FAIR - User contributions [en]

Criticism of Mormonism/Books/Nauvoo Polygamy/Chapter 2

2009-08-15T20:39:36Z

SuzanneArmitage: /* 80 n. 63 */

{{FAIRAnalysisHeader
|title=[[../../]]
|author=George D. Smith
|noauthor=
|section=[[../|Index of Claims]], Chapter 2 (pp. 52-107)
|previous=[[../Chapter 1a|Chapter 1 (pp. 26-51)]]
|next=[[../Chapter 2a|Chapter 2 (pp. 108-158)]]
|notes={{AuthorsDisclaimer}}
}}
__NOTOC__
=Claims made in "Chapter 2" (pp. 52-107)=
{{BeginClaimsTable}}
|
====53====
||
*Referring ''again'' to the Whitney letter, the author notes that Joseph "recommended his friend, whose seventeen-year-old daughter he had just married, should 'come a little a head, and nock…at the window.'"
||
*{{InternalContradiction|p. 65: "Joseph requested that Sarah Ann Whitney visit him and ‘nock at the window...."}}
*[[Joseph Smith and polygamy/"Love letters"]]
*[[../../Use_of_sources#Sarah_Ann_Whitney_and_the_letter_to_the_Whitneys|Use of sources—Letter to Whitneys]]
*[[../../Loaded and prejudicial language]]
*[[../../Romance]]
*{{GLS-Nauvoo Polygamy-FARMS}}
*The author commonly exploits the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presentism_(literary_and_historical_analysis) presentist fallacy] in the matter of Joseph's wives' ages.
*[[Polygamy book/Age of wives|Age of wives]]
*[[../../Presentism]]
||
*Smith, Letter to "Brother and Sister [Newel K.] Whitney, and &c.," Nauvoo, Illinois, Aug. 18, 1842, LDS Church Archives, Salt Lake City.
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:Love_letters_Whitney}}
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:Age_wives}}
|-
|

====53====
||
*{{AuthorQuote|The prophet then poured out his heart, writing to his newest wife: "My feelings are so strong for you…now is the time to afford me succour….I know it is the will of God that you should comfort me now."}}
||
*Joseph is speaking '''to all three Whitneys''', and the author again distorts the letter as at the beginning of the book.
*[[Joseph Smith and polygamy/"Love letters"]]
*[[../../Use_of_sources#Sarah_Ann_Whitney_and_the_letter_to_the_Whitneys|Use of sources—Letter to Whitneys]]
*[[../../Loaded and prejudicial language]]
*[[../../Romance]]
*{{GLS-Nauvoo Polygamy-FARMS}}
||
*Whitney letter, Aug. 18, 1842.
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:Love_letters_Whitney}}
|-
|

====53====
||
*{{AuthorQuote|"Emma Hale, Joseph's wife of fifteen years, had left his side just twenty-four hours earlier. Now Joseph declared that he was "lonesome," and he pleaded with Sarah Ann to visit him under cover of darkness. After all, they had been married just three weeks earlier.}}
||
*[[../../Loaded and prejudicial language|Loaded language]] trying to make Joseph appear sexually voracious and insensitive to Emma.
*As stated in the letter, the reason for the visit was to perform ordinances.
*[[Joseph Smith and polygamy/"Love letters"]]
*[[../../Use_of_sources#Sarah_Ann_Whitney_and_the_letter_to_the_Whitneys|Use of sources—Letter to Whitneys]]
*[[../../Loaded and prejudicial language]]
*[[../../Romance]]
*{{GLS-Nauvoo Polygamy-FARMS}}
||
*Whitney letter, Aug. 18, 1842.
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:Love_letters_Whitney}}
|-
|

====54====
||
*{{AuthorQuote|“Did Sarah Ann keep this rendezvous on that humid summer night? Unfortunately, the documentary record is silent.” But “the letter survives to illuminate the complexity of Smith’s life in Nauvoo."}}
||
*The documentary record is not silent, however, as to why Joseph sought a visit with his plural wife and her parents: to “tell you all my plans . . . [and] to git the fulness of my blessings sealed upon our heads, &c.”
*Small wonder that Joseph didn’t want a hostile Emma present while trying to administer what he and the Whitneys regarded as sacred ordinances. And, it is unsurprising that he considered a single private room sufficient for the purposes for which he summoned his plural wife and her parents.
*[[Joseph Smith and polygamy/"Love letters"]]
*[[../../Use_of_sources#Sarah_Ann_Whitney_and_the_letter_to_the_Whitneys|Use of sources—Letter to Whitneys]]
*[[../../Loaded and prejudicial language]]
*[[../../Romance]]
*{{GLS-Nauvoo Polygamy-FARMS}}
||
*No source provided.
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:Love_letters_Whitney}}
|-
|

====54====
||
*The author states that what interested him the most was how Joseph "went about courting…these women."
||
*No evidence that Joseph did any courting. He often used intermediaries.
*[[../../Loaded and prejudicial language]]
*[[../../Mind reading]]
*[[../../Romance]]
*[[../../Assumptions and presumptions]]
||
*No source provided.
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:Womanizing and romance}}
|-
|
====55====
||
*It is claimed that when polygamy was officially abandoned in 1890, that "what previously had been called 'celestial marriage' was subtly redefined to specify something new: marriage performed in LDS temples for this life and for an expected eternal afterlife."
||
*The claimed "redefinition" was present from the very beginning of plural marriage. The emphasis changed:
** [[Polygamy_book/Introduction_of_the_eternal_marriage|Plural marriage vs. celestial marriage in the beginning]]
** [[Polygamy a requirement for exaltation]]

||
*No source provided.
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:Necessary_for_salvation}}
|-
|

