||
||
|-
|

==== ====
||
Prepare your hearts, O ye Saints of the Most High, and come to understanding. The prophet hath erred and the people are gone astray through his error. God’s word is open. We may read it.
||
Prepare your hearts, O ye saints of the Most High, for great things await you! Hasten ye, hasten ye, to the places of gathering, for after a little the indignation of the Lord will cease toward those who are called by his name, and when his arm must fall upon the wicked. His sword is bathed in heaven, and must fall upon Idumea, and who can stand amid the crash and fall of empires?
||
{{MAfairwiki|author=Oliver Cowdery|date=October 1835|vol=2|num=1|start=204}}
|-
|
==== ====
||
There is no “First Presidency” there, no “High Priesthood” save that of Christ himself, no Patriarch to the church, and wonderful to tell, the “First Elder” hath departed from god in giving us these things,
||
High Priests were only in the church before Christ; and to have this office in the "Church of Christ" is not according to the teachings of Christ in either of the sacred books: Christ himself is our great and last High Priest.
||
{{Book:Whitmer:Address to All Believers in Christ|start=62}}
|-
|

==== ====
||
and in changing the name of the church.
||
but when the heads of the church changed the name of the church to "The Church of Latter Day Saints," (leaving out the name of "Christ" entirely) when they did this, and compiled the Doctrine and Covenants in 1835, God had then given them over to blindness of mind
||
{{Book:Whitmer:Address to All Believers in Christ|start=61}}
|-
|

==== ====
||
Oh, the misery, the distress and evil attendant upon giving heed unto the “doctrines of men!” The gospel has been perverted and the Saints are wandering in darkness, which a full cup of suffering is poured upon them. A society has been organized among them to inflict death upon those who are deemed apostates, with the knowledge and sanction of the First Elder.
||
Alas, the calamity of war, the extinction of nations, the ruin of kingdoms, the fall of empires and the dissolution of governments! O the misery, distress and evil attendant on these! Who can contemplate like scenes without sorrowing, and who so destitute of commiseration as not to be pained that man has fallen so low, so far beneath the station in which he was created?
||
{{MAfairwiki|author=Oliver Cowdery|date=|vol=1|num=10|start=159}}
|-
|

==== ====
||
This, I confess, is a dark picture to spread before those whom I am to warn, but they will pardon my plainness when I assure them of the truth of what I have written.
||
On Friday, the 5th, in company with our brother JOSEPH SMITH jr. I left Kirtland for this place (New Portage,) to attend the conference previously appointed. To be permitted, once more, to travel with this brother, occasions reflections of no ordinary kind. Many have been the fateagues [fatigues] and privations which have fallen to my lot to endure, for the gospel's sake, since 1828, with this brother. Our road has frequently been spread with the "fowler's snare," and our persons sought with the eagerness, of the Savage's ferocity, for innocent blood, by men, either heated to desperation by the insinuations of those who professed to be "guides and way—marks" to the kingdom of glory, or the individuals themselves!—This, I confess, is a dark picture to spread before our patrons, but they will pardon my plainness when I assure them of the truth. In fact, God has so ordered, that the reflections which I am permitted to cast upon my past life, relative to a knowledge of the way of salvation, are rendered "doubly endearing."
||
{{MAfairwiki|author=Oliver Cowdery|vol=1|num=1|start=14|date=October 1834}}
|-
|

==== ====
||
Bearing this message to them is the hardest work of my life, although many have been the privations and fatigues which have fallen to my lot to endure for the Gospel’s sake since April 5th, 1829.
||
She was driven, last fall, from Jackson county, by the mob, and was necessarily compelled to endure, with others, further afflictions and privations.
||
{{MAfairwiki|author=Oliver Cowdery|date=|vol=1|num=1|start=13}}
|-
|

==== ====
||
It is disgraceful to be led by a man who does not scruple to follow his own vain imagination, announcing his own schemes as revelations from the Lord. And I fear he is led by a groundless hope, no better than the idle wind or the spider’s web. Having cleared my soul by delivering the message, I do not deem it necessary to write further on the subject now.
||
The mind is easily called up to reflection upon a matter of such deep importance, and it is just that it should be; but there is a regret occupying the heart when we consider the deep anxiety of thousands, who are lead away with a vain imagination, or a groundless hope, no better than the idle wind or the spider's web.
||
{{MAfairwiki|author=Oliver Cowdery|date=|vol=1|num=5|start=78}}
|-
|

==== ====
||
Jesus has saved men in all ages and saves them now, and not by our Priesthood either. The “First Elder” errs as to that. The Lord has said, long since, and his word remains steadfast as the eternal hills, that to him who knocks it shall be opened, and whosoever will, may come and partake of the waters of life freely; but a curse will surely fall upon those who draw near to God with their mouths, and honor him with their lips, while their hearts are far from him.
||
"This cannot be brought about until first certain preparatory things are accomplished, for so has the Lord purposed in his own mind. He has therefore chosen you as an instrument in his hand to bring to light that which shall; perform his act, his strange act, and bring to pass a marvelous work and a wonder. Wherever the sound shall go it shall cause the ears of men to tingle, and wherever it shall be proclaimed, the pure in heart shall rejoice, while those who draw near to God with their mouths, and honor him with their lips, while their hearts are far from him, will seek its overthrow, and the destruction of those by whose hands it is carried. Therefore, marvel not if your name is made a derision, and had as a by-word among such, if you are the instrument in bringing it, by the gift of God, to the knowledge of the people."
||
{{MAfairwiki|author=Oliver Cowdery|date=|vol=1|num=5|start=79|end=80}}
|-
|

==== ====
||
I no longer believe that all the other churches are wrong.
||
||
|-
|
==== ====
||
Get right, O! ye people, get right with God, and may the Lord remove his judgments from you, preserve you in his kingdom from all evil, and crown you in Christ.
||
May the Lord preserve you from evil and reward you richly for all your afflictions, and crown you in his kingdom. Amen.
||
{{MAfairwiki|author=Oliver Cowdery|date=|vol=1|num=7|start=112}}
|-
|

==== ====
||
Amen. 
March 3, 1839 
O. COWDERY

Forgeries related to Mormonism/Oliver Cowdery's 1839 Defence in a Rehearsal of my Grounds for Separating Myself from the Latter Day Saints

2013-03-12T16:29:13Z

RonHellings1: /* Background */

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

=Oliver Cowdery's alleged 1839 "Defence in a Rehearsal of my Grounds for Separating Myself from the Latter Day Saints"=
==Background==
This is a document, critical of Joseph Smith and his prophetic calling, that purports to have been published in 1839 by Oliver Cowdery. The earliest copies in existence are dated 1906. The document was "discovered" by the Reverend R. B. Neal, who was a leader in the American Anti-Mormon Association. No references to this document exists prior to 1906. This document was believed to be authentic for many years, until it was discovered that it consists primarily of three sources: 1) a selection of Cowdery's phrases taken from various issues of the ''Latter Day Saints' Messenger and Advocate'' that were removed from their original context, b) reworded statements from David Whitmer's 1887 ''An Address to All Believers in Christ,'' and 3) original material which contains most of the criticisms of Joseph Smith are. Historians now agree that this document is a forgery.

Richard Lloyd Anderson summarized the difficulties with the provenance of the document in an Ensign article in 1987:
<blockquote>
Similar faults appear in a better-known historical forgery claiming to come from Oliver Cowdery the year after he left the Church. In 1906 the “mountain evangelist” R. B. Neal, a leader in the American Anti-Mormon Association, published a document with much fanfare but without evidence of the document’s authenticity. Reverend Neal claimed that the publication was a reprint of an 1839 document explaining Oliver Cowdery’s apostasy: ''Defence in a Rehearsal of My Grounds for Separating Myself from the Latter Day Saints.'' “No more important document has been unearthed since I have been engaged in this warfare,” R. B. Neal asserted. With such convictions, one can be sure that Reverend Neal would have produced evidence to prove that the original actually existed. But all we have is his 1906 first printing, which is silent about why no one had ever heard of the document until a half century after Oliver Cowdery’s death. —Richard Lloyd Anderson, "I Have a Question," ''Ensign'', April 1987. {{link|url=https://www.lds.org/ensign/1987/04/i-have-a-question?lang=eng}}
</blockquote>

Ronald Huggins has recently summarized the problems with the content of the document:
<blockquote>
This makes it all but certain that the ''Defence'' was plagiarized from the ''Messenger and Advocate''. The only way someone could make a case for its authenticity at this stage would be to prove that Cowdery was in the regular habit of plundering phrases and paragraphs from his earlier writings and dropping them without rhyme or reason into his later ones. —Ronald V. Huggins, "Jerald Tanner's Quest for Truth - Part 3," ''Salt Lake City Messenger'', Issue 111 (November 2008)
</blockquote>

A detailed analysis showing the reliance of the forged Cowdery document on the two historical sources is presented below.

==Comparison against sources==
The text of the alleged Cowdery document was produced using a combination of phrases written by Oliver Cowdery in the ''Messenger and Advocate'' during the time that he was editor, and a rephrasing of information from David Whitmer's ''An Address to All Believers in Christ''.

{| valign="top" border="1" style="width:100%; font-size:100%"
!width="2%"|Index
!width="40%"|Cowdery's alleged "Defence in a Rehearsal of my Grounds for Separating Myself from the Latter Day Saints"
!width="40%"|Source text and/or commentary
!width="18%"|Actual source
|-
|
==== ====
||
Defence in a Rehearsal of my Grounds for Separating Myself from the Latter Day Saints 
By Oliver Cowdery 
Second Elder of the Church of Christ
||
|-
|
==== ====
||
This Defence is not protected by a copyright, as I wish no man to be confined alone to my permission in printing what is meant for the eyes and knowledge of the nations of the earth.
||
The author desires this work circulated as much as possible, and will grant the Privilege of reproduction to any reliable house that will make application to him.
||
{{Book:Whitmer:Address to All Believers in Christ|start=2}}
|-
|
==== ====
||
“God doth not walk in crooked paths; Neither doth he turn to the right hand, Nor the left; neither doth he vary From that which he hath said.”
||
||
|-
|
==== ====
||
Pressley’s Job Office, Norton, Ohio, 1839
||
There was no "Pressley's Job Office" in Norton Ohio
||
|-
|

==== ====
||
DEAR PEOPLE OF GOD:-I offer you a “Defence” which I am grieved to make, but my opposers have put me to the necessity, and so far as my memory serves, I pledge my veracity for the correctness of the account.
||
||
|-
|
==== ====
||
I deny that I have ever conspired with any, or ever exerted any influence to destroy the reputation of the First Elder, although evidence which is to be credited assures me that he has done everything he could to injure my standing and his influence has been considerably exerted to destroy my reputation and, I fear, my life.
||
While employed here he became acquainted with the family of Isaac Hale, of whom you read in several of the productions of those who have sought to destroy the validity of the book of Mormon. It may be necessary hereafter, to refer you more particularly to the conduct of this family, as their influence has been considerably exerted to destroy the reputation of our brother, probably because he married a daughter of the same contrary to some of their wishes
||
{{MAfairwiki|author=Oliver Cowdery|date=|vol=2|num=1|start=200}}
|-
|

==== ====
||
You will remember in the meantime, that those who seek to vilify my character have been constantly encouraged by him.
||
You will remember, in the mean time, that those who seek to vilify his character, say that he has always been notorious for his idleness. This gentleman, whose name is Stowel, resided in the town of Bainbridge, on or near the head waters of the Susquehannah river.
||
{{MAfairwiki|author=Oliver Cowdery|date=|vol=2|num=1|start=200}}
|-
|
==== ====
||
There was a time when I thought myself able to prove to the satisfaction of every man that the translator of the Book of Mormon, was worthy of the appellation of a Seer and a Prophet of the Lord, and in which he held over me a mysterious power which even now I fail to fathom; but I fear I may have been deceived, and especially so fear since knowing that Satan has led his mind astray.
||
I trust I shall be indulged, for the purpose of satisfying many, who have heard so many slanderous reports that they are lead to believe them true because they are not contradicted; and besides, this generation are determined to oppose every item in the form or under the pretence [pretense] of revelation, unless it comes through a man who has always been more pure than Michael the great prince; and as this is the fact, and my opposers have put me to the necessity, I shall be more prolix, and have no doubt, before I give up the point, shall prove to your satisfaction, and to that of every man, that the translator of the book of Mormon is worthy the appellation of a seer and a prophet of the Lord. In this I do not pretend that he is not a man subject to passion like other men, beset with infirmities and encompassed with weaknesses; but if he is, all men were so before him, and a pretence [pretense] to the contrary would argue a more than mortal, which would at once destroy the whole system of the religion of the Lord Jesus; for he anciently chose the weak to overcome the strong, the foolish to confound the wise, (I mean considered so by this world,) and by the foolishness of preaching to save those who believe.
||
{{MAfairwiki|author=Oliver Cowdery|date=|vol=2|num=1|start=200}}
|-
|

==== ====
||
1. When the Church of Christ was set up by revelation, he was called to be First Elder, and I was called to be the Second Elder, and whatever he had of Priesthood (about which I am beginning to doubt) also had I.
||
||
|-
|
==== ====
||
2. But I certainly followed him too far when accepting, and reiterating, that none had authority from God to administer the ordinances of the Gospel, as I had then forgotten that John, the beloved disciple, was tarrying on earth and exempt from death.
||
||
|-
|
==== ====
||
I am well aware that a rehearsal of these things at this day will be unpleasant reading to the First Elder; yet so it is, and it is wisdom that it should be so. Without rehearsing too many things that have caused me to lose my faith in Bro. Joseph’s seership, I regard his frequent predictions that he himself shall tarry on the earth till Christ shall come in glory, and that neither the rage of devils nor the malice of men shall ever cause him to fall by the hand of his enemies until he has seen Christ in the flesh at his final coming, as little short of a piece of blasphemy; and it may be classed with that revelation that some among you will remember which sent Bro. Page and me so unwisely to (3) Toronto with a predication from the Lord by Urim and Thummim that we would there find a man anxious to buy the First Elder’s copyright. I well remember we did not find him, and had to return surprised and disappointed. But so great was my faith, that, in going to Toronto, nothing but calmness pervaded my soul, every doubt was banished, and I as much expected that Bro. Page and I would fulfill the revelation as that we should live. And you may believe, without asking me to relate the particulars, that it would be no easy task to describe our desolation and grief.
||
Brother Hyrum said it had been suggested to him that some of the brethren might go to Toronto, Canada, and sell the copy-right of the Book of Mormon for considerable money: and he persuaded Joseph to inquire of the Lord about it. Joseph concluded to do so. He had not yet given up the stone. Joseph looked into the hat in which he placed the stone, and received a revelation that some of the brethren should go to Toronto, Canada, and that they would sell the copy-right of the Book of Mormon. Hiram Page and Oliver Cowdery went to Toronto on this mission, but they failed entirely to sell the copy-right, returning without any money. Joseph was at my father's house when they returned. I was there also, and am an eye witness to these facts. Jacob Whitmer and John Whitmer were also present when Hiram Page and Oliver Cowdery returned from Canada.
||
{{Book:Whitmer:Address to All Believers in Christ|start=31}}

|-
|

==== ====
||
Bro. Page and I did not think that God would have deceived us through “Urim and Thummim,” exactly as came the Book of Mormon; and I well remember how hard I strove to drive away the foreboding which seized me, that the First Elder had made tools of us, where we thought, in the simplicity of our hearts, that we were divinely commanded.
||
Jacob Whitmer and John Whitmer were also present when Hiram Page and Oliver Cowdery returned from Canada. Well, we were all in great trouble; and we asked Joseph how it was that he had received a revelation from the Lord for some brethren to go to Toronto and sell the copy-right, and the brethren had utterly failed in their undertaking. Joseph did not know how it was, so he enquired of the Lord about it, and behold the following revelation came through the stone: "Some revelations are of God: some revelations are of men: and some revelations are of the devil." So we see that the revelation to go to Toronto and sell the copy-right was not of God, but was of the devil or of the heart of man.
||
{{Book:Whitmer:Address to All Believers in Christ|start=31}}
|-
|

==== ====
||
And what served to render the reflection past expression in its bitterness to me, was, that from ''his'' hand I received baptism, by the direction of the Angel of God whose voice, as it has since struck me, did most mysteriously resemble the voice of Elder Sidney Rigdon, who, I am sure had no part in the transactions of that day, as the Angel was John the Baptist, which I doubt not and deny not.
||
Not only have I been graciously preserved from wicked and unreasonable men, with this our brother, but I have seen the fruit of perseverance in proclaiming the everlasting gospel, immediately after it was declared to the world in these last days, in a manner not to be forgotten while heaven gives my common intellect. And what serves to render the reflection past expression on this point is, that from ''his'' hand I received baptism, by the direction of the angel of God—the first received into this church, in this day.
||
{{MAfairwiki|author=Oliver Cowdery|date=October 1834|vol=1|num=1|start=14}}
|-
|

==== ====
||
When I afterward first heard Elder Rigdon, whose voice is so strikingly similar, I felt that this “dear” brother was to be in some sense, to me unknown, the herald of this church as the Great Baptist was of Christ.
4. I never dreamed however, that he would influence the Prophet, Seer and Revelator to the Church of the Latter Day Saints, in to the formation of a secret band at Far West, committed to depredations upon Gentiles and the actual assassination of apostates from the church, which was done in June last and was only one of many wrong steps.
||
Sydney Rigdon was the cause of almost all the errors which were introduced while he was in the church. I believe Rigdon to have been the instigator of the secret organization known as the "Danites" which was formed in Far West Missouri in June, 1838.
||
{{Book:Whitmer:Address to All Believers in Christ|start=35}}
|-
|

==== ====
||
These are facts which I am rehearsing, and if they shall be called in question, I am able to establish them by evidence which I can bring forward in abundance.
||
I have now given you a rehearsal of what was communicated to our brother, when he was directed to go and obtain the record of the Nephites. I may have missed in arrangement in some instances, but the principle is preserved, and you will be able to bring forward abundance of corroborating scripture upon the subject of the gospel and of the gathering.
||
{{MAfairwiki|author=Oliver Cowdery|date=|vol=1|num=7|start=112}}
|-
|

==== ====
||
Still, although favored fo God as a chosen witness to bear testimony to the divine authority of the Book of Mormon, and honored of the Lord in being permitted, without money and without price, to serve as scribe during the translation of the Book of Mormon, I have sometimes had seasons of skepticism, in which I did seriously wonder whether the Prophet and I were men in our sober senses when he would be translating from plates through “the Urim and Thummim” and the plates not be in sight at all.
||
No men in their sober senses, could translate and write the directions given to the Nephites, from the mouth of the Savior, of the precise manner in which men should build up his church, and especially, when corruption had spread an uncertainty over all forms and systems practiced among men, without desiring a privilege of showing the willingness of the heart by being buried in the liquid grave, to answer a "good conscience by the resurrection of Jesus Christ."
||
{{MAfairwiki|author=Oliver Cowdery|date=|vol=1|num=7|start=15}}
|-
|

==== ====
||
But I believed both in the Seer and in the “Seer Stone,” and what the First Elder announced as revelation from God, I accepted as such, and committed to paper with a glad mind and happy heart and swift pen; for I believed him to be the soul of honor and truth, a young man who would die before he would lie.
||
||
|-
|
==== ====
||
Man may deceive his fellow man, deception may follow deception, and the children of the wicked one may seduce the unstable, untaught in the ways of righteousness and peace, for I felt a solemn awe about me, being deep in the faith, that the First Elder was a Seer and Prophet of God, giving the truth unsullied through “Urim and Thummim,” dictated by the will of the Lord, and that he was persecuted for the sake of the truth which he loved. Could I have been deceived in him?
||
Man may deceive his fellow man; deception may follow deception, and the children of the wicked one may have power to seduce the foolish and untaught, till nought but fiction feeds the many, and the fruit of falsehood carries in its current the giddy to the grave; but one touch with the finger of his love, yes, one ray of glory from the upper world, or one word from the mouth of the Savior, from the bosom of eternity, strikes it all into insignificance, and blots it forever from the mind! The assurance that we were in the presence of an angel; the certainty that we heard the voice of Jesus, and the truth unsullied as it flowed from a pure personage, dictated by the will of God, is to me, past description, and I shall ever look upon this expression of the Savior's goodness with wonder and thanksgiving while I am permitted to tarry, and in those mansions where perfection dwells and sin never comes, I hope to adore in that DAY which shall never cease!*
||
{{MAfairwiki|author=Oliver Cowdery|date=October 1834|vol=1|num=1|start=16}}
|-
|

==== ====
||
I could rehearse a number of things to show either that I as then deceived, or that he has since fallen from the lofty place in which fond affection had deemed him secure.
||
||
|-
|
==== ====
||
I remembered his experience as he had related it to me, and lacking wisdom, I went to God in prayer. I said: “O! Lord, how dark everything is! Let thy glory lighten it, and make bright the path for me. Show me my duty. Let me be led of thy Spirit.”
||
||
|-
|

==== ====
||
Shall I relate what transpired? I had a message from the Most High, as from the midst of eternity; for the vail was parted and the Redeemer Himself, clothed in glory, stood before me. And He said:
||
This was not long desired before it was realized. The Lord, who is rich in mercy, and ever willing to answer the consistent prayer of the humble, after we had called upon him in a fervent manner, aside from the abodes of men, condescended to manifest to us his will. On a sudden, as from the midst of eternity, the voice of the Redeemer spake peace to us, while the vail was parted and the angel of God came down clothed with glory, and delivered the anxiously looked for message, and the keys of the gospel of repentance!
||
{{MAfairwiki|author=Oliver Cowdery|date=|vol=1|num=1|start=15}}
|-
|

==== ====
||
“After reproving the Latter Day Saints for their corruption and blindness in permitting their President, Joseph Smith, Jr., to lead them forth into errors, where I led him not, nor commanded him, and saying unto them,
||
The revelation on polygamy was given fourteen years after the translation of the Book of Mormon, and after Brother Joseph had drifted into error and blindness. As I have stated, the scriptures are plain concerning the matter of a prophet or any man once chosen of God, being afterwards deceived and led into error.
||
{{Book:Whitmer:Address to All Believers in Christ|start=42}}
|-
|
==== ====
||
‘Thus saith the Lord,’ when I said it not unto him, thou shalt withdraw thyself from among them.”
||
God spake to me again by his own voice from the heavens, and told me to "separate myself from among the Latter Day Saints, for as they sought to do unto me, so should it be done unto them."
||
{{Book:Whitmer:Address to All Believers in Christ|start=27}}
|-
|

==== ====
||
And I testify that Jesus whose words I have been rehearsing, hath even so commanded me in an open vision.
||
I believe that the angel Moroni, whose words I have been rehearsing, who communicated the knowledge of the record of the Nephites, in this age
||
{{MAfairwiki|author=Oliver Cowdery|date=April 1835|vol=1|num=7|start=112}}
|-
|

==== ====
||
The Lord revealed to me that the First Elder is leading the Saints astray, and ordered me to quit them after delivering the message which this “Defence” delivers. I shall ever remember this expression of the Saviour’s grace with thanksgiving, and look upon his amazing goodness to me with wonder.
||
We have seen from a revelation given to Brother Joseph, that he broke the commandments of God from the beginning. Now, as the wicked will be cut off, the people being clean before the Lord, and this Choice Seer being a holy man, the people in this condition will be fitted to give heed to him, and they will not be led astray by him
||
{{Book:Whitmer:Address to All Believers in Christ|start=45}}
|-
|

==== ====
||
When I had sufficiently recovered my selfpossession to ask in regard to the errors into which Joseph Smith, Jr., was taking the Saints,
||
God only knows how I have grieved and suffered and plead with him for you for the past forty-eight years, that you might repent and be enlightened by the Holy Ghost to see the errors into which you have been led.
||
{{Book:Whitmer:Address to All Believers in Christ|start=27}}
|-
|
==== ====
||
the Redeemer instructed me plainly: “He hath given revelations from his own heart and from a defiled conscience as coming from my mouth and hath corrupted the covenant and altered words which I had spoken. He hath brought in high priests, apostles and other officers, which in these days, when the written Word sufficeth, are not in my church, and some of his deeds have brought shame to my heritage by the shedding of blood.
||
You have changed the revelations from the way they were first given and as they are to-day in the Book of Commandments, to support the error of Brother Joseph in taking upon himself the office of Seer to the church. You have changed the revelations to support the error of high priests. You have changed the revelations to support the error of a President of the high priesthood, high counselors, etc.
||
{{Book:Whitmer:Address to All Believers in Christ|start=49}}
|-
|
==== ====
||
He walketh in the vain imaginations of his heart, and my Spirit is holy and does not dwell in an unholy temple, nor are angels sent to reveal the great work of God to hypocrites.”
||
But so it is, and it is wisdom that it should be so, because the Holy Spirit does not dwell in unholy temples, nor angels reveal the great work of God to hypocrites.
||
{{Book:Whitmer:Address to All Believers in Christ|start=95}}
|-
|

==== ====
||
I bowed my face in shame and said: “Lord! I intreat thee, give me grace to bear thy message in print where I fear to take it by word of mouth.” 
And he said, “The grace is given thee,” and he vanished out of my sight.
||
||
|-
|

==== ====
||
Prepare your hearts, O ye Saints of the Most High, and come to understanding. The prophet hath erred and the people are gone astray through his error. God’s word is open. We may read it.
||
Prepare your hearts, O ye saints of the Most High, for great things await you! Hasten ye, hasten ye, to the places of gathering, for after a little the indignation of the Lord will cease toward those who are called by his name, and when his arm must fall upon the wicked. His sword is bathed in heaven, and must fall upon Idumea, and who can stand amid the crash and fall of empires?
||
{{MAfairwiki|author=Oliver Cowdery|date=October 1835|vol=2|num=1|start=204}}
|-
|
==== ====
||
There is no “First Presidency” there, no “High Priesthood” save that of Christ himself, no Patriarch to the church, and wonderful to tell, the “First Elder” hath departed from god in giving us these things,
||
High Priests were only in the church before Christ; and to have this office in the "Church of Christ" is not according to the teachings of Christ in either of the sacred books: Christ himself is our great and last High Priest.
||
{{Book:Whitmer:Address to All Believers in Christ|start=62}}
|-
|

==== ====
||
and in changing the name of the church.
||
but when the heads of the church changed the name of the church to "The Church of Latter Day Saints," (leaving out the name of "Christ" entirely) when they did this, and compiled the Doctrine and Covenants in 1835, God had then given them over to blindness of mind
||
{{Book:Whitmer:Address to All Believers in Christ|start=61}}
|-
|