====55====
||
*Plural marriage is claimed to have originally been a "key principle" of exaltation, "but by adaption, celestial marriage was still said to be required, only now it meant monogamy rather than polygamy."

||
*[[Polygamy a requirement for exaltation]]
||
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:Necessary_for_salvation}}
|-
|

====55====
||
*{{AuthorQuote|"Despite his crowded daily schedule, the prophet interrupted other activities for secret liaisons with women and girls…."}}
||
*This is pure assumption by the author. He notes elsewhere that Joseph never even recorded anything about his plural marriages, much less anything about "secret liaisons with women and girls."
*[[../../Loaded and prejudicial language]]
||
*No source provided.
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:Womanizing and romance}}
|-
|
====55====
||
*The author notes that Joseph "assured the women and their families that such unions were not only sanctioned but were demanded by heaven and fulfilled the ethereal principle of 'restoration.'"
||
*Does not tell us that Joseph had the women get their OWN witness.
**[[Divine manifestations to plural wives and families]]
*Women could and did turn Joseph down with no consequences.
**[[Joseph Smith and polygamy/Did women turn Joseph down]]
*[[../../Loaded and prejudicial language]]
||
*No source provided.
|-
|

====56====
||
*The author assumes that "[t]here may have been even more wives and plural children."
||
*Anything ''might'' have happened. The author provides no evidence.
*This is the [[Logical_fallacies#Appeal_to_probability|fallacy of probability]].
||
*No source provided.
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:Fallacy of probability}}
|-
|

====57====
||
*The author notes that ''History of the Church'' says nothing about Nauvoo on the day of Louisa Beaman's marriage to Joseph.
||
*[[Censorship_and_revision_of_LDS_history]]
*[[../../Censorship]]
*{{GLS-Nauvoo Polygamy-FARMS}}
||
*No source provided.
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:Censorship}}
|-
|
====63====
||
*{{AuthorQuote|"As will be seen, conjugal visits appear furtive and constantly shadowed by the threat of disclosure."}}
||
*This is pure assumption on the part of the author—he provides no such evidence save his repeated distortion of the Whitney letter.
||
*No source provided.
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:Love_letters_Whitney}}
|-
|
====65====
||
*{{AuthorQuote|“when Joseph requested that Sarah Ann Whitney visit him and ‘nock at the window,’ he reassured his new young wife that Emma would not be there, telegraphing his fear of discovery if Emma happened upon his trysts.”}}
||
*{{InternalContradiction|p. 55: The invitation was to Sarah and her parents—[Joseph] "recommended his friend, whose seventeen-year-old daughter he had just married, should 'come a little a head, and nock…at the window.'"}}
*[[../../Contradictions]]
*[[Joseph Smith and polygamy/"Love letters"]]
*[[../../Use_of_sources#Sarah_Ann_Whitney_and_the_letter_to_the_Whitneys|Use of sources—Letter to Whitneys]]
*[[../../Loaded and prejudicial language]]
*[[../../Mind reading]]
*[[../../Romance]]
*{{GLS-Nauvoo Polygamy-FARMS}}
||
*No citation given
*{{HistoricalError}}
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:Love_letters_Whitney}}
|-
|

====65====
||
*The author claims that "[o]ne of the instrumental people in the inauguration of plural marriage was John [C.] Bennett…."
||
*A huge leap, presuming that Bennett's adulteries were ever sanctioned by Joseph, or had anything to do with plural marriage.
*[[Polygamy book/John C. Bennett|John C. Bennett]]
||
*Author's opinion.
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:John_C._Bennett}}
|-
|

====65====
||
*The author notes that in 1841, John C. Bennett was Joseph Smith's "closest confident." {{attn}}
||
*Ignores that Joseph began to distrust him for cause long before their public rupture.
*[[Polygamy book/John C. Bennett|John C. Bennett]]
||

* No source provided.
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:John_C._Bennett}}
|-
|

====65====
||
*It is claimed that Joseph was "sharing power" with Bennett.
||
*Bennett's power was mainly secular. He did little in the religious realm. Joseph had wanted to be relieved of temporal responsibilities, and Bennett was available.
*[[Polygamy book/John C. Bennett|John C. Bennett]]
||
*No source provided.
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:John_C._Bennett}}
|-
|
====65====
||
*It is claimed that in 1842, John C. Bennett spoke out against Joseph "and was soon stripped of his offices and titles."
||
*Bennett was guilty of serial immoralities, and had been disciplined on multiple occasions. He only "spoke out" once he learned that he was to be stripped of membership in the Church.
*The author has cause and effect reversed, perhaps because he doesn't want us to know of the overwhelming evidence of Bennett's guilt.
*[[Polygamy book/John C. Bennett|John C. Bennett]]
||
*No source provided.
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:John_C._Bennett}}
|-
|
====65====
||
*It is claimed that John C. Bennett and Joseph each "accused the other of immoral behavior."
||
*Bennett was accused by far more people, over a far greater length of time, of "immoral behavior." Many of his accusers were not LDS and had nothing to do with the Mormons.
*Bennett only began to accuse Joseph once his own crimes were repeatedly revealed.
*[[Polygamy book/John C. Bennett|John C. Bennett]]
||
*No source provided.
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:John_C._Bennett}}
|-
|