==== ====
||
Oh, the misery, the distress and evil attendant upon giving heed unto the “doctrines of men!” The gospel has been perverted and the Saints are wandering in darkness, which a full cup of suffering is poured upon them. A society has been organized among them to inflict death upon those who are deemed apostates, with the knowledge and sanction of the First Elder.
||
Alas, the calamity of war, the extinction of nations, the ruin of kingdoms, the fall of empires and the dissolution of governments! O the misery, distress and evil attendant on these! Who can contemplate like scenes without sorrowing, and who so destitute of commiseration as not to be pained that man has fallen so low, so far beneath the station in which he was created?
||
{{MAfairwiki|author=Oliver Cowdery|date=|vol=1|num=10|start=159}}
|-
|

==== ====
||
This, I confess, is a dark picture to spread before those whom I am to warn, but they will pardon my plainness when I assure them of the truth of what I have written.
||
On Friday, the 5th, in company with our brother JOSEPH SMITH jr. I left Kirtland for this place (New Portage,) to attend the conference previously appointed. To be permitted, once more, to travel with this brother, occasions reflections of no ordinary kind. Many have been the fateagues [fatigues] and privations which have fallen to my lot to endure, for the gospel's sake, since 1828, with this brother. Our road has frequently been spread with the "fowler's snare," and our persons sought with the eagerness, of the Savage's ferocity, for innocent blood, by men, either heated to desperation by the insinuations of those who professed to be "guides and way—marks" to the kingdom of glory, or the individuals themselves!—This, I confess, is a dark picture to spread before our patrons, but they will pardon my plainness when I assure them of the truth. In fact, God has so ordered, that the reflections which I am permitted to cast upon my past life, relative to a knowledge of the way of salvation, are rendered "doubly endearing."
||
{{MAfairwiki|author=Oliver Cowdery|vol=1|num=1|start=14|date=October 1834}}
|-
|

==== ====
||
Bearing this message to them is the hardest work of my life, although many have been the privations and fatigues which have fallen to my lot to endure for the Gospel’s sake since April 5th, 1829.
||
She was driven, last fall, from Jackson county, by the mob, and was necessarily compelled to endure, with others, further afflictions and privations.
||
{{MAfairwiki|author=Oliver Cowdery|date=|vol=1|num=1|start=13}}
|-
|

==== ====
||
It is disgraceful to be led by a man who does not scruple to follow his own vain imagination, announcing his own schemes as revelations from the Lord. And I fear he is led by a groundless hope, no better than the idle wind or the spider’s web. Having cleared my soul by delivering the message, I do not deem it necessary to write further on the subject now.
||
The mind is easily called up to reflection upon a matter of such deep importance, and it is just that it should be; but there is a regret occupying the heart when we consider the deep anxiety of thousands, who are lead away with a vain imagination, or a groundless hope, no better than the idle wind or the spider's web.
||
{{MAfairwiki|author=Oliver Cowdery|date=|vol=1|num=5|start=78}}
|-
|

==== ====
||
Jesus has saved men in all ages and saves them now, and not by our Priesthood either. The “First Elder” errs as to that. The Lord has said, long since, and his word remains steadfast as the eternal hills, that to him who knocks it shall be opened, and whosoever will, may come and partake of the waters of life freely; but a curse will surely fall upon those who draw near to God with their mouths, and honor him with their lips, while their hearts are far from him.
||
"This cannot be brought about until first certain preparatory things are accomplished, for so has the Lord purposed in his own mind. He has therefore chosen you as an instrument in his hand to bring to light that which shall; perform his act, his strange act, and bring to pass a marvelous work and a wonder. Wherever the sound shall go it shall cause the ears of men to tingle, and wherever it shall be proclaimed, the pure in heart shall rejoice, while those who draw near to God with their mouths, and honor him with their lips, while their hearts are far from him, will seek its overthrow, and the destruction of those by whose hands it is carried. Therefore, marvel not if your name is made a derision, and had as a by-word among such, if you are the instrument in bringing it, by the gift of God, to the knowledge of the people."
||
{{MAfairwiki|author=Oliver Cowdery|date=|vol=1|num=5|start=79|end=80}}
|-
|

==== ====
||
I no longer believe that all the other churches are wrong.
||
||
|-
|
==== ====
||
Get right, O! ye people, get right with God, and may the Lord remove his judgments from you, preserve you in his kingdom from all evil, and crown you in Christ.
||
May the Lord preserve you from evil and reward you richly for all your afflictions, and crown you in his kingdom. Amen.
||
{{MAfairwiki|author=Oliver Cowdery|date=|vol=1|num=7|start=112}}
|-
|

==== ====
||
Amen. 
March 3, 1839 
O. COWDERY

Forgeries related to Mormonism/Oliver Cowdery's 1839 Defence in a Rehearsal of my Grounds for Separating Myself from the Latter Day Saints

2013-03-12T16:28:36Z

RonHellings1: /* Background */

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

=Oliver Cowdery's alleged 1839 "Defence in a Rehearsal of my Grounds for Separating Myself from the Latter Day Saints"=
==Background==
This is a document, critical of Joseph Smith and his prophetic calling, that purports to have been published in 1839 by Oliver Cowdery. The earliest copies in existence are dated 1906. The document was "discovered" by the Reverend R. B. Neal, who was a leader in the American Anti-Mormon Association. No references to this document exists prior to 1906. This document was believed to be authentic for many years, until it was discovered that it consists primarily of three sources; 1) a selection of Cowdery's phrases taken from various issues of the ''Latter Day Saints' Messenger and Advocate'' that were removed from their original context, b) reworded statements from David Whitmer's 1887 ''An Address to All Believers in Christ,'' and 3) original material which contains most of the criticisms of Joseph Smith are. Historians now agree that this document is a forgery.

Richard Lloyd Anderson summarized the difficulties with the provenance of the document in an Ensign article in 1987:
<blockquote>
Similar faults appear in a better-known historical forgery claiming to come from Oliver Cowdery the year after he left the Church. In 1906 the “mountain evangelist” R. B. Neal, a leader in the American Anti-Mormon Association, published a document with much fanfare but without evidence of the document’s authenticity. Reverend Neal claimed that the publication was a reprint of an 1839 document explaining Oliver Cowdery’s apostasy: ''Defence in a Rehearsal of My Grounds for Separating Myself from the Latter Day Saints.'' “No more important document has been unearthed since I have been engaged in this warfare,” R. B. Neal asserted. With such convictions, one can be sure that Reverend Neal would have produced evidence to prove that the original actually existed. But all we have is his 1906 first printing, which is silent about why no one had ever heard of the document until a half century after Oliver Cowdery’s death. —Richard Lloyd Anderson, "I Have a Question," ''Ensign'', April 1987. {{link|url=https://www.lds.org/ensign/1987/04/i-have-a-question?lang=eng}}
</blockquote>

Ronald Huggins has recently summarized the problems with the content of the document:
<blockquote>
This makes it all but certain that the ''Defence'' was plagiarized from the ''Messenger and Advocate''. The only way someone could make a case for its authenticity at this stage would be to prove that Cowdery was in the regular habit of plundering phrases and paragraphs from his earlier writings and dropping them without rhyme or reason into his later ones. —Ronald V. Huggins, "Jerald Tanner's Quest for Truth - Part 3," ''Salt Lake City Messenger'', Issue 111 (November 2008)
</blockquote>

A detailed analysis showing the reliance of the forged Cowdery document on the two historical sources is presented below.

==Comparison against sources==
The text of the alleged Cowdery document was produced using a combination of phrases written by Oliver Cowdery in the ''Messenger and Advocate'' during the time that he was editor, and a rephrasing of information from David Whitmer's ''An Address to All Believers in Christ''.

{| valign="top" border="1" style="width:100%; font-size:100%"
!width="2%"|Index
!width="40%"|Cowdery's alleged "Defence in a Rehearsal of my Grounds for Separating Myself from the Latter Day Saints"
!width="40%"|Source text and/or commentary
!width="18%"|Actual source
|-
|
==== ====
||
Defence in a Rehearsal of my Grounds for Separating Myself from the Latter Day Saints 
By Oliver Cowdery 
Second Elder of the Church of Christ
||
|-
|
==== ====
||
This Defence is not protected by a copyright, as I wish no man to be confined alone to my permission in printing what is meant for the eyes and knowledge of the nations of the earth.
||
The author desires this work circulated as much as possible, and will grant the Privilege of reproduction to any reliable house that will make application to him.
||
{{Book:Whitmer:Address to All Believers in Christ|start=2}}
|-
|
==== ====
||
“God doth not walk in crooked paths; Neither doth he turn to the right hand, Nor the left; neither doth he vary From that which he hath said.”
||
||
|-
|
==== ====
||
Pressley’s Job Office, Norton, Ohio, 1839
||
There was no "Pressley's Job Office" in Norton Ohio
||
|-
|

==== ====
||
DEAR PEOPLE OF GOD:-I offer you a “Defence” which I am grieved to make, but my opposers have put me to the necessity, and so far as my memory serves, I pledge my veracity for the correctness of the account.
||
||
|-
|
==== ====
||
I deny that I have ever conspired with any, or ever exerted any influence to destroy the reputation of the First Elder, although evidence which is to be credited assures me that he has done everything he could to injure my standing and his influence has been considerably exerted to destroy my reputation and, I fear, my life.
||
While employed here he became acquainted with the family of Isaac Hale, of whom you read in several of the productions of those who have sought to destroy the validity of the book of Mormon. It may be necessary hereafter, to refer you more particularly to the conduct of this family, as their influence has been considerably exerted to destroy the reputation of our brother, probably because he married a daughter of the same contrary to some of their wishes
||
{{MAfairwiki|author=Oliver Cowdery|date=|vol=2|num=1|start=200}}
|-
|

==== ====
||
You will remember in the meantime, that those who seek to vilify my character have been constantly encouraged by him.
||
You will remember, in the mean time, that those who seek to vilify his character, say that he has always been notorious for his idleness. This gentleman, whose name is Stowel, resided in the town of Bainbridge, on or near the head waters of the Susquehannah river.
||
{{MAfairwiki|author=Oliver Cowdery|date=|vol=2|num=1|start=200}}
|-
|
==== ====
||
There was a time when I thought myself able to prove to the satisfaction of every man that the translator of the Book of Mormon, was worthy of the appellation of a Seer and a Prophet of the Lord, and in which he held over me a mysterious power which even now I fail to fathom; but I fear I may have been deceived, and especially so fear since knowing that Satan has led his mind astray.
||
I trust I shall be indulged, for the purpose of satisfying many, who have heard so many slanderous reports that they are lead to believe them true because they are not contradicted; and besides, this generation are determined to oppose every item in the form or under the pretence [pretense] of revelation, unless it comes through a man who has always been more pure than Michael the great prince; and as this is the fact, and my opposers have put me to the necessity, I shall be more prolix, and have no doubt, before I give up the point, shall prove to your satisfaction, and to that of every man, that the translator of the book of Mormon is worthy the appellation of a seer and a prophet of the Lord. In this I do not pretend that he is not a man subject to passion like other men, beset with infirmities and encompassed with weaknesses; but if he is, all men were so before him, and a pretence [pretense] to the contrary would argue a more than mortal, which would at once destroy the whole system of the religion of the Lord Jesus; for he anciently chose the weak to overcome the strong, the foolish to confound the wise, (I mean considered so by this world,) and by the foolishness of preaching to save those who believe.
||
{{MAfairwiki|author=Oliver Cowdery|date=|vol=2|num=1|start=200}}
|-
|

==== ====
||
1. When the Church of Christ was set up by revelation, he was called to be First Elder, and I was called to be the Second Elder, and whatever he had of Priesthood (about which I am beginning to doubt) also had I.
||
||
|-
|
==== ====
||
2. But I certainly followed him too far when accepting, and reiterating, that none had authority from God to administer the ordinances of the Gospel, as I had then forgotten that John, the beloved disciple, was tarrying on earth and exempt from death.
||
||
|-
|
==== ====
||
I am well aware that a rehearsal of these things at this day will be unpleasant reading to the First Elder; yet so it is, and it is wisdom that it should be so. Without rehearsing too many things that have caused me to lose my faith in Bro. Joseph’s seership, I regard his frequent predictions that he himself shall tarry on the earth till Christ shall come in glory, and that neither the rage of devils nor the malice of men shall ever cause him to fall by the hand of his enemies until he has seen Christ in the flesh at his final coming, as little short of a piece of blasphemy; and it may be classed with that revelation that some among you will remember which sent Bro. Page and me so unwisely to (3) Toronto with a predication from the Lord by Urim and Thummim that we would there find a man anxious to buy the First Elder’s copyright. I well remember we did not find him, and had to return surprised and disappointed. But so great was my faith, that, in going to Toronto, nothing but calmness pervaded my soul, every doubt was banished, and I as much expected that Bro. Page and I would fulfill the revelation as that we should live. And you may believe, without asking me to relate the particulars, that it would be no easy task to describe our desolation and grief.
||
Brother Hyrum said it had been suggested to him that some of the brethren might go to Toronto, Canada, and sell the copy-right of the Book of Mormon for considerable money: and he persuaded Joseph to inquire of the Lord about it. Joseph concluded to do so. He had not yet given up the stone. Joseph looked into the hat in which he placed the stone, and received a revelation that some of the brethren should go to Toronto, Canada, and that they would sell the copy-right of the Book of Mormon. Hiram Page and Oliver Cowdery went to Toronto on this mission, but they failed entirely to sell the copy-right, returning without any money. Joseph was at my father's house when they returned. I was there also, and am an eye witness to these facts. Jacob Whitmer and John Whitmer were also present when Hiram Page and Oliver Cowdery returned from Canada.
||
{{Book:Whitmer:Address to All Believers in Christ|start=31}}

|-
|

==== ====
||
Bro. Page and I did not think that God would have deceived us through “Urim and Thummim,” exactly as came the Book of Mormon; and I well remember how hard I strove to drive away the foreboding which seized me, that the First Elder had made tools of us, where we thought, in the simplicity of our hearts, that we were divinely commanded.
||
Jacob Whitmer and John Whitmer were also present when Hiram Page and Oliver Cowdery returned from Canada. Well, we were all in great trouble; and we asked Joseph how it was that he had received a revelation from the Lord for some brethren to go to Toronto and sell the copy-right, and the brethren had utterly failed in their undertaking. Joseph did not know how it was, so he enquired of the Lord about it, and behold the following revelation came through the stone: "Some revelations are of God: some revelations are of men: and some revelations are of the devil." So we see that the revelation to go to Toronto and sell the copy-right was not of God, but was of the devil or of the heart of man.
||
{{Book:Whitmer:Address to All Believers in Christ|start=31}}
|-
|

==== ====
||
And what served to render the reflection past expression in its bitterness to me, was, that from ''his'' hand I received baptism, by the direction of the Angel of God whose voice, as it has since struck me, did most mysteriously resemble the voice of Elder Sidney Rigdon, who, I am sure had no part in the transactions of that day, as the Angel was John the Baptist, which I doubt not and deny not.
||
Not only have I been graciously preserved from wicked and unreasonable men, with this our brother, but I have seen the fruit of perseverance in proclaiming the everlasting gospel, immediately after it was declared to the world in these last days, in a manner not to be forgotten while heaven gives my common intellect. And what serves to render the reflection past expression on this point is, that from ''his'' hand I received baptism, by the direction of the angel of God—the first received into this church, in this day.
||
{{MAfairwiki|author=Oliver Cowdery|date=October 1834|vol=1|num=1|start=14}}
|-
|

==== ====
||
When I afterward first heard Elder Rigdon, whose voice is so strikingly similar, I felt that this “dear” brother was to be in some sense, to me unknown, the herald of this church as the Great Baptist was of Christ.
4. I never dreamed however, that he would influence the Prophet, Seer and Revelator to the Church of the Latter Day Saints, in to the formation of a secret band at Far West, committed to depredations upon Gentiles and the actual assassination of apostates from the church, which was done in June last and was only one of many wrong steps.
||
Sydney Rigdon was the cause of almost all the errors which were introduced while he was in the church. I believe Rigdon to have been the instigator of the secret organization known as the "Danites" which was formed in Far West Missouri in June, 1838.
||
{{Book:Whitmer:Address to All Believers in Christ|start=35}}
|-
|

==== ====
||
These are facts which I am rehearsing, and if they shall be called in question, I am able to establish them by evidence which I can bring forward in abundance.
||
I have now given you a rehearsal of what was communicated to our brother, when he was directed to go and obtain the record of the Nephites. I may have missed in arrangement in some instances, but the principle is preserved, and you will be able to bring forward abundance of corroborating scripture upon the subject of the gospel and of the gathering.
||
{{MAfairwiki|author=Oliver Cowdery|date=|vol=1|num=7|start=112}}
|-
|

==== ====
||
Still, although favored fo God as a chosen witness to bear testimony to the divine authority of the Book of Mormon, and honored of the Lord in being permitted, without money and without price, to serve as scribe during the translation of the Book of Mormon, I have sometimes had seasons of skepticism, in which I did seriously wonder whether the Prophet and I were men in our sober senses when he would be translating from plates through “the Urim and Thummim” and the plates not be in sight at all.
||
No men in their sober senses, could translate and write the directions given to the Nephites, from the mouth of the Savior, of the precise manner in which men should build up his church, and especially, when corruption had spread an uncertainty over all forms and systems practiced among men, without desiring a privilege of showing the willingness of the heart by being buried in the liquid grave, to answer a "good conscience by the resurrection of Jesus Christ."
||
{{MAfairwiki|author=Oliver Cowdery|date=|vol=1|num=7|start=15}}
|-
|

==== ====
||
But I believed both in the Seer and in the “Seer Stone,” and what the First Elder announced as revelation from God, I accepted as such, and committed to paper with a glad mind and happy heart and swift pen; for I believed him to be the soul of honor and truth, a young man who would die before he would lie.
||
||
|-
|
==== ====
||
Man may deceive his fellow man, deception may follow deception, and the children of the wicked one may seduce the unstable, untaught in the ways of righteousness and peace, for I felt a solemn awe about me, being deep in the faith, that the First Elder was a Seer and Prophet of God, giving the truth unsullied through “Urim and Thummim,” dictated by the will of the Lord, and that he was persecuted for the sake of the truth which he loved. Could I have been deceived in him?
||
Man may deceive his fellow man; deception may follow deception, and the children of the wicked one may have power to seduce the foolish and untaught, till nought but fiction feeds the many, and the fruit of falsehood carries in its current the giddy to the grave; but one touch with the finger of his love, yes, one ray of glory from the upper world, or one word from the mouth of the Savior, from the bosom of eternity, strikes it all into insignificance, and blots it forever from the mind! The assurance that we were in the presence of an angel; the certainty that we heard the voice of Jesus, and the truth unsullied as it flowed from a pure personage, dictated by the will of God, is to me, past description, and I shall ever look upon this expression of the Savior's goodness with wonder and thanksgiving while I am permitted to tarry, and in those mansions where perfection dwells and sin never comes, I hope to adore in that DAY which shall never cease!*
||
{{MAfairwiki|author=Oliver Cowdery|date=October 1834|vol=1|num=1|start=16}}
|-
|

==== ====
||
I could rehearse a number of things to show either that I as then deceived, or that he has since fallen from the lofty place in which fond affection had deemed him secure.
||
||
|-
|
==== ====
||
I remembered his experience as he had related it to me, and lacking wisdom, I went to God in prayer. I said: “O! Lord, how dark everything is! Let thy glory lighten it, and make bright the path for me. Show me my duty. Let me be led of thy Spirit.”
||
||
|-
|

==== ====
||
Shall I relate what transpired? I had a message from the Most High, as from the midst of eternity; for the vail was parted and the Redeemer Himself, clothed in glory, stood before me. And He said:
||
This was not long desired before it was realized. The Lord, who is rich in mercy, and ever willing to answer the consistent prayer of the humble, after we had called upon him in a fervent manner, aside from the abodes of men, condescended to manifest to us his will. On a sudden, as from the midst of eternity, the voice of the Redeemer spake peace to us, while the vail was parted and the angel of God came down clothed with glory, and delivered the anxiously looked for message, and the keys of the gospel of repentance!
||
{{MAfairwiki|author=Oliver Cowdery|date=|vol=1|num=1|start=15}}
|-
|

==== ====
||
“After reproving the Latter Day Saints for their corruption and blindness in permitting their President, Joseph Smith, Jr., to lead them forth into errors, where I led him not, nor commanded him, and saying unto them,
||
The revelation on polygamy was given fourteen years after the translation of the Book of Mormon, and after Brother Joseph had drifted into error and blindness. As I have stated, the scriptures are plain concerning the matter of a prophet or any man once chosen of God, being afterwards deceived and led into error.
||
{{Book:Whitmer:Address to All Believers in Christ|start=42}}
|-
|
==== ====
||
‘Thus saith the Lord,’ when I said it not unto him, thou shalt withdraw thyself from among them.”
||
God spake to me again by his own voice from the heavens, and told me to "separate myself from among the Latter Day Saints, for as they sought to do unto me, so should it be done unto them."
||
{{Book:Whitmer:Address to All Believers in Christ|start=27}}
|-
|

==== ====
||
And I testify that Jesus whose words I have been rehearsing, hath even so commanded me in an open vision.
||
I believe that the angel Moroni, whose words I have been rehearsing, who communicated the knowledge of the record of the Nephites, in this age
||
{{MAfairwiki|author=Oliver Cowdery|date=April 1835|vol=1|num=7|start=112}}
|-
|

==== ====
||
The Lord revealed to me that the First Elder is leading the Saints astray, and ordered me to quit them after delivering the message which this “Defence” delivers. I shall ever remember this expression of the Saviour’s grace with thanksgiving, and look upon his amazing goodness to me with wonder.
||
We have seen from a revelation given to Brother Joseph, that he broke the commandments of God from the beginning. Now, as the wicked will be cut off, the people being clean before the Lord, and this Choice Seer being a holy man, the people in this condition will be fitted to give heed to him, and they will not be led astray by him
||
{{Book:Whitmer:Address to All Believers in Christ|start=45}}
|-
|

==== ====
||
When I had sufficiently recovered my selfpossession to ask in regard to the errors into which Joseph Smith, Jr., was taking the Saints,
||
God only knows how I have grieved and suffered and plead with him for you for the past forty-eight years, that you might repent and be enlightened by the Holy Ghost to see the errors into which you have been led.
||
{{Book:Whitmer:Address to All Believers in Christ|start=27}}
|-
|
==== ====
||
the Redeemer instructed me plainly: “He hath given revelations from his own heart and from a defiled conscience as coming from my mouth and hath corrupted the covenant and altered words which I had spoken. He hath brought in high priests, apostles and other officers, which in these days, when the written Word sufficeth, are not in my church, and some of his deeds have brought shame to my heritage by the shedding of blood.
||
You have changed the revelations from the way they were first given and as they are to-day in the Book of Commandments, to support the error of Brother Joseph in taking upon himself the office of Seer to the church. You have changed the revelations to support the error of high priests. You have changed the revelations to support the error of a President of the high priesthood, high counselors, etc.
||
{{Book:Whitmer:Address to All Believers in Christ|start=49}}
|-
|
==== ====
||
He walketh in the vain imaginations of his heart, and my Spirit is holy and does not dwell in an unholy temple, nor are angels sent to reveal the great work of God to hypocrites.”
||
But so it is, and it is wisdom that it should be so, because the Holy Spirit does not dwell in unholy temples, nor angels reveal the great work of God to hypocrites.
||
{{Book:Whitmer:Address to All Believers in Christ|start=95}}
|-
|

==== ====
||
I bowed my face in shame and said: “Lord! I intreat thee, give me grace to bear thy message in print where I fear to take it by word of mouth.” 
And he said, “The grace is given thee,” and he vanished out of my sight.
||
||
|-
|

==== ====
||
Prepare your hearts, O ye Saints of the Most High, and come to understanding. The prophet hath erred and the people are gone astray through his error. God’s word is open. We may read it.
||
Prepare your hearts, O ye saints of the Most High, for great things await you! Hasten ye, hasten ye, to the places of gathering, for after a little the indignation of the Lord will cease toward those who are called by his name, and when his arm must fall upon the wicked. His sword is bathed in heaven, and must fall upon Idumea, and who can stand amid the crash and fall of empires?
||
{{MAfairwiki|author=Oliver Cowdery|date=October 1835|vol=2|num=1|start=204}}
|-
|
==== ====
||
There is no “First Presidency” there, no “High Priesthood” save that of Christ himself, no Patriarch to the church, and wonderful to tell, the “First Elder” hath departed from god in giving us these things,
||
High Priests were only in the church before Christ; and to have this office in the "Church of Christ" is not according to the teachings of Christ in either of the sacred books: Christ himself is our great and last High Priest.
||
{{Book:Whitmer:Address to All Believers in Christ|start=62}}
|-
|

==== ====
||
and in changing the name of the church.
||
but when the heads of the church changed the name of the church to "The Church of Latter Day Saints," (leaving out the name of "Christ" entirely) when they did this, and compiled the Doctrine and Covenants in 1835, God had then given them over to blindness of mind
||
{{Book:Whitmer:Address to All Believers in Christ|start=61}}
|-
|

==== ====
||
Oh, the misery, the distress and evil attendant upon giving heed unto the “doctrines of men!” The gospel has been perverted and the Saints are wandering in darkness, which a full cup of suffering is poured upon them. A society has been organized among them to inflict death upon those who are deemed apostates, with the knowledge and sanction of the First Elder.
||
Alas, the calamity of war, the extinction of nations, the ruin of kingdoms, the fall of empires and the dissolution of governments! O the misery, distress and evil attendant on these! Who can contemplate like scenes without sorrowing, and who so destitute of commiseration as not to be pained that man has fallen so low, so far beneath the station in which he was created?
||
{{MAfairwiki|author=Oliver Cowdery|date=|vol=1|num=10|start=159}}
|-
|