====65====
||
*The author attempts to rehabilitate John C. Bennett by claiming: "While some of his claims may have been exaggerations, much of what he reported can be confirmed by other eyewitness accounts."
||
*Many of Bennett's claims are clearly false.
*The author uses Bennett uncritically, and naively.
*The things which Bennett can "confirm" are mostly things like names of people Joseph married.
*Bennett also clearly forged some material from others.
*[[Polygamy book/John C. Bennett|John C. Bennett]]
||
*No source provided.
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:John_C._Bennett}}
|-
|

====65====
||
*Yet more attempt to make Bennett a credible witness: "Even though his statements must be weighed critically, he cannot be merely dismissed as an unfriendly source who fabricated scandal."
||
*The author never does this weighing for us.
*Much of what he writes, after analysis, must be dismissed as fabrication or exaggeration, however.
*Even anti-Mormon authors warned of Bennett's problems:
::"There is, no doubt, much truth in Bennett's book…but no statement that he makes can be received with confidence."{{ref|stenhouse1}}
*[[Polygamy book/John C. Bennett|John C. Bennett]]
||
*Author's opinion.
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:John_C._Bennett}}
|-
|

====65====
||
*The author claims that "Bennett had an ambitious but colorful background."
||
*This hides a mountain of evidence about Bennett's pre-LDS behavior, including:
**repeatedly using others' names to fraudulently support the establishment of medical colleges
**selling bogus medical diplomas
**selling bogus diplomas in other fields (e.g., law)
**lying and misrepresentation
**serial adulteries and infidelities
**abandonment of wife and children
*[[John C. Bennett]]
||
*No source provided
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:John_C._Bennett}}
|-
|

====66-67====
||
*{{AuthorQuote|"Writing on March 23, 1846, Bennett claimed to have known 'Joseph better than any other man living for at least fourteen months!'….Bennett was well positioned to know all about any behind-the-scenes transactions.}}
||
*The author here accepts Bennett uncritically.
*Despite his claim, he was never part of the inner circle which received the highest temple ordinances introduced by Joseph. Bennett and Rigdon "were conspicuously absent" when Joseph Smith spoke to those who would be among the first to receive the full endowment necessary "to finish their work and prevent imposition" by Satan.
*Bennett had secular influence, but relatively little to do with religious matters in Nauvoo:
:"Thus, the considerable embarrassment to Joseph Smith and Mormonism which some have inferred from Bennett's alleged duping of the Mormons is cast in a new light because Bennett himself so effectively refutes his own claim that he was a close confidant of Joseph Smith. Unwittingly, Bennett indisputably demonstrates that he was neither directly involved with the endowment, eternal marriage, nor plural marriage—the most significant private theological developments during Bennett's stay in Nauvoo.{{ref|ehat1}}
*[[Polygamy book/John C. Bennett|John C. Bennett]]
||
*Smith, ''Saintly Scoundrel'', 56.
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:John_C._Bennett}}
|-
|

====68====
||
*The author claims that Joseph is merely “feigning impartiality” before going on to practice “undemocratic block voting.”
||
*Block voting is not undemocratic—many interest groups vote ''en masse'' for candidates which will meet their needs.
*Joseph was not feigning when he said, "We care not a fig for a Whig or Democrat….We shall go for our friends." (p. 68) He was indicating that party made no difference to the Saints; what mattered is who would agree to defend them.
*[[../../Loaded and prejudicial language]]
||
*No source provided.
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:Bloc voting}}
|-
|

====69====
||
*The author notes that Joseph was apparently "undeterred" by reports of a negative assessment of Bennett, and proceeded to name him Assistant President of the Church.
||
*Joseph knew from personal experience that "it is no uncommon thing for good men to be evil spoken against," and did nothing precipitous.
*The accusations against Bennett gained credence when Joseph learned of his attempts to persuade a young woman "that he intended to marry her." Joseph dispatched Hyrum Smith and William Law to make inquiries, and in early July 1841 he learned that Bennett had a wife and children living in the east. Non-LDS sources confirmed Bennett's infidelity: one noted that he "heard it from almost every person in town that [his wife] left him in consequence of his ill treatment of her home and his intimacy with other women." Another source reported that Bennett's wife "declared that she could no longer live with him…it would be the seventh family that he had parted during their union."
*[[Polygamy book/John C. Bennett|John C. Bennett]]
||
* No source provided.
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:John_C._Bennett}}
|-
|

====69====
||
*It is noted that John C. Bennett was Assistant President of the Church.
||
*Sidney Rigdon, a counselor in the First Presidency, was frequently ill. On April 8, "John C. Bennett was presented, with the First Presidency, as Assistant President until President Rigdon's health should be restored." Modern readers should be cautious in projecting the role of the current First Presidency on Joseph's day. In the modern Church, the First Presidency is almost always composed of two apostles who have extensive experience in ecclesiastical affairs called to serve with the President. In Joseph's day, this was not the case. Most of Joseph's counselors in the First Presidency were to betray his trust, including Jesse Gause, Frederick G. Williams, Sidney Rigdon, William Law and John C. Bennett. While some of these counselors received keys, Bennett did not. None were apostles prior to their call.
*[[Polygamy book/John C. Bennett|John C. Bennett]]
*[[../../Presentism]]
||
*No source provided.
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:John_C._Bennett}}
|-
|

====69====
||
*It is claimed that John C. Bennett had religious influence by being Assistant President of the Church.
||
*[This is not stated baldly, but some readers might be confused.]
*With few exceptions, Bennett "played little role in church conferences. There might have been an unofficial division of labor between Bennett and Smith. Smith handled church affairs; Bennett took the lead in secular matters."
*[[Polygamy book/John C. Bennett|John C. Bennett]]
||
*No source provided.
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:John_C._Bennett}}
|-
|