==== ====
||
This, I confess, is a dark picture to spread before those whom I am to warn, but they will pardon my plainness when I assure them of the truth of what I have written.
||
On Friday, the 5th, in company with our brother JOSEPH SMITH jr. I left Kirtland for this place (New Portage,) to attend the conference previously appointed. To be permitted, once more, to travel with this brother, occasions reflections of no ordinary kind. Many have been the fateagues [fatigues] and privations which have fallen to my lot to endure, for the gospel's sake, since 1828, with this brother. Our road has frequently been spread with the "fowler's snare," and our persons sought with the eagerness, of the Savage's ferocity, for innocent blood, by men, either heated to desperation by the insinuations of those who professed to be "guides and way—marks" to the kingdom of glory, or the individuals themselves!—This, I confess, is a dark picture to spread before our patrons, but they will pardon my plainness when I assure them of the truth. In fact, God has so ordered, that the reflections which I am permitted to cast upon my past life, relative to a knowledge of the way of salvation, are rendered "doubly endearing."
||
{{MAfairwiki|author=Oliver Cowdery|vol=1|num=1|start=14|date=October 1834}}
|-
|

==== ====
||
Bearing this message to them is the hardest work of my life, although many have been the privations and fatigues which have fallen to my lot to endure for the Gospel’s sake since April 5th, 1829.
||
She was driven, last fall, from Jackson county, by the mob, and was necessarily compelled to endure, with others, further afflictions and privations.
||
{{MAfairwiki|author=Oliver Cowdery|date=|vol=1|num=1|start=13}}
|-
|

==== ====
||
It is disgraceful to be led by a man who does not scruple to follow his own vain imagination, announcing his own schemes as revelations from the Lord. And I fear he is led by a groundless hope, no better than the idle wind or the spider’s web. Having cleared my soul by delivering the message, I do not deem it necessary to write further on the subject now.
||
The mind is easily called up to reflection upon a matter of such deep importance, and it is just that it should be; but there is a regret occupying the heart when we consider the deep anxiety of thousands, who are lead away with a vain imagination, or a groundless hope, no better than the idle wind or the spider's web.
||
{{MAfairwiki|author=Oliver Cowdery|date=|vol=1|num=5|start=78}}
|-
|

==== ====
||
Jesus has saved men in all ages and saves them now, and not by our Priesthood either. The “First Elder” errs as to that. The Lord has said, long since, and his word remains steadfast as the eternal hills, that to him who knocks it shall be opened, and whosoever will, may come and partake of the waters of life freely; but a curse will surely fall upon those who draw near to God with their mouths, and honor him with their lips, while their hearts are far from him.
||
"This cannot be brought about until first certain preparatory things are accomplished, for so has the Lord purposed in his own mind. He has therefore chosen you as an instrument in his hand to bring to light that which shall; perform his act, his strange act, and bring to pass a marvelous work and a wonder. Wherever the sound shall go it shall cause the ears of men to tingle, and wherever it shall be proclaimed, the pure in heart shall rejoice, while those who draw near to God with their mouths, and honor him with their lips, while their hearts are far from him, will seek its overthrow, and the destruction of those by whose hands it is carried. Therefore, marvel not if your name is made a derision, and had as a by-word among such, if you are the instrument in bringing it, by the gift of God, to the knowledge of the people."
||
{{MAfairwiki|author=Oliver Cowdery|date=|vol=1|num=5|start=79|end=80}}
|-
|

==== ====
||
I no longer believe that all the other churches are wrong.
||
||
|-
|
==== ====
||
Get right, O! ye people, get right with God, and may the Lord remove his judgments from you, preserve you in his kingdom from all evil, and crown you in Christ.
||
May the Lord preserve you from evil and reward you richly for all your afflictions, and crown you in his kingdom. Amen.
||
{{MAfairwiki|author=Oliver Cowdery|date=|vol=1|num=7|start=112}}
|-
|

==== ====
||
Amen. 
March 3, 1839 
O. COWDERY

Forgeries related to Mormonism/Oliver Cowdery's 1839 Defence in a Rehearsal of my Grounds for Separating Myself from the Latter Day Saints

2013-03-12T16:25:07Z

RonHellings1: /* Background */

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

=Oliver Cowdery's alleged 1839 "Defence in a Rehearsal of my Grounds for Separating Myself from the Latter Day Saints"=
==Background==
This is a document, critical of Joseph Smith and his prophetic calling, that purports to have been published in 1839 by Oliver Cowdery. The earliest copies in existence are dated 1906. The document was "discovered" by the Reverend R. B. Neal, who was a leader in the American Anti-Mormon Association. No references to this document exists prior to 1906. This document was believed to be authentic for many years, until it was discovered that it consists primarily of three sources; 1) a selection of Cowdery's phrases taken from various issues of the ''Latter Day Saints' Messenger and Advocate'' that were removed from their original context, b) reworded statements from David Whitmer's 1887 ''An Address to All Believers in Christ,'' and 3) original material which contains most of the criticisms of Joseph Smith are. Historians now agree that this document is a forgery.

Richard Lloyd Anderson summarized the difficulties with the provenance of the document in an Ensign article in 1987:
<blockquote>
Similar faults appear in a better-known historical forgery claiming to come from Oliver Cowdery the year after he left the Church. In 1906 the “mountain evangelist” R. B. Neal, a leader in the American Anti-Mormon Association, published a document with much fanfare but without evidence of the document’s authenticity. Reverend Neal claimed that the publication was a reprint of an 1839 document explaining Oliver Cowdery’s apostasy: ''Defence in a Rehearsal of My Grounds for Separating Myself from the Latter Day Saints.'' “No more important document has been unearthed since I have been engaged in this warfare,” R. B. Neal asserted. With such convictions, one can be sure that Reverend Neal would have produced evidence to prove that the original actually existed. But all we have is his 1906 first printing, which is silent about why no one had ever heard of the document until a half century after Oliver Cowdery’s death. —Richard Lloyd Anderson, "I Have a Question," ''Ensign'', April 1987. {{link|url=https://www.lds.org/ensign/1987/04/i-have-a-question?lang=eng}}
</blockquote>
{{parabreak}}
Ronald Huggins has recently summarized the problems with the content of the document:
<blockquote>
This makes it all but certain that the ''Defence'' was plagiarized from the ''Messenger and Advocate''. The only way someone could make a case for its authenticity at this stage would be to prove that Cowdery was in the regular habit of plundering phrases and paragraphs from his earlier writings and dropping them without rhyme or reason into his later ones. —Ronald V. Huggins, "Jerald Tanner's Quest for Truth - Part 3," ''Salt Lake City Messenger'', Issue 111 (November 2008)
</blockquote>

==Comparison against sources==
The text of the alleged Cowdery document was produced using a combination of phrases written by Oliver Cowdery in the ''Messenger and Advocate'' during the time that he was editor, and a rephrasing of information from David Whitmer's ''An Address to All Believers in Christ''.

{| valign="top" border="1" style="width:100%; font-size:100%"
!width="2%"|Index
!width="40%"|Cowdery's alleged "Defence in a Rehearsal of my Grounds for Separating Myself from the Latter Day Saints"
!width="40%"|Source text and/or commentary
!width="18%"|Actual source
|-
|
==== ====
||
Defence in a Rehearsal of my Grounds for Separating Myself from the Latter Day Saints 
By Oliver Cowdery 
Second Elder of the Church of Christ
||
|-
|
==== ====
||
This Defence is not protected by a copyright, as I wish no man to be confined alone to my permission in printing what is meant for the eyes and knowledge of the nations of the earth.
||
The author desires this work circulated as much as possible, and will grant the Privilege of reproduction to any reliable house that will make application to him.
||
{{Book:Whitmer:Address to All Believers in Christ|start=2}}
|-
|
==== ====
||
“God doth not walk in crooked paths; Neither doth he turn to the right hand, Nor the left; neither doth he vary From that which he hath said.”
||
||
|-
|
==== ====
||
Pressley’s Job Office, Norton, Ohio, 1839
||
There was no "Pressley's Job Office" in Norton Ohio
||
|-
|

==== ====
||
DEAR PEOPLE OF GOD:-I offer you a “Defence” which I am grieved to make, but my opposers have put me to the necessity, and so far as my memory serves, I pledge my veracity for the correctness of the account.
||
||
|-
|
==== ====
||
I deny that I have ever conspired with any, or ever exerted any influence to destroy the reputation of the First Elder, although evidence which is to be credited assures me that he has done everything he could to injure my standing and his influence has been considerably exerted to destroy my reputation and, I fear, my life.
||
While employed here he became acquainted with the family of Isaac Hale, of whom you read in several of the productions of those who have sought to destroy the validity of the book of Mormon. It may be necessary hereafter, to refer you more particularly to the conduct of this family, as their influence has been considerably exerted to destroy the reputation of our brother, probably because he married a daughter of the same contrary to some of their wishes
||
{{MAfairwiki|author=Oliver Cowdery|date=|vol=2|num=1|start=200}}
|-
|

==== ====
||
You will remember in the meantime, that those who seek to vilify my character have been constantly encouraged by him.
||
You will remember, in the mean time, that those who seek to vilify his character, say that he has always been notorious for his idleness. This gentleman, whose name is Stowel, resided in the town of Bainbridge, on or near the head waters of the Susquehannah river.
||
{{MAfairwiki|author=Oliver Cowdery|date=|vol=2|num=1|start=200}}
|-
|
==== ====
||
There was a time when I thought myself able to prove to the satisfaction of every man that the translator of the Book of Mormon, was worthy of the appellation of a Seer and a Prophet of the Lord, and in which he held over me a mysterious power which even now I fail to fathom; but I fear I may have been deceived, and especially so fear since knowing that Satan has led his mind astray.
||
I trust I shall be indulged, for the purpose of satisfying many, who have heard so many slanderous reports that they are lead to believe them true because they are not contradicted; and besides, this generation are determined to oppose every item in the form or under the pretence [pretense] of revelation, unless it comes through a man who has always been more pure than Michael the great prince; and as this is the fact, and my opposers have put me to the necessity, I shall be more prolix, and have no doubt, before I give up the point, shall prove to your satisfaction, and to that of every man, that the translator of the book of Mormon is worthy the appellation of a seer and a prophet of the Lord. In this I do not pretend that he is not a man subject to passion like other men, beset with infirmities and encompassed with weaknesses; but if he is, all men were so before him, and a pretence [pretense] to the contrary would argue a more than mortal, which would at once destroy the whole system of the religion of the Lord Jesus; for he anciently chose the weak to overcome the strong, the foolish to confound the wise, (I mean considered so by this world,) and by the foolishness of preaching to save those who believe.
||
{{MAfairwiki|author=Oliver Cowdery|date=|vol=2|num=1|start=200}}
|-
|

==== ====
||
1. When the Church of Christ was set up by revelation, he was called to be First Elder, and I was called to be the Second Elder, and whatever he had of Priesthood (about which I am beginning to doubt) also had I.
||
||
|-
|
==== ====
||
2. But I certainly followed him too far when accepting, and reiterating, that none had authority from God to administer the ordinances of the Gospel, as I had then forgotten that John, the beloved disciple, was tarrying on earth and exempt from death.
||
||
|-
|
==== ====
||
I am well aware that a rehearsal of these things at this day will be unpleasant reading to the First Elder; yet so it is, and it is wisdom that it should be so. Without rehearsing too many things that have caused me to lose my faith in Bro. Joseph’s seership, I regard his frequent predictions that he himself shall tarry on the earth till Christ shall come in glory, and that neither the rage of devils nor the malice of men shall ever cause him to fall by the hand of his enemies until he has seen Christ in the flesh at his final coming, as little short of a piece of blasphemy; and it may be classed with that revelation that some among you will remember which sent Bro. Page and me so unwisely to (3) Toronto with a predication from the Lord by Urim and Thummim that we would there find a man anxious to buy the First Elder’s copyright. I well remember we did not find him, and had to return surprised and disappointed. But so great was my faith, that, in going to Toronto, nothing but calmness pervaded my soul, every doubt was banished, and I as much expected that Bro. Page and I would fulfill the revelation as that we should live. And you may believe, without asking me to relate the particulars, that it would be no easy task to describe our desolation and grief.
||
Brother Hyrum said it had been suggested to him that some of the brethren might go to Toronto, Canada, and sell the copy-right of the Book of Mormon for considerable money: and he persuaded Joseph to inquire of the Lord about it. Joseph concluded to do so. He had not yet given up the stone. Joseph looked into the hat in which he placed the stone, and received a revelation that some of the brethren should go to Toronto, Canada, and that they would sell the copy-right of the Book of Mormon. Hiram Page and Oliver Cowdery went to Toronto on this mission, but they failed entirely to sell the copy-right, returning without any money. Joseph was at my father's house when they returned. I was there also, and am an eye witness to these facts. Jacob Whitmer and John Whitmer were also present when Hiram Page and Oliver Cowdery returned from Canada.
||
{{Book:Whitmer:Address to All Believers in Christ|start=31}}

|-
|

==== ====
||
Bro. Page and I did not think that God would have deceived us through “Urim and Thummim,” exactly as came the Book of Mormon; and I well remember how hard I strove to drive away the foreboding which seized me, that the First Elder had made tools of us, where we thought, in the simplicity of our hearts, that we were divinely commanded.
||
Jacob Whitmer and John Whitmer were also present when Hiram Page and Oliver Cowdery returned from Canada. Well, we were all in great trouble; and we asked Joseph how it was that he had received a revelation from the Lord for some brethren to go to Toronto and sell the copy-right, and the brethren had utterly failed in their undertaking. Joseph did not know how it was, so he enquired of the Lord about it, and behold the following revelation came through the stone: "Some revelations are of God: some revelations are of men: and some revelations are of the devil." So we see that the revelation to go to Toronto and sell the copy-right was not of God, but was of the devil or of the heart of man.
||
{{Book:Whitmer:Address to All Believers in Christ|start=31}}
|-
|

==== ====
||
And what served to render the reflection past expression in its bitterness to me, was, that from ''his'' hand I received baptism, by the direction of the Angel of God whose voice, as it has since struck me, did most mysteriously resemble the voice of Elder Sidney Rigdon, who, I am sure had no part in the transactions of that day, as the Angel was John the Baptist, which I doubt not and deny not.
||
Not only have I been graciously preserved from wicked and unreasonable men, with this our brother, but I have seen the fruit of perseverance in proclaiming the everlasting gospel, immediately after it was declared to the world in these last days, in a manner not to be forgotten while heaven gives my common intellect. And what serves to render the reflection past expression on this point is, that from ''his'' hand I received baptism, by the direction of the angel of God—the first received into this church, in this day.
||
{{MAfairwiki|author=Oliver Cowdery|date=October 1834|vol=1|num=1|start=14}}
|-
|

==== ====
||
When I afterward first heard Elder Rigdon, whose voice is so strikingly similar, I felt that this “dear” brother was to be in some sense, to me unknown, the herald of this church as the Great Baptist was of Christ.
4. I never dreamed however, that he would influence the Prophet, Seer and Revelator to the Church of the Latter Day Saints, in to the formation of a secret band at Far West, committed to depredations upon Gentiles and the actual assassination of apostates from the church, which was done in June last and was only one of many wrong steps.
||
Sydney Rigdon was the cause of almost all the errors which were introduced while he was in the church. I believe Rigdon to have been the instigator of the secret organization known as the "Danites" which was formed in Far West Missouri in June, 1838.
||
{{Book:Whitmer:Address to All Believers in Christ|start=35}}
|-
|

==== ====
||
These are facts which I am rehearsing, and if they shall be called in question, I am able to establish them by evidence which I can bring forward in abundance.
||
I have now given you a rehearsal of what was communicated to our brother, when he was directed to go and obtain the record of the Nephites. I may have missed in arrangement in some instances, but the principle is preserved, and you will be able to bring forward abundance of corroborating scripture upon the subject of the gospel and of the gathering.
||
{{MAfairwiki|author=Oliver Cowdery|date=|vol=1|num=7|start=112}}
|-
|

==== ====
||
Still, although favored fo God as a chosen witness to bear testimony to the divine authority of the Book of Mormon, and honored of the Lord in being permitted, without money and without price, to serve as scribe during the translation of the Book of Mormon, I have sometimes had seasons of skepticism, in which I did seriously wonder whether the Prophet and I were men in our sober senses when he would be translating from plates through “the Urim and Thummim” and the plates not be in sight at all.
||
No men in their sober senses, could translate and write the directions given to the Nephites, from the mouth of the Savior, of the precise manner in which men should build up his church, and especially, when corruption had spread an uncertainty over all forms and systems practiced among men, without desiring a privilege of showing the willingness of the heart by being buried in the liquid grave, to answer a "good conscience by the resurrection of Jesus Christ."
||
{{MAfairwiki|author=Oliver Cowdery|date=|vol=1|num=7|start=15}}
|-
|

==== ====
||
But I believed both in the Seer and in the “Seer Stone,” and what the First Elder announced as revelation from God, I accepted as such, and committed to paper with a glad mind and happy heart and swift pen; for I believed him to be the soul of honor and truth, a young man who would die before he would lie.
||
||
|-
|
==== ====
||
Man may deceive his fellow man, deception may follow deception, and the children of the wicked one may seduce the unstable, untaught in the ways of righteousness and peace, for I felt a solemn awe about me, being deep in the faith, that the First Elder was a Seer and Prophet of God, giving the truth unsullied through “Urim and Thummim,” dictated by the will of the Lord, and that he was persecuted for the sake of the truth which he loved. Could I have been deceived in him?
||
Man may deceive his fellow man; deception may follow deception, and the children of the wicked one may have power to seduce the foolish and untaught, till nought but fiction feeds the many, and the fruit of falsehood carries in its current the giddy to the grave; but one touch with the finger of his love, yes, one ray of glory from the upper world, or one word from the mouth of the Savior, from the bosom of eternity, strikes it all into insignificance, and blots it forever from the mind! The assurance that we were in the presence of an angel; the certainty that we heard the voice of Jesus, and the truth unsullied as it flowed from a pure personage, dictated by the will of God, is to me, past description, and I shall ever look upon this expression of the Savior's goodness with wonder and thanksgiving while I am permitted to tarry, and in those mansions where perfection dwells and sin never comes, I hope to adore in that DAY which shall never cease!*
||
{{MAfairwiki|author=Oliver Cowdery|date=October 1834|vol=1|num=1|start=16}}
|-
|

==== ====
||
I could rehearse a number of things to show either that I as then deceived, or that he has since fallen from the lofty place in which fond affection had deemed him secure.
||
||
|-
|
==== ====
||
I remembered his experience as he had related it to me, and lacking wisdom, I went to God in prayer. I said: “O! Lord, how dark everything is! Let thy glory lighten it, and make bright the path for me. Show me my duty. Let me be led of thy Spirit.”
||
||
|-
|

==== ====
||
Shall I relate what transpired? I had a message from the Most High, as from the midst of eternity; for the vail was parted and the Redeemer Himself, clothed in glory, stood before me. And He said:
||
This was not long desired before it was realized. The Lord, who is rich in mercy, and ever willing to answer the consistent prayer of the humble, after we had called upon him in a fervent manner, aside from the abodes of men, condescended to manifest to us his will. On a sudden, as from the midst of eternity, the voice of the Redeemer spake peace to us, while the vail was parted and the angel of God came down clothed with glory, and delivered the anxiously looked for message, and the keys of the gospel of repentance!
||
{{MAfairwiki|author=Oliver Cowdery|date=|vol=1|num=1|start=15}}
|-
|

==== ====
||
“After reproving the Latter Day Saints for their corruption and blindness in permitting their President, Joseph Smith, Jr., to lead them forth into errors, where I led him not, nor commanded him, and saying unto them,
||
The revelation on polygamy was given fourteen years after the translation of the Book of Mormon, and after Brother Joseph had drifted into error and blindness. As I have stated, the scriptures are plain concerning the matter of a prophet or any man once chosen of God, being afterwards deceived and led into error.
||
{{Book:Whitmer:Address to All Believers in Christ|start=42}}
|-
|
==== ====
||
‘Thus saith the Lord,’ when I said it not unto him, thou shalt withdraw thyself from among them.”
||
God spake to me again by his own voice from the heavens, and told me to "separate myself from among the Latter Day Saints, for as they sought to do unto me, so should it be done unto them."
||
{{Book:Whitmer:Address to All Believers in Christ|start=27}}
|-
|

==== ====
||
And I testify that Jesus whose words I have been rehearsing, hath even so commanded me in an open vision.
||
I believe that the angel Moroni, whose words I have been rehearsing, who communicated the knowledge of the record of the Nephites, in this age
||
{{MAfairwiki|author=Oliver Cowdery|date=April 1835|vol=1|num=7|start=112}}
|-
|

==== ====
||
The Lord revealed to me that the First Elder is leading the Saints astray, and ordered me to quit them after delivering the message which this “Defence” delivers. I shall ever remember this expression of the Saviour’s grace with thanksgiving, and look upon his amazing goodness to me with wonder.
||
We have seen from a revelation given to Brother Joseph, that he broke the commandments of God from the beginning. Now, as the wicked will be cut off, the people being clean before the Lord, and this Choice Seer being a holy man, the people in this condition will be fitted to give heed to him, and they will not be led astray by him
||
{{Book:Whitmer:Address to All Believers in Christ|start=45}}
|-
|

==== ====
||
When I had sufficiently recovered my selfpossession to ask in regard to the errors into which Joseph Smith, Jr., was taking the Saints,
||
God only knows how I have grieved and suffered and plead with him for you for the past forty-eight years, that you might repent and be enlightened by the Holy Ghost to see the errors into which you have been led.
||
{{Book:Whitmer:Address to All Believers in Christ|start=27}}
|-
|
==== ====
||
the Redeemer instructed me plainly: “He hath given revelations from his own heart and from a defiled conscience as coming from my mouth and hath corrupted the covenant and altered words which I had spoken. He hath brought in high priests, apostles and other officers, which in these days, when the written Word sufficeth, are not in my church, and some of his deeds have brought shame to my heritage by the shedding of blood.
||
You have changed the revelations from the way they were first given and as they are to-day in the Book of Commandments, to support the error of Brother Joseph in taking upon himself the office of Seer to the church. You have changed the revelations to support the error of high priests. You have changed the revelations to support the error of a President of the high priesthood, high counselors, etc.
||
{{Book:Whitmer:Address to All Believers in Christ|start=49}}
|-
|
==== ====
||
He walketh in the vain imaginations of his heart, and my Spirit is holy and does not dwell in an unholy temple, nor are angels sent to reveal the great work of God to hypocrites.”
||
But so it is, and it is wisdom that it should be so, because the Holy Spirit does not dwell in unholy temples, nor angels reveal the great work of God to hypocrites.
||
{{Book:Whitmer:Address to All Believers in Christ|start=95}}
|-
|

==== ====
||
I bowed my face in shame and said: “Lord! I intreat thee, give me grace to bear thy message in print where I fear to take it by word of mouth.” 
And he said, “The grace is given thee,” and he vanished out of my sight.
||
||
|-
|

==== ====
||
Prepare your hearts, O ye Saints of the Most High, and come to understanding. The prophet hath erred and the people are gone astray through his error. God’s word is open. We may read it.
||
Prepare your hearts, O ye saints of the Most High, for great things await you! Hasten ye, hasten ye, to the places of gathering, for after a little the indignation of the Lord will cease toward those who are called by his name, and when his arm must fall upon the wicked. His sword is bathed in heaven, and must fall upon Idumea, and who can stand amid the crash and fall of empires?
||
{{MAfairwiki|author=Oliver Cowdery|date=October 1835|vol=2|num=1|start=204}}
|-
|
==== ====
||
There is no “First Presidency” there, no “High Priesthood” save that of Christ himself, no Patriarch to the church, and wonderful to tell, the “First Elder” hath departed from god in giving us these things,
||
High Priests were only in the church before Christ; and to have this office in the "Church of Christ" is not according to the teachings of Christ in either of the sacred books: Christ himself is our great and last High Priest.
||
{{Book:Whitmer:Address to All Believers in Christ|start=62}}
|-
|

==== ====
||
and in changing the name of the church.
||
but when the heads of the church changed the name of the church to "The Church of Latter Day Saints," (leaving out the name of "Christ" entirely) when they did this, and compiled the Doctrine and Covenants in 1835, God had then given them over to blindness of mind
||
{{Book:Whitmer:Address to All Believers in Christ|start=61}}
|-
|

==== ====
||
Oh, the misery, the distress and evil attendant upon giving heed unto the “doctrines of men!” The gospel has been perverted and the Saints are wandering in darkness, which a full cup of suffering is poured upon them. A society has been organized among them to inflict death upon those who are deemed apostates, with the knowledge and sanction of the First Elder.
||
Alas, the calamity of war, the extinction of nations, the ruin of kingdoms, the fall of empires and the dissolution of governments! O the misery, distress and evil attendant on these! Who can contemplate like scenes without sorrowing, and who so destitute of commiseration as not to be pained that man has fallen so low, so far beneath the station in which he was created?
||
{{MAfairwiki|author=Oliver Cowdery|date=|vol=1|num=10|start=159}}
|-
|

==== ====
||
This, I confess, is a dark picture to spread before those whom I am to warn, but they will pardon my plainness when I assure them of the truth of what I have written.
||
On Friday, the 5th, in company with our brother JOSEPH SMITH jr. I left Kirtland for this place (New Portage,) to attend the conference previously appointed. To be permitted, once more, to travel with this brother, occasions reflections of no ordinary kind. Many have been the fateagues [fatigues] and privations which have fallen to my lot to endure, for the gospel's sake, since 1828, with this brother. Our road has frequently been spread with the "fowler's snare," and our persons sought with the eagerness, of the Savage's ferocity, for innocent blood, by men, either heated to desperation by the insinuations of those who professed to be "guides and way—marks" to the kingdom of glory, or the individuals themselves!—This, I confess, is a dark picture to spread before our patrons, but they will pardon my plainness when I assure them of the truth. In fact, God has so ordered, that the reflections which I am permitted to cast upon my past life, relative to a knowledge of the way of salvation, are rendered "doubly endearing."
||
{{MAfairwiki|author=Oliver Cowdery|vol=1|num=1|start=14|date=October 1834}}
|-
|

==== ====
||
Bearing this message to them is the hardest work of my life, although many have been the privations and fatigues which have fallen to my lot to endure for the Gospel’s sake since April 5th, 1829.
||
She was driven, last fall, from Jackson county, by the mob, and was necessarily compelled to endure, with others, further afflictions and privations.
||
{{MAfairwiki|author=Oliver Cowdery|date=|vol=1|num=1|start=13}}
|-
|

==== ====
||
It is disgraceful to be led by a man who does not scruple to follow his own vain imagination, announcing his own schemes as revelations from the Lord. And I fear he is led by a groundless hope, no better than the idle wind or the spider’s web. Having cleared my soul by delivering the message, I do not deem it necessary to write further on the subject now.
||
The mind is easily called up to reflection upon a matter of such deep importance, and it is just that it should be; but there is a regret occupying the heart when we consider the deep anxiety of thousands, who are lead away with a vain imagination, or a groundless hope, no better than the idle wind or the spider's web.
||
{{MAfairwiki|author=Oliver Cowdery|date=|vol=1|num=5|start=78}}
|-
|

==== ====
||
Jesus has saved men in all ages and saves them now, and not by our Priesthood either. The “First Elder” errs as to that. The Lord has said, long since, and his word remains steadfast as the eternal hills, that to him who knocks it shall be opened, and whosoever will, may come and partake of the waters of life freely; but a curse will surely fall upon those who draw near to God with their mouths, and honor him with their lips, while their hearts are far from him.
||
"This cannot be brought about until first certain preparatory things are accomplished, for so has the Lord purposed in his own mind. He has therefore chosen you as an instrument in his hand to bring to light that which shall; perform his act, his strange act, and bring to pass a marvelous work and a wonder. Wherever the sound shall go it shall cause the ears of men to tingle, and wherever it shall be proclaimed, the pure in heart shall rejoice, while those who draw near to God with their mouths, and honor him with their lips, while their hearts are far from him, will seek its overthrow, and the destruction of those by whose hands it is carried. Therefore, marvel not if your name is made a derision, and had as a by-word among such, if you are the instrument in bringing it, by the gift of God, to the knowledge of the people."
||
{{MAfairwiki|author=Oliver Cowdery|date=|vol=1|num=5|start=79|end=80}}
|-
|

==== ====
||
I no longer believe that all the other churches are wrong.
||
||
|-
|
==== ====
||
Get right, O! ye people, get right with God, and may the Lord remove his judgments from you, preserve you in his kingdom from all evil, and crown you in Christ.
||
May the Lord preserve you from evil and reward you richly for all your afflictions, and crown you in his kingdom. Amen.
||
{{MAfairwiki|author=Oliver Cowdery|date=|vol=1|num=7|start=112}}
|-
|

==== ====
||
Amen. 
March 3, 1839 
O. COWDERY

Homosexuality and the Church of Jesus Christ/Aversion therapy performed at BYU

2013-03-12T01:51:41Z

RonHellings1: /* {{Conclusion label}} */

{{Articles FAIR copyright}} {{Articles Header 1}} {{Articles Header 2}} {{Articles Header 3}} {{Articles Header 4}} {{Articles Header 5}} {{Articles Header 6}} {{Articles Header 7}} {{Articles Header 8}} {{Articles Header 9}} {{Articles Header 10}}
{{SSAPortal}}
=Homosexual aversion therapy performed at BYU in the 1970's=
=={{Question label}}==

* Did the Church ever conduct aversion therapy?
* What was the history of BYU and aversion therapy for treating homosexuality?
* Did BYU ever use vomitting as part of therapy?
* Did BYU ever force students to undergo therapy?
* How did that relate to medical and psychological science as understood at that time?
* What was the role of the Church in BYU's treatments?