====70====
||
*The author claims that Joseph Smith and John C. Bennett remained confidants until about March the next year (1842)
||
* Bennett was confronted with the charges mentioned above in the summer of 1841.
*When confronted with these charges, Bennett broke down and confessed. Emma's nephew, Lorenzo D. Wasson, claimed to have been upstairs and heard Joseph "give J. C. Bennett a tremendous flagellation for practicing iniquity under the base pretence of authority from the heads of the church." Claiming to be mortified at the idea of public censure, Bennett took poison in a suicide gesture, but recovered.
*[[Polygamy book/John C. Bennett|John C. Bennett]]
||
*No source provided.
*{{HistoricalError}}
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:John_C._Bennett}}
|-
|

====70====
||
*It is claimed that there seemed to be "no office or honor within reach that Smith did not hasten to grant to Bennett."
||
*This is false: Bennett was never inducted into the "Quorum of the Anointed"—those who were receiving the temple endowment from Joseph (see above, [[../Chapter_2#66-67|66-67]]).
*He was also never made an apostle.
*[[Polygamy book/John C. Bennett|John C. Bennett]]
||
*{{HistoricalError}}
*No source provided.
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:John_C._Bennett}}
|-
|

====70====
||
*{{AuthorQuote|"Zina Huntington, who married Henry Jacobs instead but then reconsidered seven months later in response to Joseph's restated interest."}}
||
*Zina said the Lord [[Plural_marriage_spiritual_manifestations#Zina_Huntington|told her what to do]].
*[[Joseph Smith and polygamy/Zina and Henry Jacobs|Zina and Henry Jacobs]]
*[[Joseph Smith and polyandry]]
*{{Wyatt-Zina}}
||
*No source provided.
|-
|

====70-71====
||
*{{AuthorQuote|"Seemingly impatient, Joseph soon after married Zina's sister, Presendia, who was also already married."}}
||
*[[Joseph Smith and polyandry]]
*[[../../Mind reading]]
*{{Wyatt-Zina}}
||
*No source provided.
|-
|

====71====
||
*The author notes that "Bennett alleged that during the summer and fall of 1841, Smith made unsuccessful advances toward Apostle Orson Pratt's wife, Sarah."
||
*The author does not tell us that Sarah and Bennett were probably having an affair, as witnessed by LDS and non-LDS witnesses, and a plausible time-line.
*[[Polygamy book/John C. Bennett|John C. Bennett]]
||
*No source provided.
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:John_C._Bennett}}
|-
|

====71====
||
*It is notes that "[w]hatever the accuracy of the quotes [i.e., Bennett's claims] the two men [Orson and Joseph] quarrelled…."
||
*The author here avoids the necessity of dealing with the problems in Bennett's account.
*[[Polygamy book/John C. Bennett|John C. Bennett]]
||
*No source provided.
|-
|
====71====
||
*{{AuthorQuote|"…the important aspect of this incident is that it tells us less about Bennett's motive in recalling this dispute and more about Orson's willingness to support his wife over his religious leader…."}}
||
*"Recalling" assumes that Bennett's account is truthful, and not fabricated. This has not been demonstrated.
*[[Polygamy book/John C. Bennett|John C. Bennett]]
||
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:John_C._Bennett}}
|-
|

====71====
||
*The author concludes that Joseph believe that Sarah Pratt "had been wrong to reject him—and that she had failed the test. The defiance she exhibited ultimately led to alienation with her husband…."
||
*The author again says nothing about Sarah and Bennett's affair, which probably had something to do with her "alienation."
*[[Polygamy book/John C. Bennett|John C. Bennett]]
||
* No source provided.
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:John_C._Bennett}}
|-
|

====72====
||
*The author notes that Orson Pratt eventually accepted Joseph's explanation "that he merely wanted to test Sarah's obedience, and was not seriously courting this married woman."
||
*The author does not tell us that Orson eventually believed Sarah and Bennett had misled him, saying he was first informed by "a wicked source, from those disaffected, but as soon as he learned the truth he was satisfied."{{ref|pratt1}} He presents no evidence for what explanation Joseph gave Orson, or what Orson believed.
*[[Polygamy book/John C. Bennett|John C. Bennett]]
||
*No source provided.
|-
|

====72====
||
*{{AuthorQuote|"Meanwhile, Bennett seems to have followed his leader in courting several women himself."}}
||
*The author is here presuming that Bennett imitated Joseph.
*Bennett was also involved in operating a prostitution ring and house of ill repute in Nauvoo.{{ref|bennett2}}
*[[Polygamy book/John C. Bennett|John C. Bennett]]
||
* No source provided
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:John_C._Bennett}}
|-
|

====72====
||
*The author claims that John C. Bennett resigned from the church on May 17, 1842.
||
*{{HistoricalError}}: In fact, Bennett was forced to resign by Joseph, who wrote to the Church recorder: "be so good as to permit Bennett to withdraw his name from the Church record, if he desires to do so, and this with the best of feelings towards…General Bennett."{{ref|bennett1}}
*[[Polygamy book/John C. Bennett|John C. Bennett]]
||
* Andrew Smith, ''Saintly Scoundrel'', 86–89. (Note that The author does not properly represent the source's contents.)
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:John_C._Bennett}}
|-
|