=={{Conclusion label}}==

The Church never conducted aversion therapies of any sort. They never recommended it, and they never mandated it.

Like many other places in the western world, aversion therapy was conducted at BYU in the 1970s. At this time, aversion therapy was applied to a number of behaviors. At BYU the therapy was conducted following standards published by professional societies and unlike other places, it was only conducted on adults who gave their permission. The Church does not oversee research at BYU.

* [http://www.fairblog.org/2012/01/04/fair-examination-6-overcoming-same-sex-attraction-blake-smith/ FAIR Examination 6 - Overcoming same-sex attraction - Blake Smith] - FAIR podcast of an LDS man who underwent aversion therapy at BYU-Idaho in 1973
* [http://www.fairblog.org/2012/02/01/fair-examination-8-aversion-therapy-at-byu-dr-eugene-thorne/ FAIR Examination 8 - Aversion therapy at BYU - Dr. Eugene Thorne] - FAIR podcast featuring Dr. Thorne, who oversaw aversion therapy studies at BYU, including that of Dr. McBride.

== ==
{{Response label}}
=== Aversion therapy at BYU ===

In the mid-1970s a graduate student, Max McBride, conducted a study entitled ''Effect of Visual Stimuli in Electric Aversion Therapy''. It appears that the study was conducted during 1974 and 1975 with the average length of treatment during the study being three months. The results of this study were published in August 1976 as McBride's PhD dissertation in the BYU Department of Psychology. McBride's research has recently been sensationalized and several incorrect claims have been made about his study. The following facts need to be kept in mind as the study is evaluated.

:Basis for the study. BYU did not pioneer the use of aversion therapy as a treatment for homosexuality and it ceased use of the therapy decades before the APA stopped recommending the practice. BYU was one of many places where research in this area was done. McBride's dissertation contains over 17 pages of documentation discussing other studies from across the discipline in which aversion therapy had previously been applied to male homosexuality. In fact, the purpose of the McBride's study was not to determine the effectiveness of aversion therapy in treating homosexuality. That question was generally accepted, at the time, to have been satisfactorily answered in the positive as a result of previous studies at other institutions.

:Supervision. The study was conducted under the supervision of Dr. D. Eugene Thorne, who also served as McBride's PhD committee chairman. All study procedures followed common medical practice. McBride acknowledges the assistance of medical professionals at the Salt Lake City Veterans Hospital in designing the study and completing the statistical analysis.

:Population. The study was limited to ego-dystonic homosexuality and did not involve any treatment of ego-syntonic homosexuality. The volunteers for McBride's study were all men whose same-sex attraction was contrary to their desires and who wanted to change their sexual orientation.

:Subjects. McBride discusses the subjects chosen in the following excerpt from his dissertation:

::Seventeen male subjects were used in the study, 14 completed treatment. Selection was on the basis of clinical evidence of homosexuality; absence of psychosis (no prior history); desire for treatment; no history of epilepsy, alcoholism or drug addiction.

:Disclosure. McBride describes the procedures used to ensure full disclosure of what the subjects were to expect. We quote from his dissertation:

::It was mandatory that all subjects chosen to participate sign and have witnessed a prepared statement explaining (a) the experimental nature of the treatment procedure, (b) the use of aversive electric shock, (c) the showing of 35 mm slides that might be construed by subject as possibly offensive, and (d) that Brigham Young University was not in any direct way endorsing the procedures used. This was to insure that all subjects were in full agreement and understanding as to what the treatment procedure would involve, provide and demand from them.

:Nature of the study. The techniques used by McBride followed the standard aversion therapy procedures of the time. The volunteers were subjected to electric shocks applied to their upper arms while being shown both clothed and nude pictures of men. They were able to choose to end the shocks by switching to nude and clothed pictures of women.

:Materials. The materials used in the study consisted of nude pictures of men and women and pictures of clothed men and women taken from current fashion magazines. None of the pictures displayed or even implied sexual acts. In fact, the thing being investigated in McBride’s study was not the effectiveness of aversion therapy, but the relative value of clothed versus nude pictures in this type of therapeutic procedure.

In the years since the study, some of the study participants have talked publicly about their experiences. Many of these reports are troubling to read, as are similar reports from participants in studies at other universities and facilities of the time. While it seems likely that the McBride study was traumatic to some of the individuals involved, it must be remembered that participation in the study was voluntary, each participant had a clear explanation beforehand what the study would entail, and participants could leave the study at any time they wanted. Indeed, three of the seventeen participants in the study did not remain to its completion. These points are not mentioned to minimize the experiences of these participants in any manner; they are only made so that the professional and ethical context of the study can be properly evaluated.

It is also important to note that aversion therapy as a treatment for homosexuality was not a major element of BYU research. In the APA task force report, BYU's contribution to the field of aversion therapy was not covered. This is probably because BYU's involvement was too minor to include. Other universities had more participants and many conducted their studies later than BYU.

==== Vomiting was not used ====
McBride's thesis thoroughly describes the methods used to induce aversion. He did not use vomiting. This fact is verified in the interview with Dr. Thorne, available as the FAIR podcast referenced above, as well as by a specific statement to this effect from BYU:

:The BYU Counseling Center never practiced therapy that would involve chemical or induced vomiting.[http://abcnews.go.com/Health/mormon-gay-cures-reparative-therapies-shock-today/story?id=13240700&page=2#.TzrMQ1wS2Sw]

Most of the accusations of using induced vomiting come from: 1) a person who admits that he never underwent therapy and 2) from the "documentary" 8: The Mormon Proposition (which contains several false accusations as detailed [[Criticism of Mormonism/Video/8: The Mormon Proposition|here]]). These two accounts are not consistent with each other. In short, there is no reliable documentation of the use of induced vomiting at BYU.

====Participation was voluntary====

Aversion therapy was completely voluntary at BYU. Participants could enter and leave as they wish. In an interview with FAIR, Dr. Thorne explained that the voluntary nature was essential to get scientific results. He said any type of pressure for the participants to give certain answers would jade the results of the study. For this reason, they would not have accepted referrals from the Honor Code office even if they had been given. There was also a strict separation between what they did and what the honor code office knew about so as to remove any possibility of "pretending" to have certain results to please the honor code office. As reported in the thesis, participants could drop out at any time for whatever reason, as evidenced by the fact that some did.

====Did the Church perform aversion therapy?====

The Church has never conducted aversion therapy. It doesn't conduct psychological therapy of any type. The LDS Church is a church, not a medical institution. People who happen to be LDS or go to BYU do a great variety of things. The Church does not take responsibility for everything done by a Mormon or for everything done by someone at BYU (not everyone at BYU is a Mormon).

In this particular case, a graduate student and his faculty mentor at Brigham Young University conducted a clinical study in the use of aversion therapy to treat ego-dystonic homosexuality. Ego-dystonic homosexuality is a condition where an individual's same-sex attraction is in conflict with his idealized self-image, creating anxiety and a desire to change. At the time, the American Psychiatric Society considered ego-dystonic homosexuality to be a mental illness, and aversion therapy was one of the standard treatments. Experiments were only run on those who had expressed a desire for the therapy, and all of the subjects indicated they had improved as a result of the therapy. The experiments adhered to the professional standards of the time. As stated in the paper that reported the results of this research, the research was never endorsed by BYU.

LDS Church leadership does not dictate nor oversee the details of scientific research at Brigham Young University. Like many universities, there are many different research projects going on with many different views on many different subjects. The Church is not responsible for every view held by one of its researchers. The church itself has never recommended aversion therapy.

The church has posted on its website an interview with the following quote:

:"The Church rarely takes a position on which treatment techniques are appropriate for medical doctors or for psychiatrists or psychologists and so on. The second point is that there are abusive practices that have been used in connection with various mental attitudes or feelings. Over-medication in respect to depression is an example that comes to mind. The aversive therapies that have been used in connection with same-sex attraction have contained some serious abuses that have been recognized over time within the professions. While we have no position about what the medical doctors do (except in very, very rare cases — abortion would be such an example), we are conscious that there are abuses and we don’t accept responsibility for those abuses. Even though they are addressed at helping people we would like to see helped, we can’t endorse every kind of technique that’s been used."

President Kimball once cited reputable medical sources indicating that the practice of homosexuality could be abandoned through treatments, but he did not specify any treatments by name. The point President Kimball wanted to make, and that the church still makes, is that sexual actions can and must be controlled.

=== Church's relationship to BYU ===

The church does not direct or oversee scientific research at BYU and does not mandate what experiments are to be done or not to be done. At BYU, as at other universities, students and professors have a variety of opinions and approaches and have significant freedom to pursue their own academic interests.

As an example, retired BYU professor William Bradshaw has presented biological evidence supporting his view that homosexuality is not an acquired tendency and lifestyle.[http://newsnet.byu.edu/story.cfm/49488] Bradshaw is free to share this view at BYU even though the church does not have a particular position on the causes of same-sex attraction and certainly believes that the lifestyles we follow represent a choice.

In the 1970's, there were a variety of opinions about how to treat mental disorders. Some professors and students were partial to the behaviorist movement to treat mental illnesses while others focused on verbal therapy. Today, the APA recommends cognitive therapies to help people who feel distress about their sexual orientation, but, in the 1970s, it was unclear which approach was best. If a professor or a graduate student favored one approach over another, it was because they favored that approach, not because it was mandated by the LDS Church.

=== Academic freedom at BYU ===
{{Main|Mormonism and education}}

The fact is that every member of the BYU community is free to espouse his or her own theories. As long as they remain in line with standards published by the professional societies and with the school’s academic freedom policy, all are free to pursue their own line of thinking. Actually, this situation is one of the requirements for university accreditation, and BYU is an accredited university.

It should also be remembered that, contrary to the popular caricature of the church, Latter-Day Saints are encouraged to think for themselves and find their own answers to questions, without coercion from church leadership. Doctrine and Covenants 58:26 reads:

:For behold, it is not meet that I should command in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant; wherefore he receiveth no reward.

And it was Joseph Smith himself who famously said:

:I want the liberty of thinking and believing as I please. It feels so good not to be trammeled. [History of the Church 5:340]

==Aversion therapy==

=== Aversion therapy is a standard technique ===

Aversion therapy is still used today for a variety of treatments, such as gambling, smoking, alcoholism, and violence. A 2010 article in Psychology Today states "To date, aversion therapy using shock and nausea is the only technique of quitting [smoking] that offers decent gambling odds." {{ref|smoking1}} The Encyclopedia of Mental Disorders has this entry for aversion therapy:

:A patient who consults a behavior therapist for aversion therapy can expect a fairly standard set of procedures. The therapist begins by assessing the problem, most likely measuring its frequency, severity, and the environment in which the undesirable behavior occurs. Although the therapeutic relationship is not the focus of treatment for the behavior therapist, therapists in this tradition believe that good rapport will facilitate a successful outcome. A positive relationship is also necessary to establish the patient's confidence in the rationale for exposing him or her to an uncomfortable stimulus. The therapist will design a treatment protocol and explain it to the patient. The most important choice the therapist makes is the type of aversive stimulus to employ. Depending upon the behavior to be changed, the preferred aversive stimulus is often electric stimulation delivered to the forearm or leg. {{ref|minddisorders1}}

Over the years, the methods have been refined and approved. Today, we have decades of research that were not available in the 1970s, giving us a better understanding of where aversion therapy would be effective and where it would not be effective. The methods of the 1970s may seem crude compared to today's standards, but today's standards will probably seem crude in another 40 years. Forms of aversion therapy are still used today by mainstream psychologists to treat a variety of conditions.

=== History of therapy and homosexuality ===

Homosexuality was once illegal in many countries, and those convicted were forced into various therapies against their wills.[http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/sep/11/pm-apology-to-alan-turing]

In 1966, Martin E.P. Seligman conducted a study at the University of Pennsylvania which showed positive results in applying aversion therapy to help people stop engaging in homosexual behavior. According to Seligman, this led to "a great burst of enthusiasm about changing homosexuality [that] swept over the therapeutic community." {{ref|seligman.156}} Research was conducted by researchers at many institutions, including universities like Harvard and King's College in London.

Historically, there were two types of homosexuality that were treated, ego-dystonic homosexuality and ego-syntonic homosexuality. Ego-dystonic homosexuality is a condition where an individual's same-sex attraction is in conflict with his idealized self-image, creating anxiety and a desire to change. Ego-syntonic homosexuality describes a situation where the subject is content with his or her sexual orientation. Ego-dystonic homosexuality was considered a mental illness by the American Psychological Association (APA) until 1987, and an ego-dystonic sexual orientation is still considered a mental illness by the World Health Organization ([http://apps.who.int/classifications/apps/icd/icd10online/?gf60.htm+f661 F66.1]). {{ref|icd10online1}}

Even after the APA declassified ego-dystonic homosexuality as mental illness, aversion therapy could still be used to treat distress over sexual orientation, though not the sexual orientation itself. Persistent and marked distress about sexual orientation is still classified as a sexual disorder in the DSM-IV under ''Sexual Disorder Not Otherwise Specified'' (302.9). It was not until 1994, that the American Medical Association issued a report that stated "aversion therapy is no longer recommended for gay men and lesbians" {{ref|ama1}} and it was not until 2006 that using aversion therapy to treat homosexuality became a violation of the codes of conduct and professional guidelines of the American Psychological Association and American Psychiatric Association.

In 2009, a task force was commissioned by the American Psychological Association to investigate therapies used to treat homosexuality, including aversion therapy. They reported:

:Early research on efforts to change sexual orientation focused heavily on interventions that include aversion techniques. Many of these studies did not set out to investigate harm. Nonetheless, these studies provide some suggestion that harm can occur from aversive efforts to change sexual orientation...

:We conclude that there is a dearth of scientifically sound research on the safety of SOCE [sexual orientation change efforts]. Early and recent research studies provide no clear indication of the prevalence of harmful outcomes among people who have undergone efforts to change their sexual orientation or the frequency of occurrence of harm because no study to date of adequate scientific rigor has been explicitly designed to do so. Thus, we cannot conclude how likely it is that harm will occur from SOCE. However, studies from both periods indicate that attempts to change sexual orientation may cause or exacerbate distress and poor mental health in some individuals, including depression and suicidal thoughts. The lack of rigorous research on the safety of SOCE represents a serious concern, as do studies that report perceptions of harm (cf. Lilienfeld, 2007). {{ref|apa1}}

Ego-syntonic homosexuality was not addressed in the BYU studies, though it was a subject of research performed at other institutions. Furthermore, BYU only treated adults. Other institutions, such as UCLA, treated children as young as 6.[http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0005796777901024]

=== Aversion therapy at other institutions ===

A significant number of hospitals and universities historically offered aversion therapy as a way to treat homosexuality. It would be impossible to list all of them, but here are a few of the major places where people were involved in research using aversion therapy to treat homosexuality:

<center>
{| valign="top" border="1" style="width:90%"
!Author!!Year!!Number!!Institution!!Type!!Publication!!References and Notes
|-
|

=====Max=====
||
1935
||
?
||
New York University
||
Aversion therapy
||
''Psychological bulletin''
||

*Max, Louis William. "Breaking Up a Homosexual Fixation by the Conditioned Reaction Technique: A Case Study," Psychological Bulletin (Washington, D.C.), Vol. 32 (1935): p. 734·
|-
|

=====Freund=====
||
1960
||
67
||
University of Toronto
||
Aversion apomorphine therapy
||
''Adult sexual interest in children''
||

*Kurt Freund, [http://www.mhamic.org/sources/freund.htm "Assessment of pedophilia,"] in Cook, M. & Howells, K. (eds.), ''Adult sexual interest in children'', London: Academic Press, 1981, pp. 139-179.
|-
|

=====James=====
||
1962
||
1
||
Glenside Hospital (Bristol, U.K.)
||
Aversion apomorphine therapy
||
''British Medical Journal''
||

*BASIL JAMES, M.B., B.Ch., B.Sc., D.P.M., [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1957923/pdf/brmedj02859-0056.pdf "CASE OF HOMOSEXUALITY TREATED BY AVERSION THERAPY"] ''British Medical Journal,'' MARCH 17, 1962, p. 768. This study, published in 1962, reported a on the treatment of a single 40-year-old male.
|-
|

=====Miller=====
||
1963
||
4
||
Howard University
||
Hypnotic-Aversion
||
''Journal of the National Medical Association''
||

*Miller, Michael M. [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2642357/pdf/jnma00681-0043.pdf "Hypnotic-Aversion Treatment of Homosexuality,"] Journal of the National Medical Association. Vol. 55, no. 5 (1963): p. 4II-15, 436. (P. 4II-13, 415.)
|-
|

=====Thorpe, Schmidt, Brown, Castell=====
||
1964
||
-
||
Banstead Hospital
||
Imaginary aversive therapy
||
''Behavior Research Therapy''
||

*J. G. Thorpe, E. Schmidt, P. T. Brown and D. Castell, [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0005796764900580 "Aversion-relief therapy: A new method for general application,"] ''Behavior Research and Therapy,'' Volume 2, Issue 1, May 1964, Pages 71-82
|-
|

=====Golda, Neufelda=====
||
1964
||
39
||
Guy's Hospital
||
Imaginary aversive therapy
||
''Behavior Research Therapy''
||

*Golda and Neufelda, [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0005796764900166 "A learning approach to the treatment of homosexuality,"] ''Behavior Research and Therapy,'' 1964 October 20.
|-
|

=====McGuire, Vallance=====
||
1965
||
39
||
Southern General Hospital
||
Aversive shock therapy
||
''British Medical Journal''
||

*R. J. McGuire and M. Vallance, [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1812608/?page=1 "Aversion Therapy by Electric Shock: a Simple Technique,"] ''British Medical Journal,'' 1964 January 18; 1(5376): 151–153.
|-
|

=====MacCulloch, Pinschof & Feldman=====
||
1965
||
4
||
Crumpsall Hospital, Manchester, UK
||
Anticipatory avoidance with aversion shock therapy
||
''Behavior Research and Therapy''
||
*MacCulloch, M. J., Feldman, M. P. and Pinschof, J. M., “The application of anticipatory avoidance learning to the treatment of homosexuality—III : The sexual orientation method,"] ''Behaviour Research and Therapy'' Volume 4, Issue 4, November 1966, Pages 289-299
|-
|

=====Solyom & Miller=====
||
1965
||
6
||
Allan Memorial Institute
||
Aversion shock therapy
||
''Behavior Research and Therapy''
||

*Solyom, L., & Miller, S. (1965) A differential conditioning procedure as the initial phase of the behavior therapy of homosexuality. ''Behavior Research and Therapy'', 3, 147-160.
|-
|

=====MacCulloch & Feldman=====
||
1967
||
43
||
Crumpsall Hospital (Manchester, U.K.)
||
Anticipatory avoidance with aversion shock therapy
||
''British Medical Journal''
||

*M. J. MacCulloch and M. P. Feldman, [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1842087/?page=1 "Aversion therapy in management of 43 homosexuals."], ''British Medical Journal'' 1967 June 3; 2(5552): 594–597. This study was published in 1967, and involved 43 male test subjects.
|-
|

=====Bancroft & Marks=====
||
1968
||
-
||
Institute of Psychiatry and Maudsley Hospital
||
Electric aversion therapy
||
''Proceedings of the Royal Society of Medicine''
||

*Bancroft & Marks, [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1902433/pdf/procrsmed00153-0074.pdf "Electric aversion therapy of sexual deviations."], ''Proc R Soc Med.'' 1968 August; 61(8): 796–799
|-
|

=====Fookes=====
||
1969
||
27
||
?
||
aversion shock therapy
||
''British Journal of Psychiatry''
||

*B.H. Fookes, [http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/citation/115/520/339 "Some Experiences in the Use of Aversion Therapy in Male Homosexuality, Exhibitionism and Fetishism-Transvestism,"] ''The British Journal of Psychiatry'' (1969) 115: 339-341.
|-
|

=====Bancroft=====
||
1969
||
16
||
?
||
aversive shock therapy
||
''The British Journal of Psychiatry''
||

*JOHN BANCROFT M.B., M.R.C.P., D.P.M. [http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/abstract/115/529/1417 "Aversion Therapy of Homosexuality,"] ''The British Journal of Psychiatry'' (1969) 115: 1417-1431.
|-
|

=====McConaghy=====
||
1969
||
40
||
The University of New South Wales
||
aversion apomorphine therapy
||
''The British Journal of Psychiatry''
||

*N. McConaghy M.D., B.Sc., D.P.M., [http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/abstract/115/523/723 "Subjective and Penile Plethysmograph Responses Following Aversion-Relief and Apomorphine Aversion Therapy for Homosexual Impulses,"] ''The British Journal of Psychiatry'' (1969) 115: 723-730.
|-
|

=====Barlow=====
||
1973
||
-
||
The University of Mississippi
||
Variety
||
''Behavior Therapy''
||

*Barlow, David H, [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0005789473801583 "Increasing heterosexual responsiveness in the treatment of sexual deviation: A review of the clinical and experimental evidence,"] ''Behavior Therapy'' Volume 4, Issue 5, October 1973, Pages 655-671
|-
|

=====Birk, Huddleston, Miller, & Cohler=====
||
1971
||
18
||
Joint project from Harvard and University of Chicago
||
Aversive shock therapy vs. associative conditioning
||
''Archives of General Psychiatry''
|| 

*Lee Birk, MD; William Huddleston, JD; Elizabeth Miller; Bertram Cohler, PhD, [http://archpsyc.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/25/4/314 "Avoidance Conditioning for Homosexuality,"] ''Archives of General Psychiatry.'' 1971;25(4):314-323. This study, published in 1971, involved eight treated subjects and eight placebo subjects. A follow-up study was conducted two years after the original treatment. The study was published in the ''Archives of General Psychiatry''.
|-
|

=====Feldman, MacCulloch, & Orford=====
||
1971
||
63
||
Crumpsall Hospital
||
Aversive therapy
||
-
|| 

*Feldman, M. P., MacCulloch, M. J., & Orford, J. E (1971) Conclusions and speculations. In M. P. Feldman & M. J. MacCulloch, Homosexual behaviour: Therapy and assessment (pp. 156-188), New York: Pergamon Press.
|-
|

=====Colson=====
||
1972
||
1
||
Illinois State University
||
Olfactory aversion therapy
||
''Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry''
||

*Charles E. Colson, [http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/0005791672900717 "Olfactory aversion therapy for homosexual behavior,"] ''Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry'' Volume 3, Issue 3, September 1972, Pages 185-187. Concluded that olfactory aversion therapy provides many advantages over more traditional forms.
|-
|

=====Segal & Sims=====
||
1972
||
1
||
Murray State University
||
Covert Sensitization
||
''Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology''
||

*Segal, Bernard; Sims, Joseph, [http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=buy.optionToBuy&id=1973-05206-001 "Covert sensitization with a homosexual: A controlled replication,"] ''Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology'', Vol 39(2), Oct 1972, 259-263.
|-
|

=====Hallam & Rachman=====
||
1972
||
7
||
King's College, London
||
aversion shock therapy
||
''Behaviour Research and Therapy''
||

*R.S. Hallam and S. Rachman, [http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0005796772800111 "Some effects of aversion therapy on patients with sexual disorders,"] ''Behaviour Research and Therapy'' Volume 10, Issue 2, 1972, Pages 171-180.
|-
|

=====Hanson & Adesso=====
||
1972
||
1
||
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
||
Desensitization and aversive counter-conditioning
||
''Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry''
||