====72====
||
*It is claimed that Bennett was excommunicated from the Church in "retaliation."
||
*This was not in retaliation, since Joseph had pushed for Bennett's resignation.
*A high council trial of Chauncey Higbee concluded on May 24, at which it became clear that Higbee had been seducing women under Bennett's direction.
*Bennett was told that his withdrawal from the Church would be made public. Bennett once more begged for mercy, claiming that public exposure would distress his mother.{{ref|HC1}} Joseph again deferred a public announcement, and Bennett would soon also make confession to the Nauvoo Masonic Lodge. Weeping, Bennett pleaded for leniency, with Joseph as his advocate.{{ref|HC2}} Even Joseph's patience had an end, however. It soon became clear that still other members had used Bennett's arguments to seduce women—his excommunication was made public on 15 June. The Masonic Lodge published Bennett's crimes the next day.{{ref|bushman1}} His Nauvoo reputation in tatters, Bennett left and began plotting his revenge.
*[[Polygamy book/John C. Bennett|John C. Bennett]]
||
*{{HistoricalError}}
*Andrew Smith, ''Saintly Scoundrel'', 86–89.
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:John_C._Bennett}}
|-
|

====72====
||
*John C. Bennett claimed that his excommunication was postdated to May 11 to appear that it had occurred before his resignation.
||
*{{GDS-See also|2a|119}}
:''(The author later acts as if this claim of Bennett's is established fact.)''
*The author mischaracterizes his source, and does not tell us that Bennett's claim was false. Bennett's biographer wrote:

:"On May 11 Smith and several others signed a statement to disfellowship Bennett….

:"According to Bennett, three of the signatories were not in Nauvoo on that date….

:"[However] William Law, one of the signatories…testified that he signed it on the evening of May 11. Some four or five days later Law had a conversation with Bennett 'and intimated to him that such a thing was concluded upon.'…The best explanation for this matter is that Joseph Smith had the disfellowship document drawn up on May 11 Those who were in Nauvoo were asked to sign it….As others returned to the city, they added their names." (Andrew Smith, ''Saintly Scoundrel'', 86, 100).
*[[Polygamy book/John C. Bennett|John C. Bennett]]
||
*Andrew Smith, ''Saintly Scoundrel'', 86–89.
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:John_C._Bennett}}
|-
|

====73====
||
*The author claims that up until early 1842, Joseph Smith and John C. Bennett "seemed to be on good terms."
||
*Joseph was aware of Bennett's problems by 1841 at least.
*[[Polygamy book/John C. Bennett|John C. Bennett]]
||
*No source provided.
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:John_C._Bennett}}
|-
|

====73====
||
*{{AuthorQuote|"It is entirely plausible that Bennett was then privy to Smith's domestic matters."}}
||
*The author wants to rehabilitate Bennett as a source, while glossing over the problems.
*[[Polygamy book/John C. Bennett|John C. Bennett]]
||
*No source provided.
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:John_C._Bennett}}
|-
|
====73====
||
*The author notes that "[i]n the spring of 1842, the two men quarreled and Smith had Bennett excommunicated…."
||
*Joseph and Bennett did not "quarrel"—evidence of further seduction and infidelity by Bennett came to light.
*Bennett was given the chance to resign, and did so.
*Further disclosure to the high council led to Bennett's exposure and excommunication.
*[[Polygamy book/John C. Bennett|John C. Bennett]]
||
* No source provided.
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:John_C._Bennett}}
|-
|
====75====
||
*Zina and Henry Jacobs "were apparently willing to let the prophet insinuate himself into their marriage."
||
*{{InternalContradiction|compare p. 81}}
*[[../../Loaded and prejudicial language]]
*{{Wyatt-Zina}}
||
*No source provided.
|-
|

====75====
||
*{{AuthorQuote|"In the context of having just married a pregnant wife, [Joseph's] words acquire added meaning: 'If you will not accuse me, I will not accuse you….'"}}
||
*The author implies that sexuality was involved in this polyandrous marriage.
*He tries to prejudice the reader by pointing out that Zina was pregnant when she and Henry approved her sealing to Joseph.
*{{Wyatt-Zina}}
||
*''History of the Church'' 4:445.
|-
|
====75====
||
*It is noted that Joseph's diary and the ''History of the Church'' do not "give any hint of conjugal contacts Smith might have had with this wife."
||
*There is no evidence ''anywhere'' for any conjungal contact. The author has repeatedly mentioned that a given event is not recorded in the ''History of the Church'', and so can here imply that there ''might be'' evidence of "conjugal contacts," but the Smith diary and ''History'' are hiding it. There is no evidence, period.
*[[Censorship_and_revision_of_LDS_history]]
*[[../../Censorship]]
||
*No source provided.
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:Censorship}}

|-
|

====75====
||
*The author claims that when Henry Jacobs returned from his mission in June 1844 that "he found Zina accompanying Joseph to private meetings involving Masonic-like handshakes, oaths, and special clothing."
||
*[[../../Loaded and prejudicial language|Prejudicial language]], in which the author tries to make the endowment seem foreign, strange and alienating.
*[[../../Loaded and prejudicial language]]
*{{Wyatt-Zina}}
||
*MORE…. Zina D.H. Young, Journal, "June 5, 6, 7, 8, 9," 1844, Zina Card Brown Collection; see Bradley and Woodward, Four Zinas, 124.
*CHECK THIS SOURCE!!
|-
|

====77====
||
*{{AuthorQuote|"Even though Zina was pregnant with Henry's child when she married Joseph, the theology of 'sealing' meant that in the next life she and her children would be Joseph's 'eternal possessions,' unconnected to Henry.}}
||
*The author gives no evidence for this. It may be that some early sealings (especially polyandrous ones) were intended to bind families to each and Joseph in salvation in the next world.
*The image which this gives of Joseph "taking away" Henry's children is inflammatory and probably misleading.
*[[The_Law_of_Adoption]]
*{{Wyatt-Zina}}
||
*No source provided.
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo Polygamy:See also:Taking away families}}
|-
|

====77====
||
*The author claims that "[s]ome sources say [Brigham] Young advised [Henry Jacobs] to find a wife who could be his eternal partner."
||
*This from a single source (not "sources") and comes from a virulently anti-Mormon work, William Hall, ''Abominations of Mormonism Exposed'' (Cincinnati: I. Hart & Co., 1852), 43–44.
*Besides being hostile, this source has numerous problems which make it implausible.
*{{Wyatt-Zina}}
||
*No source provided.
|-
|

====77====
||
*Henry's subsequent life is not discussed by the author, perhaps because it would provide insight into why Zina chose to remain with Brigham.
||
*{{Wyatt-Zina}}
||
*No source provided.
|-
|
====78====
||
*Brigham Young said that "if a woman can find a man holding the keys of the priesthood with higher power and authority than her husband, and he is disposed to take her, he can do so, otherwise she has got to remain where she is. In either of these ways of sep[a]ration, you can discover, there is no need for a bill of divorcement."
||
*The author omits key parts of Brigham's recorded discourse: "…if a man magnifies his priesthood, observing faithfully his covenants to the end of his life, all the wives and children sealed to him, all the blessings and honors promised to him in his ordinations and sealing blessings are immutably and eternally fixed; no power can wrench them from his possession. You may inquire, in case a wife becomes disaffected with her husband, her affections lost, she becomes alienated from him and wishes to be the wife of another, can she not leave him? I know of no law in heaven or on earth by which she can be made free while her husband remains faithful and magnifies his priesthood before God and he is not disposed to put her away, she having done nothing worthy of being put away."
*[[Primary sources/Brigham Young 8 October 1861 discourse on plural marriage|Brigham Young 8 October 1861 discourse on plural marriage]]
*{{Wyatt-Zina}}
||
*Brigham Young, "A few words of Doctrine," Oct 8, 1861, LDS Archives.
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo Polygamy:See also:October 8 1861}}
|-
|

====79====
||
*Presendia Buell is claimed to have "displayed an affinity for mystical religious experiences as one of the women who began speaking and singing in tongues…."
||
*Speaking in tongues is not a form of "mysticism."
*This characterization is inaccurate, alienating, and prejudicial.
*[[../../Loaded and prejudicial language]]
||
*No source provided.
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:Buell}}
|-
|

====79====
||
*It is claimed that Presendia Buell "did not take the prophet's advice [to leave for Illinois while he was in Liberty Jail] prior to his escape from jail on April 16. Nine months later, on January 31, 1841, she gave birth to a son Oliver. Later that year [she went to Illinois]….."
||
*The main text clearly implies that Joseph was the father of Prescendia's son Norman. Else, why mention that "nine months later" she had a child, with no further comment?
*Smith disguises the fact that DNA evidence has proved that Oliver was not Joseph's son.
*[[Joseph Smith and polygamy/Children of polygamous marriages]]
*{{GLS-Nauvoo Polygamy-FARMS}}
||
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:Buell}}
|-
|
====80 n. 63====
||
*Fawn Brodie pointed out that Oliver was born at least a year after Presendia's husband left the church and that Oliver had the angular features and high forehead of the Smith line (''No Man Knows'', 2989ff, 301, 460).[Note continues below]
||
*[[Joseph Smith and polygamy/Children of polygamous marriages]]
*[[Joseph_Smith_and_polygamy/Children_of_polygamous_marriages/Presendia Buell|Children by Presendia Buell?]]
*{{GLS-Nauvoo Polygamy-FARMS}}
||
* See left column
|-
|
====80 n. 63====
||
*[Continued from above] Compton considered it improbable that Joseph and Presendia would have found time together during the brief window opportunity after his release from prison in Missouri (Sacred Loneliness, 670, 673)."[Note continues below]
||
* The problems are [[Joseph_Smith_and_polygamy/Children_of_polygamous_marriages/Presendia Buell|far greater]] than "finding time together."
*[[Joseph Smith and polygamy/Children of polygamous marriages]]
*{{GLS-Nauvoo Polygamy-FARMS}}
||
* See left column
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:Buell}}
|-
|

====80 n. 63====
||
*[Note continued from above]"….There is no DNA connection (Carrie A. Moore, “DNA tests rule out 2 as Smith descendants: scientific advances prove no genetic link,” ''Deseret Morning News'', 10 November 2007). Compton finds it "unlikely, though not impossible, that Joseph Smith was the actual father" of John Hiram, born November 1843; Presendia's last child during her marriage to Norman Buell. (Sacred Loneliness, 124, 670–71)."
||
*The author makes no mention in the main text that Oliver’s paternity has been definitively ruled out by DNA testing. What is the point of the long discussion about the possibility of Oliver being Joseph's son, when we know that he ''can't'' be?
*[[Joseph Smith and polygamy/Children of polygamous marriages]]
*[[Joseph_Smith_and_polygamy/Children_of_polygamous_marriages/Presendia Buell|Children by Presendia Buell?]]
*{{GLS-Nauvoo Polygamy-FARMS}}
||
* See left column
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:Buell}}
|-
|