*Richard W. Hanson, and Vincent J. Adesso, [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V5V-46KC6WM-1D&_user=10&_coverDate=12%2F31%2F1972&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=32d542dfb72d160bd92504744f3ef810&searchtype=a "A multiple behavioral approach to male homosexual behavior: A case study"], ''Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry'' Volume 3, Issue 4, December 1972, Pages 323-325. This study took place in 1972, involved a single male subject, and included a follow-up six months from the original treatment. The study was published in the Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry.
|-
|

=====McConaghy, Proctor, & Barr=====
||
1972
||
40
||
Prince Henry Hospital (Sydney, Australia)
||
Apomorphine aversion conditioning
||
''Archives of Sexual Behavior''
||
*N. McConaghy, D. Proctor, and R. Barr, [http://www.springerlink.com/content/b3vn626u58170811/ "Subjective and penile plethysmography responses to aversion therapy for homosexuality: A partial replication"], ''Archives of Sexual Behavior,'' Volume 2, Number 1, 1972, Pages 65-78. This study used both aversion and positive conditioning toward heterosexuality. A six-month follow-up indicated some success in half the subjects.
|-
|

=====Callahan & Leitenberg=====
||
1973
||
23
||
Carmarillo State Hosp., California
||
aversion shock therapy
||
''The Journal of Abnormal Psychology''
||

*Callahan EJ, Leitenberg H., [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/4690218 "Aversion therapy for sexual deviation: contingent shock and covert sensitization.,"] ''Journal of Abnormal Psychology,'' 1973 Feb;81(1):60-73.; [http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/abn/81/1/60/ "Aversion therapy for sexual deviation: Contingent shock and covert sensitization."] This study, published in 1973, involved six test subjects. Follow-up study took place four to eighteen months later. The study was published in The Journal of Abnormal Psychology.
|-
|

=====McConaghy & Barr=====
||
1973
||
46
||
University of New South Wales, Institute of Psychiatry of New South Wales
||
Classical conditioning, avoidance conditioning
||
''The British Journal of Psychiatry''
||
*N. McConaghy and R. F. Barr, [http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/abstract/122/567/151 "Classical, Avoidance and Backward Conditioning Treatments of Homosexuality,"] ''The British Journal of Psychiatry'' (1973) 122: 151-162. This study concluded that homosexual feelings decreased for half the subjects, and also that the aversive conditioning worked, but not by setting up conditioned reflexes.
|-
|

=====Tanner=====
||
1974
||
16
||
Center for Behavior Change
||
aversion shock therapy
||
''Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry''
||

*Barry A. Tanner, [http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/0005791673900542 "Aversive shock issues: Physical danger, emotional harm, effectiveness and “dehumanization”,"] ''Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry'' Volume 4, Issue 2, June 1973, Pages 113-115 Concluded that aversion therapy was safe.
|-
|

=====McConaghy=====
||
1975
||
31
||
University of New South Wales
||
Aversion shock therapy
||
''Behaviour Research and Therapy''
||

*N. McConaghy, [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V5W-45WYX82-S4&_user=10&_coverDate=10%2F31%2F1975&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1694330612&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=ed364f1af60d24e2df8a32e2c4ece0cf&searchtype=a "Aversive and positive conditioning treatments of homosexuality"], ''Behaviour Research and Therapy'' Volume 13, Issue 4, October 1975, pages 309-319 This study used both aversive conditioning against homosexuality and also positive conditioning toward heterosexuality. It concluded that the positive conditioning was ineffective.
|-
|

=====Tanner=====
||
1975
||
16
||
Northeast Guidance Center
||
Aversion shock therapy
||
''Behavior Therapy''
||

*Barry A. Tanner, [http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0005789475801870 "Avoidance training with and without booster sessions to modify homosexual behavior in males,"] ''Behavior Therapy'', Volume 6, Issue 5, October 1975, Pages 649-653.
|-
|

=====Freeman & Meyer=====
||
1975
||
9
||
University of Louisville
||
Aversion shock therapy
||
''Behavior Therapy''
||

*William Freeman, a and Robert G. Meyer, [http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0005789475801420 "A behavioral alteration of sexual preferences in the human male,"] ''Behavior Therapy'' Volume 6, Issue 2, March 1975, Pages 206-212.
|-
|

=====McConaghy=====
||
1976
||
157
||
University of New South Wales
||
Aversion apomorphine therapy
||
''The British Journal of Psychiatry''
||
*N McConaghy, [http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/abstract/129/6/556 "Is a homosexual orientation irreversible?"], ''The British Journal of Psychiatry'' 129: 556-563 (1976)
|-
|

=====James=====
||
1978
||
40
||
Hollymoor Hospital, England
||
Anticipatory avoidance, desensitization, hypnosis, anticipatory avoidance
||
''Behavior Therapy''
||
*Sheelah James, [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B7XMW-4K605K5-5&_user=10&_coverDate=01%2F31%2F1978&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1697125903&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=7c60d59837514f05db0637bd232173f9&searchtype=a "Treatment of homosexuality II. Superiority of desensitization/arousal as compared with anticipatory avoidance conditioning: Results of a controlled trial,"] ''Behavior Therapy'' Volume 9, Issue 1, January 1978, Pages 28-36
|-
|

=====McConaghy, Armstrong, & Blaszczynski=====
||
1981
||
20
||
University of New South Wales
||
Aversive therapy
||
''Behavior Research and Therapy''
||
*McConaghy, N., Armstrong, M. S., & Blaszczynski, A. [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V5W-45XTVVT-89&_user=10&_coverDate=12%2F31%2F1981&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=ad84d4c34eba76377747e4f0a56795e1&searchtype=a "Controlled comparison of aversive therapy and covert sensitization in compulsive homosexuality,"] ''Behavior Research and Therapy'', 19, 1981. 425-434.
|-
|}
</center>

=== Purpose of psychological therapy ===

The purpose of therapy is to help patients towards their desired goals. One of the fundamentals in the field is patient self-determination. It is the patient who sets the goals, not the therapist. Aversion therapy, which is still administered today to help smokers, is not administered as a way to torture the subjects for smoking, but to help them achieve their goal of being smoke-free. Similarly, the therapy at BYU was administered to people who felt distress about their sexual lives. The purpose of the therapy was to relieve that stress. The volunteers for the study sought help to change their homosexuality and medical associations of that time recommended this therapy as just one among several.

An analysis of similar aversion therapy studies indicate that they may have caused or exacerbated distress and poor mental health, especially depression and suicidal thoughts. (For more information on suicides, see [[Mormonism and gender issues/Same-sex attraction/Suicide|Same-sex attraction/Suicide]].) Whether or not these effects were experienced by the participants at the studies run at BYU could not be determined. There is an inherent risk in therapy for mental illnesses. As with many experiments, the risks were not fully understood at the time they were being run.

=={{Endnotes label}}==

#{{note|smoking1}}Nigel Barber, Ph.D., [http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-human-beast/201002/smoking-most-effective-quitting-technique-little-known "Smoking: Most effective quitting technique little known,"] February 17, 2010
#{{note|minddisorders1}} [http://www.minddisorders.com/A-Br/Aversion-therapy.html "Aversion Therapy,"] ''Encyclopedia of Mental Disorders''

#{{note|seligman.156}} Seligman, Martin E.P., ''What You Can Change and What You Can't: The Complete Guide to Self Improvement'' Knopf, 1993; ISBN 0-679-41024-4, p. 156

#{{note|icd10online1}}[http://apps.who.int/classifications/apps/icd/icd10online/?gf60.htm+f661 "Mental and behavioural disorders,"] ''International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems'', 10th Revision Version for 2007

#{{note|ama1}} "Health Care Needs of Gay Men and Lesbians in the U.S.," American Medical Association Report, 1994

#{{note|apa1}}[http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/therapeutic-response.pdf "APA Task Force on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation."] (2009). ''Report of the Task Force on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation.'' Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

{{FurtherReading}}

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

Homosexuality and the Church of Jesus Christ/Aversion therapy performed at BYU

2013-03-12T01:51:13Z

RonHellings1: /* {{Conclusion label}} */

{{Articles FAIR copyright}} {{Articles Header 1}} {{Articles Header 2}} {{Articles Header 3}} {{Articles Header 4}} {{Articles Header 5}} {{Articles Header 6}} {{Articles Header 7}} {{Articles Header 8}} {{Articles Header 9}} {{Articles Header 10}}
{{SSAPortal}}
=Homosexual aversion therapy performed at BYU in the 1970's=
=={{Question label}}==

* Did the Church ever conduct aversion therapy?
* What was the history of BYU and aversion therapy for treating homosexuality?
* Did BYU ever use vomitting as part of therapy?
* Did BYU ever force students to undergo therapy?
* How did that relate to medical and psychological science as understood at that time?
* What was the role of the Church in BYU's treatments?

=={{Conclusion label}}==

The Church never conducted aversion therapies of any sort. They never recommended it, and they never mandated it.

Like many other places in the western world, aversion therapy was conducted at BYU in the 1970s. At this time, aversion therapy was applied to a number of behaviors. At BYU the therapy was conducted following standards published by professional societies and unlike other places, it was only conducted on adults who gave their permission. The Church does not oversee research at BYU.

* [http://www.fairblog.org/2012/01/04/fair-examination-6-overcoming-same-sex-attraction-blake-smith/ FAIR Examination 6 - Overcoming same-sex attraction - Blake Smith] - FAIR podcast of an LDS man who underwent aversion therapy at Byu-Idaho in 1973
* [http://www.fairblog.org/2012/02/01/fair-examination-8-aversion-therapy-at-byu-dr-eugene-thorne/ FAIR Examination 8 - Aversion therapy at BYU - Dr. Eugene Thorne] - FAIR podcast featuring Dr. Thorne, who oversaw aversion therapy studies at BYU, including that of Dr. McBride.

== ==
{{Response label}}
=== Aversion therapy at BYU ===

In the mid-1970s a graduate student, Max McBride, conducted a study entitled ''Effect of Visual Stimuli in Electric Aversion Therapy''. It appears that the study was conducted during 1974 and 1975 with the average length of treatment during the study being three months. The results of this study were published in August 1976 as McBride's PhD dissertation in the BYU Department of Psychology. McBride's research has recently been sensationalized and several incorrect claims have been made about his study. The following facts need to be kept in mind as the study is evaluated.

:Basis for the study. BYU did not pioneer the use of aversion therapy as a treatment for homosexuality and it ceased use of the therapy decades before the APA stopped recommending the practice. BYU was one of many places where research in this area was done. McBride's dissertation contains over 17 pages of documentation discussing other studies from across the discipline in which aversion therapy had previously been applied to male homosexuality. In fact, the purpose of the McBride's study was not to determine the effectiveness of aversion therapy in treating homosexuality. That question was generally accepted, at the time, to have been satisfactorily answered in the positive as a result of previous studies at other institutions.

:Supervision. The study was conducted under the supervision of Dr. D. Eugene Thorne, who also served as McBride's PhD committee chairman. All study procedures followed common medical practice. McBride acknowledges the assistance of medical professionals at the Salt Lake City Veterans Hospital in designing the study and completing the statistical analysis.

:Population. The study was limited to ego-dystonic homosexuality and did not involve any treatment of ego-syntonic homosexuality. The volunteers for McBride's study were all men whose same-sex attraction was contrary to their desires and who wanted to change their sexual orientation.

:Subjects. McBride discusses the subjects chosen in the following excerpt from his dissertation:

::Seventeen male subjects were used in the study, 14 completed treatment. Selection was on the basis of clinical evidence of homosexuality; absence of psychosis (no prior history); desire for treatment; no history of epilepsy, alcoholism or drug addiction.

:Disclosure. McBride describes the procedures used to ensure full disclosure of what the subjects were to expect. We quote from his dissertation:

::It was mandatory that all subjects chosen to participate sign and have witnessed a prepared statement explaining (a) the experimental nature of the treatment procedure, (b) the use of aversive electric shock, (c) the showing of 35 mm slides that might be construed by subject as possibly offensive, and (d) that Brigham Young University was not in any direct way endorsing the procedures used. This was to insure that all subjects were in full agreement and understanding as to what the treatment procedure would involve, provide and demand from them.

:Nature of the study. The techniques used by McBride followed the standard aversion therapy procedures of the time. The volunteers were subjected to electric shocks applied to their upper arms while being shown both clothed and nude pictures of men. They were able to choose to end the shocks by switching to nude and clothed pictures of women.

:Materials. The materials used in the study consisted of nude pictures of men and women and pictures of clothed men and women taken from current fashion magazines. None of the pictures displayed or even implied sexual acts. In fact, the thing being investigated in McBride’s study was not the effectiveness of aversion therapy, but the relative value of clothed versus nude pictures in this type of therapeutic procedure.

In the years since the study, some of the study participants have talked publicly about their experiences. Many of these reports are troubling to read, as are similar reports from participants in studies at other universities and facilities of the time. While it seems likely that the McBride study was traumatic to some of the individuals involved, it must be remembered that participation in the study was voluntary, each participant had a clear explanation beforehand what the study would entail, and participants could leave the study at any time they wanted. Indeed, three of the seventeen participants in the study did not remain to its completion. These points are not mentioned to minimize the experiences of these participants in any manner; they are only made so that the professional and ethical context of the study can be properly evaluated.

It is also important to note that aversion therapy as a treatment for homosexuality was not a major element of BYU research. In the APA task force report, BYU's contribution to the field of aversion therapy was not covered. This is probably because BYU's involvement was too minor to include. Other universities had more participants and many conducted their studies later than BYU.

==== Vomiting was not used ====
McBride's thesis thoroughly describes the methods used to induce aversion. He did not use vomiting. This fact is verified in the interview with Dr. Thorne, available as the FAIR podcast referenced above, as well as by a specific statement to this effect from BYU:

:The BYU Counseling Center never practiced therapy that would involve chemical or induced vomiting.[http://abcnews.go.com/Health/mormon-gay-cures-reparative-therapies-shock-today/story?id=13240700&page=2#.TzrMQ1wS2Sw]

Most of the accusations of using induced vomiting come from: 1) a person who admits that he never underwent therapy and 2) from the "documentary" 8: The Mormon Proposition (which contains several false accusations as detailed [[Criticism of Mormonism/Video/8: The Mormon Proposition|here]]). These two accounts are not consistent with each other. In short, there is no reliable documentation of the use of induced vomiting at BYU.

====Participation was voluntary====

Aversion therapy was completely voluntary at BYU. Participants could enter and leave as they wish. In an interview with FAIR, Dr. Thorne explained that the voluntary nature was essential to get scientific results. He said any type of pressure for the participants to give certain answers would jade the results of the study. For this reason, they would not have accepted referrals from the Honor Code office even if they had been given. There was also a strict separation between what they did and what the honor code office knew about so as to remove any possibility of "pretending" to have certain results to please the honor code office. As reported in the thesis, participants could drop out at any time for whatever reason, as evidenced by the fact that some did.

====Did the Church perform aversion therapy?====

The Church has never conducted aversion therapy. It doesn't conduct psychological therapy of any type. The LDS Church is a church, not a medical institution. People who happen to be LDS or go to BYU do a great variety of things. The Church does not take responsibility for everything done by a Mormon or for everything done by someone at BYU (not everyone at BYU is a Mormon).

In this particular case, a graduate student and his faculty mentor at Brigham Young University conducted a clinical study in the use of aversion therapy to treat ego-dystonic homosexuality. Ego-dystonic homosexuality is a condition where an individual's same-sex attraction is in conflict with his idealized self-image, creating anxiety and a desire to change. At the time, the American Psychiatric Society considered ego-dystonic homosexuality to be a mental illness, and aversion therapy was one of the standard treatments. Experiments were only run on those who had expressed a desire for the therapy, and all of the subjects indicated they had improved as a result of the therapy. The experiments adhered to the professional standards of the time. As stated in the paper that reported the results of this research, the research was never endorsed by BYU.

LDS Church leadership does not dictate nor oversee the details of scientific research at Brigham Young University. Like many universities, there are many different research projects going on with many different views on many different subjects. The Church is not responsible for every view held by one of its researchers. The church itself has never recommended aversion therapy.

The church has posted on its website an interview with the following quote:

:"The Church rarely takes a position on which treatment techniques are appropriate for medical doctors or for psychiatrists or psychologists and so on. The second point is that there are abusive practices that have been used in connection with various mental attitudes or feelings. Over-medication in respect to depression is an example that comes to mind. The aversive therapies that have been used in connection with same-sex attraction have contained some serious abuses that have been recognized over time within the professions. While we have no position about what the medical doctors do (except in very, very rare cases — abortion would be such an example), we are conscious that there are abuses and we don’t accept responsibility for those abuses. Even though they are addressed at helping people we would like to see helped, we can’t endorse every kind of technique that’s been used."

President Kimball once cited reputable medical sources indicating that the practice of homosexuality could be abandoned through treatments, but he did not specify any treatments by name. The point President Kimball wanted to make, and that the church still makes, is that sexual actions can and must be controlled.

=== Church's relationship to BYU ===

The church does not direct or oversee scientific research at BYU and does not mandate what experiments are to be done or not to be done. At BYU, as at other universities, students and professors have a variety of opinions and approaches and have significant freedom to pursue their own academic interests.

As an example, retired BYU professor William Bradshaw has presented biological evidence supporting his view that homosexuality is not an acquired tendency and lifestyle.[http://newsnet.byu.edu/story.cfm/49488] Bradshaw is free to share this view at BYU even though the church does not have a particular position on the causes of same-sex attraction and certainly believes that the lifestyles we follow represent a choice.

In the 1970's, there were a variety of opinions about how to treat mental disorders. Some professors and students were partial to the behaviorist movement to treat mental illnesses while others focused on verbal therapy. Today, the APA recommends cognitive therapies to help people who feel distress about their sexual orientation, but, in the 1970s, it was unclear which approach was best. If a professor or a graduate student favored one approach over another, it was because they favored that approach, not because it was mandated by the LDS Church.

=== Academic freedom at BYU ===
{{Main|Mormonism and education}}

The fact is that every member of the BYU community is free to espouse his or her own theories. As long as they remain in line with standards published by the professional societies and with the school’s academic freedom policy, all are free to pursue their own line of thinking. Actually, this situation is one of the requirements for university accreditation, and BYU is an accredited university.

It should also be remembered that, contrary to the popular caricature of the church, Latter-Day Saints are encouraged to think for themselves and find their own answers to questions, without coercion from church leadership. Doctrine and Covenants 58:26 reads:

:For behold, it is not meet that I should command in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant; wherefore he receiveth no reward.

And it was Joseph Smith himself who famously said:

:I want the liberty of thinking and believing as I please. It feels so good not to be trammeled. [History of the Church 5:340]

==Aversion therapy==

=== Aversion therapy is a standard technique ===

Aversion therapy is still used today for a variety of treatments, such as gambling, smoking, alcoholism, and violence. A 2010 article in Psychology Today states "To date, aversion therapy using shock and nausea is the only technique of quitting [smoking] that offers decent gambling odds." {{ref|smoking1}} The Encyclopedia of Mental Disorders has this entry for aversion therapy:

:A patient who consults a behavior therapist for aversion therapy can expect a fairly standard set of procedures. The therapist begins by assessing the problem, most likely measuring its frequency, severity, and the environment in which the undesirable behavior occurs. Although the therapeutic relationship is not the focus of treatment for the behavior therapist, therapists in this tradition believe that good rapport will facilitate a successful outcome. A positive relationship is also necessary to establish the patient's confidence in the rationale for exposing him or her to an uncomfortable stimulus. The therapist will design a treatment protocol and explain it to the patient. The most important choice the therapist makes is the type of aversive stimulus to employ. Depending upon the behavior to be changed, the preferred aversive stimulus is often electric stimulation delivered to the forearm or leg. {{ref|minddisorders1}}

Over the years, the methods have been refined and approved. Today, we have decades of research that were not available in the 1970s, giving us a better understanding of where aversion therapy would be effective and where it would not be effective. The methods of the 1970s may seem crude compared to today's standards, but today's standards will probably seem crude in another 40 years. Forms of aversion therapy are still used today by mainstream psychologists to treat a variety of conditions.

=== History of therapy and homosexuality ===

Homosexuality was once illegal in many countries, and those convicted were forced into various therapies against their wills.[http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/sep/11/pm-apology-to-alan-turing]

In 1966, Martin E.P. Seligman conducted a study at the University of Pennsylvania which showed positive results in applying aversion therapy to help people stop engaging in homosexual behavior. According to Seligman, this led to "a great burst of enthusiasm about changing homosexuality [that] swept over the therapeutic community." {{ref|seligman.156}} Research was conducted by researchers at many institutions, including universities like Harvard and King's College in London.

Historically, there were two types of homosexuality that were treated, ego-dystonic homosexuality and ego-syntonic homosexuality. Ego-dystonic homosexuality is a condition where an individual's same-sex attraction is in conflict with his idealized self-image, creating anxiety and a desire to change. Ego-syntonic homosexuality describes a situation where the subject is content with his or her sexual orientation. Ego-dystonic homosexuality was considered a mental illness by the American Psychological Association (APA) until 1987, and an ego-dystonic sexual orientation is still considered a mental illness by the World Health Organization ([http://apps.who.int/classifications/apps/icd/icd10online/?gf60.htm+f661 F66.1]). {{ref|icd10online1}}

Even after the APA declassified ego-dystonic homosexuality as mental illness, aversion therapy could still be used to treat distress over sexual orientation, though not the sexual orientation itself. Persistent and marked distress about sexual orientation is still classified as a sexual disorder in the DSM-IV under ''Sexual Disorder Not Otherwise Specified'' (302.9). It was not until 1994, that the American Medical Association issued a report that stated "aversion therapy is no longer recommended for gay men and lesbians" {{ref|ama1}} and it was not until 2006 that using aversion therapy to treat homosexuality became a violation of the codes of conduct and professional guidelines of the American Psychological Association and American Psychiatric Association.

In 2009, a task force was commissioned by the American Psychological Association to investigate therapies used to treat homosexuality, including aversion therapy. They reported:

:Early research on efforts to change sexual orientation focused heavily on interventions that include aversion techniques. Many of these studies did not set out to investigate harm. Nonetheless, these studies provide some suggestion that harm can occur from aversive efforts to change sexual orientation...

:We conclude that there is a dearth of scientifically sound research on the safety of SOCE [sexual orientation change efforts]. Early and recent research studies provide no clear indication of the prevalence of harmful outcomes among people who have undergone efforts to change their sexual orientation or the frequency of occurrence of harm because no study to date of adequate scientific rigor has been explicitly designed to do so. Thus, we cannot conclude how likely it is that harm will occur from SOCE. However, studies from both periods indicate that attempts to change sexual orientation may cause or exacerbate distress and poor mental health in some individuals, including depression and suicidal thoughts. The lack of rigorous research on the safety of SOCE represents a serious concern, as do studies that report perceptions of harm (cf. Lilienfeld, 2007). {{ref|apa1}}

Ego-syntonic homosexuality was not addressed in the BYU studies, though it was a subject of research performed at other institutions. Furthermore, BYU only treated adults. Other institutions, such as UCLA, treated children as young as 6.[http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0005796777901024]

=== Aversion therapy at other institutions ===

A significant number of hospitals and universities historically offered aversion therapy as a way to treat homosexuality. It would be impossible to list all of them, but here are a few of the major places where people were involved in research using aversion therapy to treat homosexuality:

<center>
{| valign="top" border="1" style="width:90%"
!Author!!Year!!Number!!Institution!!Type!!Publication!!References and Notes
|-
|

=====Max=====
||
1935
||
?
||
New York University
||
Aversion therapy
||
''Psychological bulletin''
||

*Max, Louis William. "Breaking Up a Homosexual Fixation by the Conditioned Reaction Technique: A Case Study," Psychological Bulletin (Washington, D.C.), Vol. 32 (1935): p. 734·
|-
|

=====Freund=====
||
1960
||
67
||
University of Toronto
||
Aversion apomorphine therapy
||
''Adult sexual interest in children''
||

*Kurt Freund, [http://www.mhamic.org/sources/freund.htm "Assessment of pedophilia,"] in Cook, M. & Howells, K. (eds.), ''Adult sexual interest in children'', London: Academic Press, 1981, pp. 139-179.
|-
|

=====James=====
||
1962
||
1
||
Glenside Hospital (Bristol, U.K.)
||
Aversion apomorphine therapy
||
''British Medical Journal''
||

*BASIL JAMES, M.B., B.Ch., B.Sc., D.P.M., [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1957923/pdf/brmedj02859-0056.pdf "CASE OF HOMOSEXUALITY TREATED BY AVERSION THERAPY"] ''British Medical Journal,'' MARCH 17, 1962, p. 768. This study, published in 1962, reported a on the treatment of a single 40-year-old male.
|-
|

=====Miller=====
||
1963
||
4
||
Howard University
||
Hypnotic-Aversion
||
''Journal of the National Medical Association''
||

*Miller, Michael M. [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2642357/pdf/jnma00681-0043.pdf "Hypnotic-Aversion Treatment of Homosexuality,"] Journal of the National Medical Association. Vol. 55, no. 5 (1963): p. 4II-15, 436. (P. 4II-13, 415.)
|-
|

=====Thorpe, Schmidt, Brown, Castell=====
||
1964
||
-
||
Banstead Hospital
||
Imaginary aversive therapy
||
''Behavior Research Therapy''
||

*J. G. Thorpe, E. Schmidt, P. T. Brown and D. Castell, [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0005796764900580 "Aversion-relief therapy: A new method for general application,"] ''Behavior Research and Therapy,'' Volume 2, Issue 1, May 1964, Pages 71-82
|-
|

=====Golda, Neufelda=====
||
1964
||
39
||
Guy's Hospital
||
Imaginary aversive therapy
||
''Behavior Research Therapy''
||

*Golda and Neufelda, [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0005796764900166 "A learning approach to the treatment of homosexuality,"] ''Behavior Research and Therapy,'' 1964 October 20.
|-
|

=====McGuire, Vallance=====
||
1965
||
39
||
Southern General Hospital
||
Aversive shock therapy
||
''British Medical Journal''
||

*R. J. McGuire and M. Vallance, [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1812608/?page=1 "Aversion Therapy by Electric Shock: a Simple Technique,"] ''British Medical Journal,'' 1964 January 18; 1(5376): 151–153.
|-
|

=====MacCulloch, Pinschof & Feldman=====
||
1965
||
4
||
Crumpsall Hospital, Manchester, UK
||
Anticipatory avoidance with aversion shock therapy
||
''Behavior Research and Therapy''
||
*MacCulloch, M. J., Feldman, M. P. and Pinschof, J. M., “The application of anticipatory avoidance learning to the treatment of homosexuality—III : The sexual orientation method,"] ''Behaviour Research and Therapy'' Volume 4, Issue 4, November 1966, Pages 289-299
|-
|

=====Solyom & Miller=====
||
1965
||
6
||
Allan Memorial Institute
||
Aversion shock therapy
||
''Behavior Research and Therapy''
||

*Solyom, L., & Miller, S. (1965) A differential conditioning procedure as the initial phase of the behavior therapy of homosexuality. ''Behavior Research and Therapy'', 3, 147-160.
|-
|

=====MacCulloch & Feldman=====
||
1967
||
43
||
Crumpsall Hospital (Manchester, U.K.)
||
Anticipatory avoidance with aversion shock therapy
||
''British Medical Journal''
||

*M. J. MacCulloch and M. P. Feldman, [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1842087/?page=1 "Aversion therapy in management of 43 homosexuals."], ''British Medical Journal'' 1967 June 3; 2(5552): 594–597. This study was published in 1967, and involved 43 male test subjects.
|-
|

=====Bancroft & Marks=====
||
1968
||
-
||
Institute of Psychiatry and Maudsley Hospital
||
Electric aversion therapy
||
''Proceedings of the Royal Society of Medicine''
||

*Bancroft & Marks, [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1902433/pdf/procrsmed00153-0074.pdf "Electric aversion therapy of sexual deviations."], ''Proc R Soc Med.'' 1968 August; 61(8): 796–799
|-
|

=====Fookes=====
||
1969
||
27
||
?
||
aversion shock therapy
||
''British Journal of Psychiatry''
||

*B.H. Fookes, [http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/citation/115/520/339 "Some Experiences in the Use of Aversion Therapy in Male Homosexuality, Exhibitionism and Fetishism-Transvestism,"] ''The British Journal of Psychiatry'' (1969) 115: 339-341.
|-
|

=====Bancroft=====
||
1969
||
16
||
?
||
aversive shock therapy
||
''The British Journal of Psychiatry''
||

*JOHN BANCROFT M.B., M.R.C.P., D.P.M. [http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/abstract/115/529/1417 "Aversion Therapy of Homosexuality,"] ''The British Journal of Psychiatry'' (1969) 115: 1417-1431.
|-
|

=====McConaghy=====
||
1969
||
40
||
The University of New South Wales
||
aversion apomorphine therapy
||
''The British Journal of Psychiatry''
||

*N. McConaghy M.D., B.Sc., D.P.M., [http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/abstract/115/523/723 "Subjective and Penile Plethysmograph Responses Following Aversion-Relief and Apomorphine Aversion Therapy for Homosexual Impulses,"] ''The British Journal of Psychiatry'' (1969) 115: 723-730.
|-
|

=====Barlow=====
||
1973
||
-
||
The University of Mississippi
||
Variety
||
''Behavior Therapy''
||

*Barlow, David H, [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0005789473801583 "Increasing heterosexual responsiveness in the treatment of sexual deviation: A review of the clinical and experimental evidence,"] ''Behavior Therapy'' Volume 4, Issue 5, October 1973, Pages 655-671
|-
|

=====Birk, Huddleston, Miller, & Cohler=====
||
1971
||
18
||
Joint project from Harvard and University of Chicago
||
Aversive shock therapy vs. associative conditioning
||
''Archives of General Psychiatry''
|| 

*Lee Birk, MD; William Huddleston, JD; Elizabeth Miller; Bertram Cohler, PhD, [http://archpsyc.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/25/4/314 "Avoidance Conditioning for Homosexuality,"] ''Archives of General Psychiatry.'' 1971;25(4):314-323. This study, published in 1971, involved eight treated subjects and eight placebo subjects. A follow-up study was conducted two years after the original treatment. The study was published in the ''Archives of General Psychiatry''.
|-
|

=====Feldman, MacCulloch, & Orford=====
||
1971
||
63
||
Crumpsall Hospital
||
Aversive therapy
||
-
|| 

*Feldman, M. P., MacCulloch, M. J., & Orford, J. E (1971) Conclusions and speculations. In M. P. Feldman & M. J. MacCulloch, Homosexual behaviour: Therapy and assessment (pp. 156-188), New York: Pergamon Press.
|-
|

=====Colson=====
||
1972
||
1
||
Illinois State University
||
Olfactory aversion therapy
||
''Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry''
||

*Charles E. Colson, [http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/0005791672900717 "Olfactory aversion therapy for homosexual behavior,"] ''Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry'' Volume 3, Issue 3, September 1972, Pages 185-187. Concluded that olfactory aversion therapy provides many advantages over more traditional forms.
|-
|

=====Segal & Sims=====
||
1972
||
1
||
Murray State University
||
Covert Sensitization
||
''Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology''
||

*Segal, Bernard; Sims, Joseph, [http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=buy.optionToBuy&id=1973-05206-001 "Covert sensitization with a homosexual: A controlled replication,"] ''Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology'', Vol 39(2), Oct 1972, 259-263.
|-
|

=====Hallam & Rachman=====
||
1972
||
7
||
King's College, London
||
aversion shock therapy
||
''Behaviour Research and Therapy''
||

*R.S. Hallam and S. Rachman, [http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0005796772800111 "Some effects of aversion therapy on patients with sexual disorders,"] ''Behaviour Research and Therapy'' Volume 10, Issue 2, 1972, Pages 171-180.
|-
|

=====Hanson & Adesso=====
||
1972
||
1
||
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
||
Desensitization and aversive counter-conditioning
||
''Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry''
||

*Richard W. Hanson, and Vincent J. Adesso, [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V5V-46KC6WM-1D&_user=10&_coverDate=12%2F31%2F1972&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=32d542dfb72d160bd92504744f3ef810&searchtype=a "A multiple behavioral approach to male homosexual behavior: A case study"], ''Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry'' Volume 3, Issue 4, December 1972, Pages 323-325. This study took place in 1972, involved a single male subject, and included a follow-up six months from the original treatment. The study was published in the Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry.
|-
|

=====McConaghy, Proctor, & Barr=====
||
1972
||
40
||
Prince Henry Hospital (Sydney, Australia)
||
Apomorphine aversion conditioning
||
''Archives of Sexual Behavior''
||
*N. McConaghy, D. Proctor, and R. Barr, [http://www.springerlink.com/content/b3vn626u58170811/ "Subjective and penile plethysmography responses to aversion therapy for homosexuality: A partial replication"], ''Archives of Sexual Behavior,'' Volume 2, Number 1, 1972, Pages 65-78. This study used both aversion and positive conditioning toward heterosexuality. A six-month follow-up indicated some success in half the subjects.
|-
|

=====Callahan & Leitenberg=====
||
1973
||
23
||
Carmarillo State Hosp., California
||
aversion shock therapy
||
''The Journal of Abnormal Psychology''
||

*Callahan EJ, Leitenberg H., [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/4690218 "Aversion therapy for sexual deviation: contingent shock and covert sensitization.,"] ''Journal of Abnormal Psychology,'' 1973 Feb;81(1):60-73.; [http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/abn/81/1/60/ "Aversion therapy for sexual deviation: Contingent shock and covert sensitization."] This study, published in 1973, involved six test subjects. Follow-up study took place four to eighteen months later. The study was published in The Journal of Abnormal Psychology.
|-
|

=====McConaghy & Barr=====
||
1973
||
46
||
University of New South Wales, Institute of Psychiatry of New South Wales
||
Classical conditioning, avoidance conditioning
||
''The British Journal of Psychiatry''
||
*N. McConaghy and R. F. Barr, [http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/abstract/122/567/151 "Classical, Avoidance and Backward Conditioning Treatments of Homosexuality,"] ''The British Journal of Psychiatry'' (1973) 122: 151-162. This study concluded that homosexual feelings decreased for half the subjects, and also that the aversive conditioning worked, but not by setting up conditioned reflexes.
|-
|

=====Tanner=====
||
1974
||
16
||
Center for Behavior Change
||
aversion shock therapy
||
''Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry''
||

*Barry A. Tanner, [http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/0005791673900542 "Aversive shock issues: Physical danger, emotional harm, effectiveness and “dehumanization”,"] ''Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry'' Volume 4, Issue 2, June 1973, Pages 113-115 Concluded that aversion therapy was safe.
|-
|

=====McConaghy=====
||
1975
||
31
||
University of New South Wales
||
Aversion shock therapy
||
''Behaviour Research and Therapy''
||

*N. McConaghy, [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V5W-45WYX82-S4&_user=10&_coverDate=10%2F31%2F1975&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1694330612&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=ed364f1af60d24e2df8a32e2c4ece0cf&searchtype=a "Aversive and positive conditioning treatments of homosexuality"], ''Behaviour Research and Therapy'' Volume 13, Issue 4, October 1975, pages 309-319 This study used both aversive conditioning against homosexuality and also positive conditioning toward heterosexuality. It concluded that the positive conditioning was ineffective.
|-
|

=====Tanner=====
||
1975
||
16
||
Northeast Guidance Center
||
Aversion shock therapy
||
''Behavior Therapy''
||

*Barry A. Tanner, [http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0005789475801870 "Avoidance training with and without booster sessions to modify homosexual behavior in males,"] ''Behavior Therapy'', Volume 6, Issue 5, October 1975, Pages 649-653.
|-
|

=====Freeman & Meyer=====
||
1975
||
9
||
University of Louisville
||
Aversion shock therapy
||
''Behavior Therapy''
||

*William Freeman, a and Robert G. Meyer, [http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0005789475801420 "A behavioral alteration of sexual preferences in the human male,"] ''Behavior Therapy'' Volume 6, Issue 2, March 1975, Pages 206-212.
|-
|

=====McConaghy=====
||
1976
||
157
||
University of New South Wales
||
Aversion apomorphine therapy
||
''The British Journal of Psychiatry''
||
*N McConaghy, [http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/abstract/129/6/556 "Is a homosexual orientation irreversible?"], ''The British Journal of Psychiatry'' 129: 556-563 (1976)
|-
|

=====James=====
||
1978
||
40
||
Hollymoor Hospital, England
||
Anticipatory avoidance, desensitization, hypnosis, anticipatory avoidance
||
''Behavior Therapy''
||
*Sheelah James, [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B7XMW-4K605K5-5&_user=10&_coverDate=01%2F31%2F1978&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1697125903&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=7c60d59837514f05db0637bd232173f9&searchtype=a "Treatment of homosexuality II. Superiority of desensitization/arousal as compared with anticipatory avoidance conditioning: Results of a controlled trial,"] ''Behavior Therapy'' Volume 9, Issue 1, January 1978, Pages 28-36
|-
|

=====McConaghy, Armstrong, & Blaszczynski=====
||
1981
||
20
||
University of New South Wales
||
Aversive therapy
||
''Behavior Research and Therapy''
||
*McConaghy, N., Armstrong, M. S., & Blaszczynski, A. [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V5W-45XTVVT-89&_user=10&_coverDate=12%2F31%2F1981&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=ad84d4c34eba76377747e4f0a56795e1&searchtype=a "Controlled comparison of aversive therapy and covert sensitization in compulsive homosexuality,"] ''Behavior Research and Therapy'', 19, 1981. 425-434.
|-
|}
</center>

=== Purpose of psychological therapy ===

The purpose of therapy is to help patients towards their desired goals. One of the fundamentals in the field is patient self-determination. It is the patient who sets the goals, not the therapist. Aversion therapy, which is still administered today to help smokers, is not administered as a way to torture the subjects for smoking, but to help them achieve their goal of being smoke-free. Similarly, the therapy at BYU was administered to people who felt distress about their sexual lives. The purpose of the therapy was to relieve that stress. The volunteers for the study sought help to change their homosexuality and medical associations of that time recommended this therapy as just one among several.

An analysis of similar aversion therapy studies indicate that they may have caused or exacerbated distress and poor mental health, especially depression and suicidal thoughts. (For more information on suicides, see [[Mormonism and gender issues/Same-sex attraction/Suicide|Same-sex attraction/Suicide]].) Whether or not these effects were experienced by the participants at the studies run at BYU could not be determined. There is an inherent risk in therapy for mental illnesses. As with many experiments, the risks were not fully understood at the time they were being run.

=={{Endnotes label}}==

#{{note|smoking1}}Nigel Barber, Ph.D., [http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-human-beast/201002/smoking-most-effective-quitting-technique-little-known "Smoking: Most effective quitting technique little known,"] February 17, 2010
#{{note|minddisorders1}} [http://www.minddisorders.com/A-Br/Aversion-therapy.html "Aversion Therapy,"] ''Encyclopedia of Mental Disorders''

#{{note|seligman.156}} Seligman, Martin E.P., ''What You Can Change and What You Can't: The Complete Guide to Self Improvement'' Knopf, 1993; ISBN 0-679-41024-4, p. 156

#{{note|icd10online1}}[http://apps.who.int/classifications/apps/icd/icd10online/?gf60.htm+f661 "Mental and behavioural disorders,"] ''International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems'', 10th Revision Version for 2007

#{{note|ama1}} "Health Care Needs of Gay Men and Lesbians in the U.S.," American Medical Association Report, 1994

#{{note|apa1}}[http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/therapeutic-response.pdf "APA Task Force on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation."] (2009). ''Report of the Task Force on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation.'' Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

{{FurtherReading}}

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

Homosexuality and the Church of Jesus Christ/Aversion therapy performed at BYU

2013-03-09T21:14:13Z

RonHellings1: /* Aversion therapy at BYU */

{{Articles FAIR copyright}} {{Articles Header 1}} {{Articles Header 2}} {{Articles Header 3}} {{Articles Header 4}} {{Articles Header 5}} {{Articles Header 6}} {{Articles Header 7}} {{Articles Header 8}} {{Articles Header 9}} {{Articles Header 10}}
{{SSAPortal}}
=Homosexual aversion therapy performed at BYU in the 1970's=
=={{Question label}}==

* Did the Church ever conduct aversion therapy?
* What was the history of BYU and aversion therapy for treating homosexuality?
* Did BYU ever use vomitting as part of therapy?
* Did BYU ever force students to undergo therapy?
* How did that relate to medical and psychological science as understood at that time?
* What was the role of the Church in BYU's treatments?

=={{Conclusion label}}==

The Church never conducted aversion therapies of any sort. They never recommended it, and they never mandated it.

Like many other places in the western world, aversion therapy was conducted at BYU in the 1970s. At this time, aversion therapy was applied to a number of behaviors. At BYU the therapy was conducted following standards published by professional societies and unlike other places, it was only conducted on adults who gave their permission. The Church does not oversee research at BYU.

* [http://www.fairblog.org/2012/01/04/fair-examination-6-overcoming-same-sex-attraction-blake-smith/ FAIR Examination 6 - Overcoming same-sex attraction - Blake Smith] - FAIR podcast of LDS man who underwent aversion therapy
* [http://www.fairblog.org/2012/02/01/fair-examination-8-aversion-therapy-at-byu-dr-eugene-thorne/ FAIR Examination 8 - Aversion therapy at BYU - Dr. Eugene Thorne] - FAIR podcast of Dr. Thorne who oversaw aversion therapy at BYU.

== ==
{{Response label}}
=== Aversion therapy at BYU ===

In the mid-1970s a graduate student, Max McBride, conducted a study entitled ''Effect of Visual Stimuli in Electric Aversion Therapy''. It appears that the study was conducted during 1974 and 1975 with the average length of treatment during the study being three months. The results of this study were published in August 1976 as McBride's PhD dissertation in the BYU Department of Psychology. McBride's research has recently been sensationalized and several incorrect claims have been made about his study. The following facts need to be kept in mind as the study is evaluated.

:Basis for the study. BYU did not pioneer the use of aversion therapy as a treatment for homosexuality and it ceased use of the therapy decades before the APA stopped recommending the practice. BYU was one of many places where research in this area was done. McBride's dissertation contains over 17 pages of documentation discussing other studies from across the discipline in which aversion therapy had previously been applied to male homosexuality. In fact, the purpose of the McBride's study was not to determine the effectiveness of aversion therapy in treating homosexuality. That question was generally accepted, at the time, to have been satisfactorily answered in the positive as a result of previous studies at other institutions.

:Supervision. The study was conducted under the supervision of Dr. D. Eugene Thorne, who also served as McBride's PhD committee chairman. All study procedures followed common medical practice. McBride acknowledges the assistance of medical professionals at the Salt Lake City Veterans Hospital in designing the study and completing the statistical analysis.

:Population. The study was limited to ego-dystonic homosexuality and did not involve any treatment of ego-syntonic homosexuality. The volunteers for McBride's study were all men whose same-sex attraction was contrary to their desires and who wanted to change their sexual orientation.

:Subjects. McBride discusses the subjects chosen in the following excerpt from his dissertation:

::Seventeen male subjects were used in the study, 14 completed treatment. Selection was on the basis of clinical evidence of homosexuality; absence of psychosis (no prior history); desire for treatment; no history of epilepsy, alcoholism or drug addiction.

:Disclosure. McBride describes the procedures used to ensure full disclosure of what the subjects were to expect. We quote from his dissertation:

::It was mandatory that all subjects chosen to participate sign and have witnessed a prepared statement explaining (a) the experimental nature of the treatment procedure, (b) the use of aversive electric shock, (c) the showing of 35 mm slides that might be construed by subject as possibly offensive, and (d) that Brigham Young University was not in any direct way endorsing the procedures used. This was to insure that all subjects were in full agreement and understanding as to what the treatment procedure would involve, provide and demand from them.

:Nature of the study. The techniques used by McBride followed the standard aversion therapy procedures of the time. The volunteers were subjected to electric shocks applied to their upper arms while being shown both clothed and nude pictures of men. They were able to choose to end the shocks by switching to nude and clothed pictures of women.

:Materials. The materials used in the study consisted of nude pictures of men and women and pictures of clothed men and women taken from current fashion magazines. None of the pictures displayed or even implied sexual acts. In fact, the thing being investigated in McBride’s study was not the effectiveness of aversion therapy, but the relative value of clothed versus nude pictures in this type of therapeutic procedure.

In the years since the study, some of the study participants have talked publicly about their experiences. Many of these reports are troubling to read, as are similar reports from participants in studies at other universities and facilities of the time. While it seems likely that the McBride study was traumatic to some of the individuals involved, it must be remembered that participation in the study was voluntary, each participant had a clear explanation beforehand what the study would entail, and participants could leave the study at any time they wanted. Indeed, three of the seventeen participants in the study did not remain to its completion. These points are not mentioned to minimize the experiences of these participants in any manner; they are only made so that the professional and ethical context of the study can be properly evaluated.

It is also important to note that aversion therapy as a treatment for homosexuality was not a major element of BYU research. In the APA task force report, BYU's contribution to the field of aversion therapy was not covered. This is probably because BYU's involvement was too minor to include. Other universities had more participants and many conducted their studies later than BYU.

==== Vomiting was not used ====
McBride's thesis thoroughly describes the methods used to induce aversion. He did not use vomiting. This fact is verified in the interview with Dr. Thorne, available as the FAIR podcast referenced above, as well as by a specific statement to this effect from BYU:

:The BYU Counseling Center never practiced therapy that would involve chemical or induced vomiting.[http://abcnews.go.com/Health/mormon-gay-cures-reparative-therapies-shock-today/story?id=13240700&page=2#.TzrMQ1wS2Sw]

Most of the accusations of using induced vomiting come from: 1) a person who admits that he never underwent therapy and 2) from the "documentary" 8: The Mormon Proposition (which contains several false accusations as detailed [[Criticism of Mormonism/Video/8: The Mormon Proposition|here]]). These two accounts are not consistent with each other. In short, there is no reliable documentation of the use of induced vomiting at BYU.

====Participation was voluntary====

Aversion therapy was completely voluntary at BYU. Participants could enter and leave as they wish. In an interview with FAIR, Dr. Thorne explained that the voluntary nature was essential to get scientific results. He said any type of pressure for the participants to give certain answers would jade the results of the study. For this reason, they would not have accepted referrals from the Honor Code office even if they had been given. There was also a strict separation between what they did and what the honor code office knew about so as to remove any possibility of "pretending" to have certain results to please the honor code office. As reported in the thesis, participants could drop out at any time for whatever reason, as evidenced by the fact that some did.

====Did the Church perform aversion therapy?====

The Church has never conducted aversion therapy. It doesn't conduct psychological therapy of any type. The LDS Church is a church, not a medical institution. People who happen to be LDS or go to BYU do a great variety of things. The Church does not take responsibility for everything done by a Mormon or for everything done by someone at BYU (not everyone at BYU is a Mormon).

In this particular case, a graduate student and his faculty mentor at Brigham Young University conducted a clinical study in the use of aversion therapy to treat ego-dystonic homosexuality. Ego-dystonic homosexuality is a condition where an individual's same-sex attraction is in conflict with his idealized self-image, creating anxiety and a desire to change. At the time, the American Psychiatric Society considered ego-dystonic homosexuality to be a mental illness, and aversion therapy was one of the standard treatments. Experiments were only run on those who had expressed a desire for the therapy, and all of the subjects indicated they had improved as a result of the therapy. The experiments adhered to the professional standards of the time. As stated in the paper that reported the results of this research, the research was never endorsed by BYU.

LDS Church leadership does not dictate nor oversee the details of scientific research at Brigham Young University. Like many universities, there are many different research projects going on with many different views on many different subjects. The Church is not responsible for every view held by one of its researchers. The church itself has never recommended aversion therapy.

The church has posted on its website an interview with the following quote:

:"The Church rarely takes a position on which treatment techniques are appropriate for medical doctors or for psychiatrists or psychologists and so on. The second point is that there are abusive practices that have been used in connection with various mental attitudes or feelings. Over-medication in respect to depression is an example that comes to mind. The aversive therapies that have been used in connection with same-sex attraction have contained some serious abuses that have been recognized over time within the professions. While we have no position about what the medical doctors do (except in very, very rare cases — abortion would be such an example), we are conscious that there are abuses and we don’t accept responsibility for those abuses. Even though they are addressed at helping people we would like to see helped, we can’t endorse every kind of technique that’s been used."

President Kimball once cited reputable medical sources indicating that the practice of homosexuality could be abandoned through treatments, but he did not specify any treatments by name. The point President Kimball wanted to make, and that the church still makes, is that sexual actions can and must be controlled.

=== Church's relationship to BYU ===

The church does not direct or oversee scientific research at BYU and does not mandate what experiments are to be done or not to be done. At BYU, as at other universities, students and professors have a variety of opinions and approaches and have significant freedom to pursue their own academic interests.

As an example, retired BYU professor William Bradshaw has presented biological evidence supporting his view that homosexuality is not an acquired tendency and lifestyle.[http://newsnet.byu.edu/story.cfm/49488] Bradshaw is free to share this view at BYU even though the church does not have a particular position on the causes of same-sex attraction and certainly believes that the lifestyles we follow represent a choice.

In the 1970's, there were a variety of opinions about how to treat mental disorders. Some professors and students were partial to the behaviorist movement to treat mental illnesses while others focused on verbal therapy. Today, the APA recommends cognitive therapies to help people who feel distress about their sexual orientation, but, in the 1970s, it was unclear which approach was best. If a professor or a graduate student favored one approach over another, it was because they favored that approach, not because it was mandated by the LDS Church.

=== Academic freedom at BYU ===
{{Main|Mormonism and education}}

The fact is that every member of the BYU community is free to espouse his or her own theories. As long as they remain in line with standards published by the professional societies and with the school’s academic freedom policy, all are free to pursue their own line of thinking. Actually, this situation is one of the requirements for university accreditation, and BYU is an accredited university.

It should also be remembered that, contrary to the popular caricature of the church, Latter-Day Saints are encouraged to think for themselves and find their own answers to questions, without coercion from church leadership. Doctrine and Covenants 58:26 reads:

:For behold, it is not meet that I should command in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant; wherefore he receiveth no reward.

And it was Joseph Smith himself who famously said:

:I want the liberty of thinking and believing as I please. It feels so good not to be trammeled. [History of the Church 5:340]

==Aversion therapy==

=== Aversion therapy is a standard technique ===

Aversion therapy is still used today for a variety of treatments, such as gambling, smoking, alcoholism, and violence. A 2010 article in Psychology Today states "To date, aversion therapy using shock and nausea is the only technique of quitting [smoking] that offers decent gambling odds." {{ref|smoking1}} The Encyclopedia of Mental Disorders has this entry for aversion therapy:

:A patient who consults a behavior therapist for aversion therapy can expect a fairly standard set of procedures. The therapist begins by assessing the problem, most likely measuring its frequency, severity, and the environment in which the undesirable behavior occurs. Although the therapeutic relationship is not the focus of treatment for the behavior therapist, therapists in this tradition believe that good rapport will facilitate a successful outcome. A positive relationship is also necessary to establish the patient's confidence in the rationale for exposing him or her to an uncomfortable stimulus. The therapist will design a treatment protocol and explain it to the patient. The most important choice the therapist makes is the type of aversive stimulus to employ. Depending upon the behavior to be changed, the preferred aversive stimulus is often electric stimulation delivered to the forearm or leg. {{ref|minddisorders1}}

Over the years, the methods have been refined and approved. Today, we have decades of research that were not available in the 1970s, giving us a better understanding of where aversion therapy would be effective and where it would not be effective. The methods of the 1970s may seem crude compared to today's standards, but today's standards will probably seem crude in another 40 years. Forms of aversion therapy are still used today by mainstream psychologists to treat a variety of conditions.

=== History of therapy and homosexuality ===

Homosexuality was once illegal in many countries, and those convicted were forced into various therapies against their wills.[http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/sep/11/pm-apology-to-alan-turing]

In 1966, Martin E.P. Seligman conducted a study at the University of Pennsylvania which showed positive results in applying aversion therapy to help people stop engaging in homosexual behavior. According to Seligman, this led to "a great burst of enthusiasm about changing homosexuality [that] swept over the therapeutic community." {{ref|seligman.156}} Research was conducted by researchers at many institutions, including universities like Harvard and King's College in London.