====81====
||
*{{AuthorQuote|"Occasionally, as King David did with Uriah the Hittite, Smith sent the husband [of potential polyandrous marriage partners] away on a mission which provided the privacy needed for a plural relationship to flower."}}
||
*Unmentioned—but perhaps not unimplied—is the fact that David had already committed adultery with Bathsheba, and sought to have her husband killed so he could marry her (see 2 Samuel 11). This metaphor imputes motives to Joseph where no textual evidence exists.
*[[../../Mind reading]]
*{{GLS-Nauvoo Polygamy-FARMS}}
||
*No source provided.
|-
|

====81====
||
*"This [see above] applied to Zina…."
||
*Henry Jacobs was present at the sealing to Zina. Henry knew of Joseph's plural proposal to Joseph before their marriage.
*{{InternalContradiction|compare p. 75}}
*[[Joseph Smith and polygamy/Zina and Henry Jacobs|Zina and Henry Jacobs]]
*{{Wyatt-Zina}}
||
*No source provided.
|-
|

====82====
||
*The author notes that the History of the Church "makes no mention of the second Huntington nuptial…."
||
*[[Censorship_and_revision_of_LDS_history]]
*[[../../Censorship]]
*{{GLS-Nauvoo Polygamy-FARMS}}
||
*No source provided.
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:Censorship}}
|-
|
====82====
||
*The author notes a Buell child being sealed to a proxy for Joseph with “wording [that] hints that it might have been Smith’s child….It is not clear…which of her children it might have been."
||
*There is no good evidence that this child was Joseph's.
*[[Joseph_Smith_and_polygamy/Children_of_polygamous_marriages/Presendia Buell|Children by Presendia Buell?]]
*{{GLS-Nauvoo Polygamy-FARMS}}
||
*Oliver Huntington Journal, Nov 14, 1884, USHS; see Compton, ''In Sacred Loneliness'', 140, 673.
|-
|

====84====
||
*The author notes: "From the inception of plural marriage, Smith demanded confidentiality from those whom he taught the principle."
||
*[[Lying_for_the_Lord%3F]]
*[[Joseph Smith and polygamy#Hiding the Truth?|Joseph Smith and polygamy—Hiding the truth?]]
||
*''History of the Church'' 4:479; Woodruff Journals 2:143.
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:Lying}}
|-
|

====85====
||
*The author assumes that Joseph "evidently adapted and redefined [elements] from the Masonic rituals and incorporated [them] as part of the unfolding Mormon temple ceremonies."
||
*[[Temple endowment and Freemasonry]]
||
*No source given.
|-
|
====85====
||
*{{AuthorQuote|"The [temple] vows of secrecy and threats of blood penalties intensified the mysterious rites of celestial marriage…."}}
||
*There are no "blood penalties" associated with plural marriage.
*Note the prejudicial language, in which the author tries to make the endowment seem foreign, strange and alienating.

*[[Penalties_in_the_endowment]]
*[[../../Loaded and prejudicial language]]
||
*Author's opinion.
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo Polygamy:See also:Temple}}
|-
|

====88====
||
*The author notes that there is no mention of Joseph's sealing to Agnes Smith in the History of the Church.
||

*[[Censorship_and_revision_of_LDS_history]]
*[[../../Censorship]]
*{{GLS-Nauvoo Polygamy-FARMS}}
||
*No source provided.
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:Censorship}}
|-
|
====92====
||
*Sarah Pratt is claimed to have reported in 1886 that Lucinda had told her nearly forty-five years earlier in 1842: "Why[,] I am his [Smith's] mistress since four years."
||
*Compton notes that this statement is "antagonistic, third-hand, and late" (''In Sacred Loneliness'', 650). It seems implausible that Harris would admit to being a "mistress."
*Newel and Avery, ''Mormon Enigma'', 346 have likewise seen the "mistress" label as "an embellishment by either Sarah Pratt or W. Wyl."
*The author provides none of this perspective.
*[[../../Loaded and prejudicial language]]
||
*Wyl, ''Mormon Portraits'', 60.
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:Lucinda Harris}}
|-
|

====99====
||
*The author notes that "[a]s usual, the History of the Church made no mention of Sylvia [Sessions Lyon] on February 8, 1842…."
||

*[[Censorship_and_revision_of_LDS_history]]
*[[../../Censorship]]
*{{GLS-Nauvoo Polygamy-FARMS}}
||
*No source provided.
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:Censorship}}
|-
|
====100====
||
*The author claims that "[d]uring these years as Windsor's wife, Sylvia reportedly bore Smith a child in 1844…."
||
*The author ignores Brian C. Hales, “The Joseph Smith–Sylvia Sessions Plural Sealing: Polyandry or Polygyny?” ''Mormon Historical Studies'' 9/1 (Spring 2008): 41–57, which argues that Sylvia considered herself divorced prior to marrying Joseph polygamously, contrary to evidence misread by Compton.
*[[Joseph_Smith_and_polygamy/Children_of_polygamous_marriages]]
||
*{{CriticalWork:Compton:Sacred Loneliness|pages=180–81}}
|-
|

====103====
||
*{{AuthorQuote|"Typically, [Joseph] never mentioned his marriage to Patty [Sessions] on paper…."}}
||
*[[Censorship_and_revision_of_LDS_history]]
*[[../../Censorship]]
*{{GLS-Nauvoo Polygamy-FARMS}}
||
*No source provided.
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:Censorship}}
|-
|
====105====
||
*It is claimed that Sarah Cleveland's husband "was a Swedenborgian, embracing a world view compatible with that of Mormons."
||
*These needs more argument than the author gives it. It is not clear how being a Swedenborgian would predispose Cleveland to accept a modern prophet, new scripture, and restored priesthood authority (for example).
*Surely any world-view was somewhat compatible with the Mormons', but what about Cleveland's views were more compatible than, say, other Christians?
*[[Swedenborg_and_three_degrees_of_glory]]
||
*Biography of Sarah Maryetta Kingsley, LDS Archives.
|-
|