Historically, there were two types of homosexuality that were treated, ego-dystonic homosexuality and ego-syntonic homosexuality. Ego-dystonic homosexuality is a condition where an individual's same-sex attraction is in conflict with his idealized self-image, creating anxiety and a desire to change. Ego-syntonic homosexuality describes a situation where the subject is content with his or her sexual orientation. Ego-dystonic homosexuality was considered a mental illness by the American Psychological Association (APA) until 1987, and an ego-dystonic sexual orientation is still considered a mental illness by the World Health Organization ([http://apps.who.int/classifications/apps/icd/icd10online/?gf60.htm+f661 F66.1]). {{ref|icd10online1}}

Even after the APA declassified ego-dystonic homosexuality as mental illness, aversion therapy could still be used to treat distress over sexual orientation, though not the sexual orientation itself. Persistent and marked distress about sexual orientation is still classified as a sexual disorder in the DSM-IV under ''Sexual Disorder Not Otherwise Specified'' (302.9). It was not until 1994, that the American Medical Association issued a report that stated "aversion therapy is no longer recommended for gay men and lesbians" {{ref|ama1}} and it was not until 2006 that using aversion therapy to treat homosexuality became a violation of the codes of conduct and professional guidelines of the American Psychological Association and American Psychiatric Association.

In 2009, a task force was commissioned by the American Psychological Association to investigate therapies used to treat homosexuality, including aversion therapy. They reported:

:Early research on efforts to change sexual orientation focused heavily on interventions that include aversion techniques. Many of these studies did not set out to investigate harm. Nonetheless, these studies provide some suggestion that harm can occur from aversive efforts to change sexual orientation...

:We conclude that there is a dearth of scientifically sound research on the safety of SOCE [sexual orientation change efforts]. Early and recent research studies provide no clear indication of the prevalence of harmful outcomes among people who have undergone efforts to change their sexual orientation or the frequency of occurrence of harm because no study to date of adequate scientific rigor has been explicitly designed to do so. Thus, we cannot conclude how likely it is that harm will occur from SOCE. However, studies from both periods indicate that attempts to change sexual orientation may cause or exacerbate distress and poor mental health in some individuals, including depression and suicidal thoughts. The lack of rigorous research on the safety of SOCE represents a serious concern, as do studies that report perceptions of harm (cf. Lilienfeld, 2007). {{ref|apa1}}

Ego-syntonic homosexuality was not addressed in the BYU studies, though it was a subject of research performed at other institutions. Furthermore, BYU only treated adults. Other institutions, such as UCLA, treated children as young as 6.[http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0005796777901024]

=== Aversion therapy at other institutions ===

A significant number of hospitals and universities historically offered aversion therapy as a way to treat homosexuality. It would be impossible to list all of them, but here are a few of the major places where people were involved in research using aversion therapy to treat homosexuality:

<center>
{| valign="top" border="1" style="width:90%"
!Author!!Year!!Number!!Institution!!Type!!Publication!!References and Notes
|-
|

=====Max=====
||
1935
||
?
||
New York University
||
Aversion therapy
||
''Psychological bulletin''
||

*Max, Louis William. "Breaking Up a Homosexual Fixation by the Conditioned Reaction Technique: A Case Study," Psychological Bulletin (Washington, D.C.), Vol. 32 (1935): p. 734·
|-
|

=====Freund=====
||
1960
||
67
||
University of Toronto
||
Aversion apomorphine therapy
||
''Adult sexual interest in children''
||

*Kurt Freund, [http://www.mhamic.org/sources/freund.htm "Assessment of pedophilia,"] in Cook, M. & Howells, K. (eds.), ''Adult sexual interest in children'', London: Academic Press, 1981, pp. 139-179.
|-
|

=====James=====
||
1962
||
1
||
Glenside Hospital (Bristol, U.K.)
||
Aversion apomorphine therapy
||
''British Medical Journal''
||

*BASIL JAMES, M.B., B.Ch., B.Sc., D.P.M., [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1957923/pdf/brmedj02859-0056.pdf "CASE OF HOMOSEXUALITY TREATED BY AVERSION THERAPY"] ''British Medical Journal,'' MARCH 17, 1962, p. 768. This study, published in 1962, reported a on the treatment of a single 40-year-old male.
|-
|

=====Miller=====
||
1963
||
4
||
Howard University
||
Hypnotic-Aversion
||
''Journal of the National Medical Association''
||

*Miller, Michael M. [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2642357/pdf/jnma00681-0043.pdf "Hypnotic-Aversion Treatment of Homosexuality,"] Journal of the National Medical Association. Vol. 55, no. 5 (1963): p. 4II-15, 436. (P. 4II-13, 415.)
|-
|

=====Thorpe, Schmidt, Brown, Castell=====
||
1964
||
-
||
Banstead Hospital
||
Imaginary aversive therapy
||
''Behavior Research Therapy''
||

*J. G. Thorpe, E. Schmidt, P. T. Brown and D. Castell, [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0005796764900580 "Aversion-relief therapy: A new method for general application,"] ''Behavior Research and Therapy,'' Volume 2, Issue 1, May 1964, Pages 71-82
|-
|

=====Golda, Neufelda=====
||
1964
||
39
||
Guy's Hospital
||
Imaginary aversive therapy
||
''Behavior Research Therapy''
||

*Golda and Neufelda, [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0005796764900166 "A learning approach to the treatment of homosexuality,"] ''Behavior Research and Therapy,'' 1964 October 20.
|-
|

=====McGuire, Vallance=====
||
1965
||
39
||
Southern General Hospital
||
Aversive shock therapy
||
''British Medical Journal''
||

*R. J. McGuire and M. Vallance, [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1812608/?page=1 "Aversion Therapy by Electric Shock: a Simple Technique,"] ''British Medical Journal,'' 1964 January 18; 1(5376): 151–153.
|-
|

=====MacCulloch, Pinschof & Feldman=====
||
1965
||
4
||
Crumpsall Hospital, Manchester, UK
||
Anticipatory avoidance with aversion shock therapy
||
''Behavior Research and Therapy''
||
*MacCulloch, M. J., Feldman, M. P. and Pinschof, J. M., “The application of anticipatory avoidance learning to the treatment of homosexuality—III : The sexual orientation method,"] ''Behaviour Research and Therapy'' Volume 4, Issue 4, November 1966, Pages 289-299
|-
|

=====Solyom & Miller=====
||
1965
||
6
||
Allan Memorial Institute
||
Aversion shock therapy
||
''Behavior Research and Therapy''
||

*Solyom, L., & Miller, S. (1965) A differential conditioning procedure as the initial phase of the behavior therapy of homosexuality. ''Behavior Research and Therapy'', 3, 147-160.
|-
|

=====MacCulloch & Feldman=====
||
1967
||
43
||
Crumpsall Hospital (Manchester, U.K.)
||
Anticipatory avoidance with aversion shock therapy
||
''British Medical Journal''
||

*M. J. MacCulloch and M. P. Feldman, [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1842087/?page=1 "Aversion therapy in management of 43 homosexuals."], ''British Medical Journal'' 1967 June 3; 2(5552): 594–597. This study was published in 1967, and involved 43 male test subjects.
|-
|

=====Bancroft & Marks=====
||
1968
||
-
||
Institute of Psychiatry and Maudsley Hospital
||
Electric aversion therapy
||
''Proceedings of the Royal Society of Medicine''
||

*Bancroft & Marks, [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1902433/pdf/procrsmed00153-0074.pdf "Electric aversion therapy of sexual deviations."], ''Proc R Soc Med.'' 1968 August; 61(8): 796–799
|-
|

=====Fookes=====
||
1969
||
27
||
?
||
aversion shock therapy
||
''British Journal of Psychiatry''
||

*B.H. Fookes, [http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/citation/115/520/339 "Some Experiences in the Use of Aversion Therapy in Male Homosexuality, Exhibitionism and Fetishism-Transvestism,"] ''The British Journal of Psychiatry'' (1969) 115: 339-341.
|-
|

=====Bancroft=====
||
1969
||
16
||
?
||
aversive shock therapy
||
''The British Journal of Psychiatry''
||

*JOHN BANCROFT M.B., M.R.C.P., D.P.M. [http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/abstract/115/529/1417 "Aversion Therapy of Homosexuality,"] ''The British Journal of Psychiatry'' (1969) 115: 1417-1431.
|-
|

=====McConaghy=====
||
1969
||
40
||
The University of New South Wales
||
aversion apomorphine therapy
||
''The British Journal of Psychiatry''
||

*N. McConaghy M.D., B.Sc., D.P.M., [http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/abstract/115/523/723 "Subjective and Penile Plethysmograph Responses Following Aversion-Relief and Apomorphine Aversion Therapy for Homosexual Impulses,"] ''The British Journal of Psychiatry'' (1969) 115: 723-730.
|-
|

=====Barlow=====
||
1973
||
-
||
The University of Mississippi
||
Variety
||
''Behavior Therapy''
||

*Barlow, David H, [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0005789473801583 "Increasing heterosexual responsiveness in the treatment of sexual deviation: A review of the clinical and experimental evidence,"] ''Behavior Therapy'' Volume 4, Issue 5, October 1973, Pages 655-671
|-
|

=====Birk, Huddleston, Miller, & Cohler=====
||
1971
||
18
||
Joint project from Harvard and University of Chicago
||
Aversive shock therapy vs. associative conditioning
||
''Archives of General Psychiatry''
|| 

*Lee Birk, MD; William Huddleston, JD; Elizabeth Miller; Bertram Cohler, PhD, [http://archpsyc.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/25/4/314 "Avoidance Conditioning for Homosexuality,"] ''Archives of General Psychiatry.'' 1971;25(4):314-323. This study, published in 1971, involved eight treated subjects and eight placebo subjects. A follow-up study was conducted two years after the original treatment. The study was published in the ''Archives of General Psychiatry''.
|-
|

=====Feldman, MacCulloch, & Orford=====
||
1971
||
63
||
Crumpsall Hospital
||
Aversive therapy
||
-
|| 

*Feldman, M. P., MacCulloch, M. J., & Orford, J. E (1971) Conclusions and speculations. In M. P. Feldman & M. J. MacCulloch, Homosexual behaviour: Therapy and assessment (pp. 156-188), New York: Pergamon Press.
|-
|

=====Colson=====
||
1972
||
1
||
Illinois State University
||
Olfactory aversion therapy
||
''Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry''
||

*Charles E. Colson, [http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/0005791672900717 "Olfactory aversion therapy for homosexual behavior,"] ''Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry'' Volume 3, Issue 3, September 1972, Pages 185-187. Concluded that olfactory aversion therapy provides many advantages over more traditional forms.
|-
|

=====Segal & Sims=====
||
1972
||
1
||
Murray State University
||
Covert Sensitization
||
''Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology''
||

*Segal, Bernard; Sims, Joseph, [http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=buy.optionToBuy&id=1973-05206-001 "Covert sensitization with a homosexual: A controlled replication,"] ''Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology'', Vol 39(2), Oct 1972, 259-263.
|-
|

=====Hallam & Rachman=====
||
1972
||
7
||
King's College, London
||
aversion shock therapy
||
''Behaviour Research and Therapy''
||

*R.S. Hallam and S. Rachman, [http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0005796772800111 "Some effects of aversion therapy on patients with sexual disorders,"] ''Behaviour Research and Therapy'' Volume 10, Issue 2, 1972, Pages 171-180.
|-
|

=====Hanson & Adesso=====
||
1972
||
1
||
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
||
Desensitization and aversive counter-conditioning
||
''Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry''
||

*Richard W. Hanson, and Vincent J. Adesso, [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V5V-46KC6WM-1D&_user=10&_coverDate=12%2F31%2F1972&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=32d542dfb72d160bd92504744f3ef810&searchtype=a "A multiple behavioral approach to male homosexual behavior: A case study"], ''Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry'' Volume 3, Issue 4, December 1972, Pages 323-325. This study took place in 1972, involved a single male subject, and included a follow-up six months from the original treatment. The study was published in the Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry.
|-
|

=====McConaghy, Proctor, & Barr=====
||
1972
||
40
||
Prince Henry Hospital (Sydney, Australia)
||
Apomorphine aversion conditioning
||
''Archives of Sexual Behavior''
||
*N. McConaghy, D. Proctor, and R. Barr, [http://www.springerlink.com/content/b3vn626u58170811/ "Subjective and penile plethysmography responses to aversion therapy for homosexuality: A partial replication"], ''Archives of Sexual Behavior,'' Volume 2, Number 1, 1972, Pages 65-78. This study used both aversion and positive conditioning toward heterosexuality. A six-month follow-up indicated some success in half the subjects.
|-
|

=====Callahan & Leitenberg=====
||
1973
||
23
||
Carmarillo State Hosp., California
||
aversion shock therapy
||
''The Journal of Abnormal Psychology''
||

*Callahan EJ, Leitenberg H., [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/4690218 "Aversion therapy for sexual deviation: contingent shock and covert sensitization.,"] ''Journal of Abnormal Psychology,'' 1973 Feb;81(1):60-73.; [http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/abn/81/1/60/ "Aversion therapy for sexual deviation: Contingent shock and covert sensitization."] This study, published in 1973, involved six test subjects. Follow-up study took place four to eighteen months later. The study was published in The Journal of Abnormal Psychology.
|-
|

=====McConaghy & Barr=====
||
1973
||
46
||
University of New South Wales, Institute of Psychiatry of New South Wales
||
Classical conditioning, avoidance conditioning
||
''The British Journal of Psychiatry''
||
*N. McConaghy and R. F. Barr, [http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/abstract/122/567/151 "Classical, Avoidance and Backward Conditioning Treatments of Homosexuality,"] ''The British Journal of Psychiatry'' (1973) 122: 151-162. This study concluded that homosexual feelings decreased for half the subjects, and also that the aversive conditioning worked, but not by setting up conditioned reflexes.
|-
|

=====Tanner=====
||
1974
||
16
||
Center for Behavior Change
||
aversion shock therapy
||
''Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry''
||

*Barry A. Tanner, [http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/0005791673900542 "Aversive shock issues: Physical danger, emotional harm, effectiveness and “dehumanization”,"] ''Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry'' Volume 4, Issue 2, June 1973, Pages 113-115 Concluded that aversion therapy was safe.
|-
|

=====McConaghy=====
||
1975
||
31
||
University of New South Wales
||
Aversion shock therapy
||
''Behaviour Research and Therapy''
||

*N. McConaghy, [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V5W-45WYX82-S4&_user=10&_coverDate=10%2F31%2F1975&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1694330612&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=ed364f1af60d24e2df8a32e2c4ece0cf&searchtype=a "Aversive and positive conditioning treatments of homosexuality"], ''Behaviour Research and Therapy'' Volume 13, Issue 4, October 1975, pages 309-319 This study used both aversive conditioning against homosexuality and also positive conditioning toward heterosexuality. It concluded that the positive conditioning was ineffective.
|-
|

=====Tanner=====
||
1975
||
16
||
Northeast Guidance Center
||
Aversion shock therapy
||
''Behavior Therapy''
||

*Barry A. Tanner, [http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0005789475801870 "Avoidance training with and without booster sessions to modify homosexual behavior in males,"] ''Behavior Therapy'', Volume 6, Issue 5, October 1975, Pages 649-653.
|-
|

=====Freeman & Meyer=====
||
1975
||
9
||
University of Louisville
||
Aversion shock therapy
||
''Behavior Therapy''
||

*William Freeman, a and Robert G. Meyer, [http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0005789475801420 "A behavioral alteration of sexual preferences in the human male,"] ''Behavior Therapy'' Volume 6, Issue 2, March 1975, Pages 206-212.
|-
|

=====McConaghy=====
||
1976
||
157
||
University of New South Wales
||
Aversion apomorphine therapy
||
''The British Journal of Psychiatry''
||
*N McConaghy, [http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/abstract/129/6/556 "Is a homosexual orientation irreversible?"], ''The British Journal of Psychiatry'' 129: 556-563 (1976)
|-
|

=====James=====
||
1978
||
40
||
Hollymoor Hospital, England
||
Anticipatory avoidance, desensitization, hypnosis, anticipatory avoidance
||
''Behavior Therapy''
||
*Sheelah James, [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B7XMW-4K605K5-5&_user=10&_coverDate=01%2F31%2F1978&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1697125903&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=7c60d59837514f05db0637bd232173f9&searchtype=a "Treatment of homosexuality II. Superiority of desensitization/arousal as compared with anticipatory avoidance conditioning: Results of a controlled trial,"] ''Behavior Therapy'' Volume 9, Issue 1, January 1978, Pages 28-36
|-
|

=====McConaghy, Armstrong, & Blaszczynski=====
||
1981
||
20
||
University of New South Wales
||
Aversive therapy
||
''Behavior Research and Therapy''
||
*McConaghy, N., Armstrong, M. S., & Blaszczynski, A. [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V5W-45XTVVT-89&_user=10&_coverDate=12%2F31%2F1981&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=ad84d4c34eba76377747e4f0a56795e1&searchtype=a "Controlled comparison of aversive therapy and covert sensitization in compulsive homosexuality,"] ''Behavior Research and Therapy'', 19, 1981. 425-434.
|-
|}
</center>

=== Purpose of psychological therapy ===

The purpose of therapy is to help patients towards their desired goals. One of the fundamentals in the field is patient self-determination. It is the patient who sets the goals, not the therapist. Aversion therapy, which is still administered today to help smokers, is not administered as a way to torture the subjects for smoking, but to help them achieve their goal of being smoke-free. Similarly, the therapy at BYU was administered to people who felt distress about their sexual lives. The purpose of the therapy was to relieve that stress. The volunteers for the study sought help to change their homosexuality and medical associations of that time recommended this therapy as just one among several.

An analysis of similar aversion therapy studies indicate that they may have caused or exacerbated distress and poor mental health, especially depression and suicidal thoughts. (For more information on suicides, see [[Mormonism and gender issues/Same-sex attraction/Suicide|Same-sex attraction/Suicide]].) Whether or not these effects were experienced by the participants at the studies run at BYU could not be determined. There is an inherent risk in therapy for mental illnesses. As with many experiments, the risks were not fully understood at the time they were being run.

=={{Endnotes label}}==

#{{note|smoking1}}Nigel Barber, Ph.D., [http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-human-beast/201002/smoking-most-effective-quitting-technique-little-known "Smoking: Most effective quitting technique little known,"] February 17, 2010
#{{note|minddisorders1}} [http://www.minddisorders.com/A-Br/Aversion-therapy.html "Aversion Therapy,"] ''Encyclopedia of Mental Disorders''

#{{note|seligman.156}} Seligman, Martin E.P., ''What You Can Change and What You Can't: The Complete Guide to Self Improvement'' Knopf, 1993; ISBN 0-679-41024-4, p. 156

#{{note|icd10online1}}[http://apps.who.int/classifications/apps/icd/icd10online/?gf60.htm+f661 "Mental and behavioural disorders,"] ''International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems'', 10th Revision Version for 2007

#{{note|ama1}} "Health Care Needs of Gay Men and Lesbians in the U.S.," American Medical Association Report, 1994

#{{note|apa1}}[http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/therapeutic-response.pdf "APA Task Force on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation."] (2009). ''Report of the Task Force on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation.'' Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

{{FurtherReading}}

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

Homosexuality and the Church of Jesus Christ/Aversion therapy performed at BYU

2013-03-09T20:54:36Z

RonHellings1: /* Aversion therapy at BYU */

{{Articles FAIR copyright}} {{Articles Header 1}} {{Articles Header 2}} {{Articles Header 3}} {{Articles Header 4}} {{Articles Header 5}} {{Articles Header 6}} {{Articles Header 7}} {{Articles Header 8}} {{Articles Header 9}} {{Articles Header 10}}
{{SSAPortal}}
=Homosexual aversion therapy performed at BYU in the 1970's=
=={{Question label}}==

* Did the Church ever conduct aversion therapy?
* What was the history of BYU and aversion therapy for treating homosexuality?
* Did BYU ever use vomitting as part of therapy?
* Did BYU ever force students to undergo therapy?
* How did that relate to medical and psychological science as understood at that time?
* What was the role of the Church in BYU's treatments?

=={{Conclusion label}}==

The Church never conducted aversion therapies of any sort. They never recommended it, and they never mandated it.

Like many other places in the western world, aversion therapy was conducted at BYU in the 1970s. At this time, aversion therapy was applied to a number of behaviors. At BYU the therapy was conducted following standards published by professional societies and unlike other places, it was only conducted on adults who gave their permission. The Church does not oversee research at BYU.

* [http://www.fairblog.org/2012/01/04/fair-examination-6-overcoming-same-sex-attraction-blake-smith/ FAIR Examination 6 - Overcoming same-sex attraction - Blake Smith] - FAIR podcast of LDS man who underwent aversion therapy
* [http://www.fairblog.org/2012/02/01/fair-examination-8-aversion-therapy-at-byu-dr-eugene-thorne/ FAIR Examination 8 - Aversion therapy at BYU - Dr. Eugene Thorne] - FAIR podcast of Dr. Thorne who oversaw aversion therapy at BYU.

== ==
{{Response label}}
=== Aversion therapy at BYU ===

In the mid-1970s a graduate student, Max McBride, conducted a study entitled ''Effect of Visual Stimuli in Electric Aversion Therapy''. It appears that the study was conducted during 1974 and 1975 with the average length of treatment during the study being three months. The results of this study were published in August 1976 as McBride's PhD dissertation in the BYU Department of Psychology. McBride's research has recently been sensationalized and several incorrect claims have been made about his study. The following facts need to be kept in mind as the study is evaluated.

:Basis for the study. BYU did not pioneer the use of aversion therapy as a treatment for homosexuality and it ceased use of the therapy decades before the APA stopped recommending the practice. BYU was one of many places where research in this area was done. McBride's dissertation contains over 17 pages of documentation discussing other studies from across the discipline in which aversion therapy had previously been applied to male homosexuality. In fact, the purpose of the McBride's study was not to determine the effectiveness of aversion therapy in treating homosexuality. That question was generally accepted, at the time, to have been satisfactorily answered in previous studies at other institutions.

:Supervision. The study was conducted under the supervision of Dr. D. Eugene Thorne, who also served as McBride's PhD committee chairman. All study procedures followed common medical practice. McBride acknowledges the assistance of medical professionals at the Salt Lake City Veterans Hospital in designing the study and completing the statistical analysis.

:Population. The study was limited to ego-dystonic homosexuality and did not involve any treatment of ego-syntonic homosexuality. The volunteers for McBride's study were all men whose same-sex attraction was contrary to their desires and who wanted to change their sexual orientation.

:Subjects. McBride discusses the subjects chosen in the following excerpt from his dissertation:

::Seventeen male subjects were used in the study, 14 completed treatment. Selection was on the basis of clinical evidence of homosexuality; absence of psychosis (no prior history); desire for treatment; no history of epilepsy, alcoholism or drug addiction.

:Disclosure. McBride describes the procedures used to ensure full disclosure of what the subjects were to expect. We quote from his dissertation:

::It was mandatory that all subjects chosen to participate sign and have witnessed a prepared statement explaining (a) the experimental nature of the treatment procedure, (b) the use of aversive electric shock, (c) the showing of 35 mm slides that might be construed by subject as possibly offensive, and (d) that Brigham Young University was not in any direct way endorsing the procedures used. This was to insure that all subjects were in full agreement and understanding as to what the treatment procedure would involve, provide and demand from them.

:Nature of the study. The techniques used by McBride followed the standard aversion therapy procedures of the time. The volunteers were subjected to electric shocks applied to their upper arms while being shown both clothed and nude pictures of men. They were able to choose to end the shocks by switching to nude and clothed pictures of women.

:Materials. The materials used in the study consisted of nude pictures of men and women and pictures of clothed men and women taken from current fashion magazines. None of the pictures displayed or even implied sexual acts. In fact, the thing being investigated in McBride’s study was not the effectiveness of aversion therapy, but the relative value of clothed versus nude pictures in this type of therapeutic procedure.

In the years since the study, some of the study participants have talked publicly about their experiences. Many of these reports are troubling to read, as are similar reports from participants in studies at other universities and facilities of the time. While it seems likely that the McBride study was traumatic to some of the individuals involved, it must be remembered that participation in the study was voluntary, each participant had a clear explanation beforehand what the study would entail, and participants could leave the study at any time they wanted. Indeed, three of the seventeen participants in the study did not remain to its completion. These points are not mentioned to minimize the experiences of these participants in any manner; they are only made so that the professional and ethical context of the study can be properly evaluated.

It is also important to note that aversion therapy as a treatment for homosexuality was not a major element of BYU research. In the APA task force report, BYU's contribution to the field of aversion therapy was not covered. This is probably because BYU's involvement was too minor to include. Other universities had more participants and many conducted their studies later than BYU.

==== Vomiting was not used ====
McBride's thesis thoroughly describes the methods used to induce aversion. He did not use vomiting. A FAIR podcast with Dr. Thorne revealed vomiting was never used in any of the therapy. Recently BYU made the following statement:

:The BYU Counseling Center never practiced therapy that would involve chemical or induced vomiting.[http://abcnews.go.com/Health/mormon-gay-cures-reparative-therapies-shock-today/story?id=13240700&page=2#.TzrMQ1wS2Sw]

Most of the accusations of using vomiting come from a person who admits he never underwent therapy and from the "documentary" 8: The Mormon Proposition, which contains several false accusations as detailed [[Criticism of Mormonism/Video/8: The Mormon Proposition|here]]. Even those two accounts do line up with each other. No reliable sources have ever documented the use of vomiting at BYU.

====Participation was voluntary====

Aversion therapy was completely voluntary at BYU. Participants could enter and leave as they wish. In an interview with FAIR, Dr. Thorne explained that the voluntary nature was essential to get scientific results. He said any type of pressure for the participants to give certain answers would jade the results of the study. For this reason, they would not have accepted referrals from the Honor Code office even if they had been given. There was also a strict separation between what they did and what the honor code office knew about so as to remove any possibility of "pretending" to have certain results to please the honor code office. As reported in the thesis, participants could drop out at any time for whatever reason, as evidenced by the fact that some did.

====Did the Church perform aversion therapy?====

The Church has never conducted aversion therapy. It doesn't conduct psychological therapy of any type. The LDS Church is a church, not a medical institution. People who happen to be LDS or go to BYU do a great variety of things. The Church does not take responsibility for everything done by a Mormon or for everything done by someone at BYU (not everyone at BYU is a Mormon).

In this particular case, a graduate student and his faculty mentor at Brigham Young University conducted a clinical study in the use of aversion therapy to treat ego-dystonic homosexuality. Ego-dystonic homosexuality is a condition where an individual's same-sex attraction is in conflict with his idealized self-image, creating anxiety and a desire to change. At the time, the American Psychiatric Society considered ego-dystonic homosexuality to be a mental illness, and aversion therapy was one of the standard treatments. Experiments were only run on those who had expressed a desire for the therapy, and all of the subjects indicated they had improved as a result of the therapy. The experiments adhered to the professional standards of the time. As stated in the paper that reported the results of this research, the research was never endorsed by BYU.

LDS Church leadership does not dictate nor oversee the details of scientific research at Brigham Young University. Like many universities, there are many different research projects going on with many different views on many different subjects. The Church is not responsible for every view held by one of its researchers. The church itself has never recommended aversion therapy.

The church has posted on its website an interview with the following quote:

:"The Church rarely takes a position on which treatment techniques are appropriate for medical doctors or for psychiatrists or psychologists and so on. The second point is that there are abusive practices that have been used in connection with various mental attitudes or feelings. Over-medication in respect to depression is an example that comes to mind. The aversive therapies that have been used in connection with same-sex attraction have contained some serious abuses that have been recognized over time within the professions. While we have no position about what the medical doctors do (except in very, very rare cases — abortion would be such an example), we are conscious that there are abuses and we don’t accept responsibility for those abuses. Even though they are addressed at helping people we would like to see helped, we can’t endorse every kind of technique that’s been used."

President Kimball once cited reputable medical sources indicating that the practice of homosexuality could be abandoned through treatments, but he did not specify any treatments by name. The point President Kimball wanted to make, and that the church still makes, is that sexual actions can and must be controlled.

=== Church's relationship to BYU ===

The church does not direct or oversee scientific research at BYU and does not mandate what experiments are to be done or not to be done. At BYU, as at other universities, students and professors have a variety of opinions and approaches and have significant freedom to pursue their own academic interests.

As an example, retired BYU professor William Bradshaw has presented biological evidence supporting his view that homosexuality is not an acquired tendency and lifestyle.[http://newsnet.byu.edu/story.cfm/49488] Bradshaw is free to share this view at BYU even though the church does not have a particular position on the causes of same-sex attraction and certainly believes that the lifestyles we follow represent a choice.

In the 1970's, there were a variety of opinions about how to treat mental disorders. Some professors and students were partial to the behaviorist movement to treat mental illnesses while others focused on verbal therapy. Today, the APA recommends cognitive therapies to help people who feel distress about their sexual orientation, but, in the 1970s, it was unclear which approach was best. If a professor or a graduate student favored one approach over another, it was because they favored that approach, not because it was mandated by the LDS Church.

=== Academic freedom at BYU ===
{{Main|Mormonism and education}}

The fact is that every member of the BYU community is free to espouse his or her own theories. As long as they remain in line with standards published by the professional societies and with the school’s academic freedom policy, all are free to pursue their own line of thinking. Actually, this situation is one of the requirements for university accreditation, and BYU is an accredited university.

It should also be remembered that, contrary to the popular caricature of the church, Latter-Day Saints are encouraged to think for themselves and find their own answers to questions, without coercion from church leadership. Doctrine and Covenants 58:26 reads:

:For behold, it is not meet that I should command in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant; wherefore he receiveth no reward.

And it was Joseph Smith himself who famously said:

:I want the liberty of thinking and believing as I please. It feels so good not to be trammeled. [History of the Church 5:340]

==Aversion therapy==

=== Aversion therapy is a standard technique ===

Aversion therapy is still used today for a variety of treatments, such as gambling, smoking, alcoholism, and violence. A 2010 article in Psychology Today states "To date, aversion therapy using shock and nausea is the only technique of quitting [smoking] that offers decent gambling odds." {{ref|smoking1}} The Encyclopedia of Mental Disorders has this entry for aversion therapy:

:A patient who consults a behavior therapist for aversion therapy can expect a fairly standard set of procedures. The therapist begins by assessing the problem, most likely measuring its frequency, severity, and the environment in which the undesirable behavior occurs. Although the therapeutic relationship is not the focus of treatment for the behavior therapist, therapists in this tradition believe that good rapport will facilitate a successful outcome. A positive relationship is also necessary to establish the patient's confidence in the rationale for exposing him or her to an uncomfortable stimulus. The therapist will design a treatment protocol and explain it to the patient. The most important choice the therapist makes is the type of aversive stimulus to employ. Depending upon the behavior to be changed, the preferred aversive stimulus is often electric stimulation delivered to the forearm or leg. {{ref|minddisorders1}}

Over the years, the methods have been refined and approved. Today, we have decades of research that were not available in the 1970s, giving us a better understanding of where aversion therapy would be effective and where it would not be effective. The methods of the 1970s may seem crude compared to today's standards, but today's standards will probably seem crude in another 40 years. Forms of aversion therapy are still used today by mainstream psychologists to treat a variety of conditions.

=== History of therapy and homosexuality ===

Homosexuality was once illegal in many countries, and those convicted were forced into various therapies against their wills.[http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/sep/11/pm-apology-to-alan-turing]

In 1966, Martin E.P. Seligman conducted a study at the University of Pennsylvania which showed positive results in applying aversion therapy to help people stop engaging in homosexual behavior. According to Seligman, this led to "a great burst of enthusiasm about changing homosexuality [that] swept over the therapeutic community." {{ref|seligman.156}} Research was conducted by researchers at many institutions, including universities like Harvard and King's College in London.

Historically, there were two types of homosexuality that were treated, ego-dystonic homosexuality and ego-syntonic homosexuality. Ego-dystonic homosexuality is a condition where an individual's same-sex attraction is in conflict with his idealized self-image, creating anxiety and a desire to change. Ego-syntonic homosexuality describes a situation where the subject is content with his or her sexual orientation. Ego-dystonic homosexuality was considered a mental illness by the American Psychological Association (APA) until 1987, and an ego-dystonic sexual orientation is still considered a mental illness by the World Health Organization ([http://apps.who.int/classifications/apps/icd/icd10online/?gf60.htm+f661 F66.1]). {{ref|icd10online1}}

Even after the APA declassified ego-dystonic homosexuality as mental illness, aversion therapy could still be used to treat distress over sexual orientation, though not the sexual orientation itself. Persistent and marked distress about sexual orientation is still classified as a sexual disorder in the DSM-IV under ''Sexual Disorder Not Otherwise Specified'' (302.9). It was not until 1994, that the American Medical Association issued a report that stated "aversion therapy is no longer recommended for gay men and lesbians" {{ref|ama1}} and it was not until 2006 that using aversion therapy to treat homosexuality became a violation of the codes of conduct and professional guidelines of the American Psychological Association and American Psychiatric Association.

In 2009, a task force was commissioned by the American Psychological Association to investigate therapies used to treat homosexuality, including aversion therapy. They reported:

:Early research on efforts to change sexual orientation focused heavily on interventions that include aversion techniques. Many of these studies did not set out to investigate harm. Nonetheless, these studies provide some suggestion that harm can occur from aversive efforts to change sexual orientation...

:We conclude that there is a dearth of scientifically sound research on the safety of SOCE [sexual orientation change efforts]. Early and recent research studies provide no clear indication of the prevalence of harmful outcomes among people who have undergone efforts to change their sexual orientation or the frequency of occurrence of harm because no study to date of adequate scientific rigor has been explicitly designed to do so. Thus, we cannot conclude how likely it is that harm will occur from SOCE. However, studies from both periods indicate that attempts to change sexual orientation may cause or exacerbate distress and poor mental health in some individuals, including depression and suicidal thoughts. The lack of rigorous research on the safety of SOCE represents a serious concern, as do studies that report perceptions of harm (cf. Lilienfeld, 2007). {{ref|apa1}}

Ego-syntonic homosexuality was not addressed in the BYU studies, though it was a subject of research performed at other institutions. Furthermore, BYU only treated adults. Other institutions, such as UCLA, treated children as young as 6.[http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0005796777901024]

=== Aversion therapy at other institutions ===

A significant number of hospitals and universities historically offered aversion therapy as a way to treat homosexuality. It would be impossible to list all of them, but here are a few of the major places where people were involved in research using aversion therapy to treat homosexuality:

<center>
{| valign="top" border="1" style="width:90%"
!Author!!Year!!Number!!Institution!!Type!!Publication!!References and Notes
|-
|

=====Max=====
||
1935
||
?
||
New York University
||
Aversion therapy
||
''Psychological bulletin''
||

*Max, Louis William. "Breaking Up a Homosexual Fixation by the Conditioned Reaction Technique: A Case Study," Psychological Bulletin (Washington, D.C.), Vol. 32 (1935): p. 734·
|-
|

=====Freund=====
||
1960
||
67
||
University of Toronto
||
Aversion apomorphine therapy
||
''Adult sexual interest in children''
||

*Kurt Freund, [http://www.mhamic.org/sources/freund.htm "Assessment of pedophilia,"] in Cook, M. & Howells, K. (eds.), ''Adult sexual interest in children'', London: Academic Press, 1981, pp. 139-179.
|-
|

=====James=====
||
1962
||
1
||
Glenside Hospital (Bristol, U.K.)
||
Aversion apomorphine therapy
||
''British Medical Journal''
||

*BASIL JAMES, M.B., B.Ch., B.Sc., D.P.M., [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1957923/pdf/brmedj02859-0056.pdf "CASE OF HOMOSEXUALITY TREATED BY AVERSION THERAPY"] ''British Medical Journal,'' MARCH 17, 1962, p. 768. This study, published in 1962, reported a on the treatment of a single 40-year-old male.
|-
|

=====Miller=====
||
1963
||
4
||
Howard University
||
Hypnotic-Aversion
||
''Journal of the National Medical Association''
||

*Miller, Michael M. [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2642357/pdf/jnma00681-0043.pdf "Hypnotic-Aversion Treatment of Homosexuality,"] Journal of the National Medical Association. Vol. 55, no. 5 (1963): p. 4II-15, 436. (P. 4II-13, 415.)
|-
|

=====Thorpe, Schmidt, Brown, Castell=====
||
1964
||
-
||
Banstead Hospital
||
Imaginary aversive therapy
||
''Behavior Research Therapy''
||

*J. G. Thorpe, E. Schmidt, P. T. Brown and D. Castell, [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0005796764900580 "Aversion-relief therapy: A new method for general application,"] ''Behavior Research and Therapy,'' Volume 2, Issue 1, May 1964, Pages 71-82
|-
|

=====Golda, Neufelda=====
||
1964
||
39
||
Guy's Hospital
||
Imaginary aversive therapy
||
''Behavior Research Therapy''
||

*Golda and Neufelda, [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0005796764900166 "A learning approach to the treatment of homosexuality,"] ''Behavior Research and Therapy,'' 1964 October 20.
|-
|

=====McGuire, Vallance=====
||
1965
||
39
||
Southern General Hospital
||
Aversive shock therapy
||
''British Medical Journal''
||

*R. J. McGuire and M. Vallance, [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1812608/?page=1 "Aversion Therapy by Electric Shock: a Simple Technique,"] ''British Medical Journal,'' 1964 January 18; 1(5376): 151–153.
|-
|

=====MacCulloch, Pinschof & Feldman=====
||
1965
||
4
||
Crumpsall Hospital, Manchester, UK
||
Anticipatory avoidance with aversion shock therapy
||
''Behavior Research and Therapy''
||
*MacCulloch, M. J., Feldman, M. P. and Pinschof, J. M., “The application of anticipatory avoidance learning to the treatment of homosexuality—III : The sexual orientation method,"] ''Behaviour Research and Therapy'' Volume 4, Issue 4, November 1966, Pages 289-299
|-
|

=====Solyom & Miller=====
||
1965
||
6
||
Allan Memorial Institute
||
Aversion shock therapy
||
''Behavior Research and Therapy''
||

*Solyom, L., & Miller, S. (1965) A differential conditioning procedure as the initial phase of the behavior therapy of homosexuality. ''Behavior Research and Therapy'', 3, 147-160.
|-
|

=====MacCulloch & Feldman=====
||
1967
||
43
||
Crumpsall Hospital (Manchester, U.K.)
||
Anticipatory avoidance with aversion shock therapy
||
''British Medical Journal''
||

*M. J. MacCulloch and M. P. Feldman, [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1842087/?page=1 "Aversion therapy in management of 43 homosexuals."], ''British Medical Journal'' 1967 June 3; 2(5552): 594–597. This study was published in 1967, and involved 43 male test subjects.
|-
|

=====Bancroft & Marks=====
||
1968
||
-
||
Institute of Psychiatry and Maudsley Hospital
||
Electric aversion therapy
||
''Proceedings of the Royal Society of Medicine''
||

*Bancroft & Marks, [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1902433/pdf/procrsmed00153-0074.pdf "Electric aversion therapy of sexual deviations."], ''Proc R Soc Med.'' 1968 August; 61(8): 796–799
|-
|

=====Fookes=====
||
1969
||
27
||
?
||
aversion shock therapy
||
''British Journal of Psychiatry''
||

*B.H. Fookes, [http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/citation/115/520/339 "Some Experiences in the Use of Aversion Therapy in Male Homosexuality, Exhibitionism and Fetishism-Transvestism,"] ''The British Journal of Psychiatry'' (1969) 115: 339-341.
|-
|

=====Bancroft=====
||
1969
||
16
||
?
||
aversive shock therapy
||
''The British Journal of Psychiatry''
||

*JOHN BANCROFT M.B., M.R.C.P., D.P.M. [http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/abstract/115/529/1417 "Aversion Therapy of Homosexuality,"] ''The British Journal of Psychiatry'' (1969) 115: 1417-1431.
|-
|

=====McConaghy=====
||
1969
||
40
||
The University of New South Wales
||
aversion apomorphine therapy
||
''The British Journal of Psychiatry''
||

*N. McConaghy M.D., B.Sc., D.P.M., [http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/abstract/115/523/723 "Subjective and Penile Plethysmograph Responses Following Aversion-Relief and Apomorphine Aversion Therapy for Homosexual Impulses,"] ''The British Journal of Psychiatry'' (1969) 115: 723-730.
|-
|

=====Barlow=====
||
1973
||
-
||
The University of Mississippi
||
Variety
||
''Behavior Therapy''
||

*Barlow, David H, [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0005789473801583 "Increasing heterosexual responsiveness in the treatment of sexual deviation: A review of the clinical and experimental evidence,"] ''Behavior Therapy'' Volume 4, Issue 5, October 1973, Pages 655-671
|-
|

=====Birk, Huddleston, Miller, & Cohler=====
||
1971
||
18
||
Joint project from Harvard and University of Chicago
||
Aversive shock therapy vs. associative conditioning
||
''Archives of General Psychiatry''
|| 

*Lee Birk, MD; William Huddleston, JD; Elizabeth Miller; Bertram Cohler, PhD, [http://archpsyc.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/25/4/314 "Avoidance Conditioning for Homosexuality,"] ''Archives of General Psychiatry.'' 1971;25(4):314-323. This study, published in 1971, involved eight treated subjects and eight placebo subjects. A follow-up study was conducted two years after the original treatment. The study was published in the ''Archives of General Psychiatry''.
|-
|

=====Feldman, MacCulloch, & Orford=====
||
1971
||
63
||
Crumpsall Hospital
||
Aversive therapy
||
-
|| 

*Feldman, M. P., MacCulloch, M. J., & Orford, J. E (1971) Conclusions and speculations. In M. P. Feldman & M. J. MacCulloch, Homosexual behaviour: Therapy and assessment (pp. 156-188), New York: Pergamon Press.
|-
|

=====Colson=====
||
1972
||
1
||
Illinois State University
||
Olfactory aversion therapy
||
''Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry''
||

*Charles E. Colson, [http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/0005791672900717 "Olfactory aversion therapy for homosexual behavior,"] ''Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry'' Volume 3, Issue 3, September 1972, Pages 185-187. Concluded that olfactory aversion therapy provides many advantages over more traditional forms.
|-
|

=====Segal & Sims=====
||
1972
||
1
||
Murray State University
||
Covert Sensitization
||
''Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology''
||

*Segal, Bernard; Sims, Joseph, [http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=buy.optionToBuy&id=1973-05206-001 "Covert sensitization with a homosexual: A controlled replication,"] ''Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology'', Vol 39(2), Oct 1972, 259-263.
|-
|

=====Hallam & Rachman=====
||
1972
||
7
||
King's College, London
||
aversion shock therapy
||
''Behaviour Research and Therapy''
||

*R.S. Hallam and S. Rachman, [http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0005796772800111 "Some effects of aversion therapy on patients with sexual disorders,"] ''Behaviour Research and Therapy'' Volume 10, Issue 2, 1972, Pages 171-180.
|-
|

=====Hanson & Adesso=====
||
1972
||
1
||
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
||
Desensitization and aversive counter-conditioning
||
''Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry''
||

*Richard W. Hanson, and Vincent J. Adesso, [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V5V-46KC6WM-1D&_user=10&_coverDate=12%2F31%2F1972&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=32d542dfb72d160bd92504744f3ef810&searchtype=a "A multiple behavioral approach to male homosexual behavior: A case study"], ''Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry'' Volume 3, Issue 4, December 1972, Pages 323-325. This study took place in 1972, involved a single male subject, and included a follow-up six months from the original treatment. The study was published in the Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry.
|-
|

=====McConaghy, Proctor, & Barr=====
||
1972
||
40
||
Prince Henry Hospital (Sydney, Australia)
||
Apomorphine aversion conditioning
||
''Archives of Sexual Behavior''
||
*N. McConaghy, D. Proctor, and R. Barr, [http://www.springerlink.com/content/b3vn626u58170811/ "Subjective and penile plethysmography responses to aversion therapy for homosexuality: A partial replication"], ''Archives of Sexual Behavior,'' Volume 2, Number 1, 1972, Pages 65-78. This study used both aversion and positive conditioning toward heterosexuality. A six-month follow-up indicated some success in half the subjects.
|-
|

=====Callahan & Leitenberg=====
||
1973
||
23
||
Carmarillo State Hosp., California
||
aversion shock therapy
||
''The Journal of Abnormal Psychology''
||

*Callahan EJ, Leitenberg H., [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/4690218 "Aversion therapy for sexual deviation: contingent shock and covert sensitization.,"] ''Journal of Abnormal Psychology,'' 1973 Feb;81(1):60-73.; [http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/abn/81/1/60/ "Aversion therapy for sexual deviation: Contingent shock and covert sensitization."] This study, published in 1973, involved six test subjects. Follow-up study took place four to eighteen months later. The study was published in The Journal of Abnormal Psychology.
|-
|

=====McConaghy & Barr=====
||
1973
||
46
||
University of New South Wales, Institute of Psychiatry of New South Wales
||
Classical conditioning, avoidance conditioning
||
''The British Journal of Psychiatry''
||
*N. McConaghy and R. F. Barr, [http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/abstract/122/567/151 "Classical, Avoidance and Backward Conditioning Treatments of Homosexuality,"] ''The British Journal of Psychiatry'' (1973) 122: 151-162. This study concluded that homosexual feelings decreased for half the subjects, and also that the aversive conditioning worked, but not by setting up conditioned reflexes.
|-
|

=====Tanner=====
||
1974
||
16
||
Center for Behavior Change
||
aversion shock therapy
||
''Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry''
||

*Barry A. Tanner, [http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/0005791673900542 "Aversive shock issues: Physical danger, emotional harm, effectiveness and “dehumanization”,"] ''Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry'' Volume 4, Issue 2, June 1973, Pages 113-115 Concluded that aversion therapy was safe.
|-
|

=====McConaghy=====
||
1975
||
31
||
University of New South Wales
||
Aversion shock therapy
||
''Behaviour Research and Therapy''
||

*N. McConaghy, [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V5W-45WYX82-S4&_user=10&_coverDate=10%2F31%2F1975&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1694330612&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=ed364f1af60d24e2df8a32e2c4ece0cf&searchtype=a "Aversive and positive conditioning treatments of homosexuality"], ''Behaviour Research and Therapy'' Volume 13, Issue 4, October 1975, pages 309-319 This study used both aversive conditioning against homosexuality and also positive conditioning toward heterosexuality. It concluded that the positive conditioning was ineffective.
|-
|

=====Tanner=====
||
1975
||
16
||
Northeast Guidance Center
||
Aversion shock therapy
||
''Behavior Therapy''
||

*Barry A. Tanner, [http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0005789475801870 "Avoidance training with and without booster sessions to modify homosexual behavior in males,"] ''Behavior Therapy'', Volume 6, Issue 5, October 1975, Pages 649-653.
|-
|

=====Freeman & Meyer=====
||
1975
||
9
||
University of Louisville
||
Aversion shock therapy
||
''Behavior Therapy''
||

*William Freeman, a and Robert G. Meyer, [http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0005789475801420 "A behavioral alteration of sexual preferences in the human male,"] ''Behavior Therapy'' Volume 6, Issue 2, March 1975, Pages 206-212.
|-
|

=====McConaghy=====
||
1976
||
157
||
University of New South Wales
||
Aversion apomorphine therapy
||
''The British Journal of Psychiatry''
||
*N McConaghy, [http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/abstract/129/6/556 "Is a homosexual orientation irreversible?"], ''The British Journal of Psychiatry'' 129: 556-563 (1976)
|-
|

=====James=====
||
1978
||
40
||
Hollymoor Hospital, England
||
Anticipatory avoidance, desensitization, hypnosis, anticipatory avoidance
||
''Behavior Therapy''
||
*Sheelah James, [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B7XMW-4K605K5-5&_user=10&_coverDate=01%2F31%2F1978&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1697125903&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=7c60d59837514f05db0637bd232173f9&searchtype=a "Treatment of homosexuality II. Superiority of desensitization/arousal as compared with anticipatory avoidance conditioning: Results of a controlled trial,"] ''Behavior Therapy'' Volume 9, Issue 1, January 1978, Pages 28-36
|-
|

=====McConaghy, Armstrong, & Blaszczynski=====
||
1981
||
20
||
University of New South Wales
||
Aversive therapy
||
''Behavior Research and Therapy''
||
*McConaghy, N., Armstrong, M. S., & Blaszczynski, A. [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V5W-45XTVVT-89&_user=10&_coverDate=12%2F31%2F1981&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=ad84d4c34eba76377747e4f0a56795e1&searchtype=a "Controlled comparison of aversive therapy and covert sensitization in compulsive homosexuality,"] ''Behavior Research and Therapy'', 19, 1981. 425-434.
|-
|}
</center>

=== Purpose of psychological therapy ===

The purpose of therapy is to help patients towards their desired goals. One of the fundamentals in the field is patient self-determination. It is the patient who sets the goals, not the therapist. Aversion therapy, which is still administered today to help smokers, is not administered as a way to torture the subjects for smoking, but to help them achieve their goal of being smoke-free. Similarly, the therapy at BYU was administered to people who felt distress about their sexual lives. The purpose of the therapy was to relieve that stress. The volunteers for the study sought help to change their homosexuality and medical associations of that time recommended this therapy as just one among several.

An analysis of similar aversion therapy studies indicate that they may have caused or exacerbated distress and poor mental health, especially depression and suicidal thoughts. (For more information on suicides, see [[Mormonism and gender issues/Same-sex attraction/Suicide|Same-sex attraction/Suicide]].) Whether or not these effects were experienced by the participants at the studies run at BYU could not be determined. There is an inherent risk in therapy for mental illnesses. As with many experiments, the risks were not fully understood at the time they were being run.

=={{Endnotes label}}==

#{{note|smoking1}}Nigel Barber, Ph.D., [http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-human-beast/201002/smoking-most-effective-quitting-technique-little-known "Smoking: Most effective quitting technique little known,"] February 17, 2010
#{{note|minddisorders1}} [http://www.minddisorders.com/A-Br/Aversion-therapy.html "Aversion Therapy,"] ''Encyclopedia of Mental Disorders''

#{{note|seligman.156}} Seligman, Martin E.P., ''What You Can Change and What You Can't: The Complete Guide to Self Improvement'' Knopf, 1993; ISBN 0-679-41024-4, p. 156

#{{note|icd10online1}}[http://apps.who.int/classifications/apps/icd/icd10online/?gf60.htm+f661 "Mental and behavioural disorders,"] ''International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems'', 10th Revision Version for 2007

#{{note|ama1}} "Health Care Needs of Gay Men and Lesbians in the U.S.," American Medical Association Report, 1994

#{{note|apa1}}[http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/therapeutic-response.pdf "APA Task Force on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation."] (2009). ''Report of the Task Force on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation.'' Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

{{FurtherReading}}

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

Joseph Smith/Alleged false prophecies/The prophetic test in Deuteronomy 18

2013-01-23T22:11:46Z

RonHellings1: /* Ezekiel */

Joseph Smith/Alleged false prophecies/The prophetic test in Deuteronomy 18

2013-01-23T19:16:07Z

RonHellings1: /* Samson */

Joseph Smith/Alleged false prophecies/The prophetic test in Deuteronomy 18

2013-01-23T19:15:18Z

RonHellings1: /* Nathan */

Joseph Smith/Alleged false prophecies/The prophetic test in Deuteronomy 18

2013-01-23T19:12:49Z

RonHellings1: /* Jonah */

Joseph Smith/Alleged false prophecies/The prophetic test in Deuteronomy 18

2013-01-23T19:11:11Z

RonHellings1: /* Ezekiel */

Joseph Smith/Alleged false prophecies/The prophetic test in Deuteronomy 18

2013-01-23T19:01:43Z

RonHellings1: /* Specific biblical examples */

Joseph Smith/Alleged false prophecies/The prophetic test in Deuteronomy 18

2013-01-23T18:06:01Z

RonHellings1: /* Specific biblical examples */

Joseph Smith/Alleged false prophecies/The prophetic test in Deuteronomy 18

2013-01-23T17:53:26Z

RonHellings1: /* Samson */

Joseph Smith/Alleged false prophecies/The prophetic test in Deuteronomy 18

2013-01-23T17:52:49Z

RonHellings1: /* Samson */

Joseph Smith/Alleged false prophecies/The prophetic test in Deuteronomy 18

2013-01-23T17:47:49Z

RonHellings1: /* {{Conclusion label}} */

Joseph Smith/Alleged false prophecies/The prophetic test in Deuteronomy 18

2013-01-23T17:46:26Z

RonHellings1: /* {{Conclusion label}} */

Book of Abraham/Astronomy/Kolob-Sun

2012-08-05T16:05:34Z

RonHellings1: /* {{Conclusion label}} */

Book of Abraham/Astronomy/Kolob-Sun

2012-08-05T16:03:18Z

RonHellings1: /* */

Book of Abraham/Astronomy/Kolob-Sun

2012-08-05T16:01:56Z

RonHellings1: /* {{Conclusion label}} */

Book of Abraham/Astronomy/Kolob-Sun

2012-08-05T15:44:34Z

RonHellings1: /* */