====106====
||
*{{AuthorQuote|"John Cleveland's Swedenborgian faith might have helped prepare Sarah for some of Joseph's teachings. Like Smith, followers of Emanuel Swedenborg conceived of a pre-existent life, 'eternal marriage' for couples who had a true 'affinity' for each other, and a three-tiered heaven that required marriage for admission to the highest level."}}
||
*Three degrees in heaven is a Biblical notion, it did not originate with Swedenborg or Joseph Smith.
*It is not clear what Swedenborg's "affinity" between spouses has to do with LDS plural marriage.
*[[Swedenborg_and_three_degrees_of_glory]]
||
*Author's speculation.
*Emanuel Swedenborg, ''Heaven and Hell'', trans. George F. Dole (West Chester, Pa.: Swedenborg Foundation, 2002), 18–32.
*CHECK THIS SOURCE!{{nw}}
|-
|

====106====
||
*The author notes that John Cleveland's continued willingness to host LDS events "indicated a likely compatibility of beliefs."
||
*There are other options:
**Perhaps Cleveland was simply a tolerant man?
**Perhaps he respected the Mormons for what he had seen of them personally?
**Perhaps he respected his wife's desire to practice her own faith, despite not sharing it.
||
* No source provided.
|-
|

====106====
||
*{{AuthorQuote|"Like some of the other husbands of women who agreed to marry the prophet, John Cleveland nevertheless became 'more and more bitter towards the Mormons.'"}}
||

*The author does not tell the reader that this difficulty did not occur until after Joseph's death, and the Saints had gone west. He neglects to point out that Compton noted that even six months before Joseph's death, Sarah's husband was "very friendly and frequently visited the Prophet." (Compton, ''In Sacred Loneliness'', 281).
*Thus, the implication that Joseph's plural marriage caused problems for Cleveland is not sustained by the evidence.
*The author also does not tell us that one version of Sarah's decision to remain behind instead of going to Utah reads:
:"Brigham Young and council…counciled her to stay with her Husband as he was a good man, having shown himself kind ever helping those in need, although for some reason his mind was darkened as to the Gospel. She obey[ed] the council and stayed with her Husband, and was faithfull and true to her religion and died a faithfull member of the Church…." (Compton, ''In Sacred Loneliness'', 283).
*[[Joseph_Smith_and_polyandry/Book_chapter#Sarah_Kingsley_Howe_Cleveland|Sarah Cleveland]]
||
*Sarah Cleveland to August Lyman, 1847, John Lyman Smith Collection, L. Tom Perry Special Collections, cited by Compton, ''In Sacred Loneliness'', 284.
|-
|

====106====
||
*Besides Cleveland (see above) other polyandrous husbands are claimed to have become more bitter against the Church.
||
*As shown above, Cleveland was not bitter about the Church or Joseph during Joseph's lifetime.
*No other examples are given. It is not clear to whom the author is referring.
*[[Joseph_Smith_and_polyandry/Book_chapter]]
||
* No source provided.
|-
|
{{EndClaimsTable}}

==Endnotes==
#{{note|stenhouse1}} T. B. H. Stenhouse, ''The Rocky Mountain Saints : A Full and Complete History of the Mormons....'' (New York: D. Appleton and Company, 1878 [1873]), 184 note.
#{{note|ehat1}} Andrew F. Ehat, "Joseph Smith's Introduction of Temple Ordinances and the 1844 Mormon Succession Question," (Master's Thesis, Brigham Young University, 1981), 40.
#{{note|pratt1}} George L. Mitton and Rhett S. James, "A Response to D. Michael Quinn's Homosexual Distortion of Latter-Day Saint History," ''FARMS Review of Books'' 10/1 (1998): footnote 70, citing T. Edgar Lyon, "Orson Pratt—Early Mormon Leader," (M.A. diss., University of Chicago, 1932), 31. See also ''Millennial Star'' 40 (16 December 1878): 788.
#{{note|bushman2}}{{RSR1|start=411}}
#{{note|bennett1}} Bennett, ''History of the Saints'', 40–41.
#{{note|HC1}} {{HoC1|vol=5|num=18}}
#{{note|HC2}} Smith, ''History of the Church'', 5:18 (26 May 1842).
#{{note|bushman1}} {{RSR1|start=461}}; see ''Times and Seasons'' 3/15 (15 June 1842): 830; Smith, ''History of the Church'', 5:32.

=Further reading=
{{FAIRAnalysisWiki}}

Criticism of Mormonism/Books/Nauvoo Polygamy/Chapter 2

2009-08-15T20:38:12Z

SuzanneArmitage: /* 80 n. 63 */

{{FAIRAnalysisHeader
|title=[[../../]]
|author=George D. Smith
|noauthor=
|section=[[../|Index of Claims]], Chapter 2 (pp. 52-107)
|previous=[[../Chapter 1a|Chapter 1 (pp. 26-51)]]
|next=[[../Chapter 2a|Chapter 2 (pp. 108-158)]]
|notes={{AuthorsDisclaimer}}
}}
__NOTOC__
=Claims made in "Chapter 2" (pp. 52-107)=
{{BeginClaimsTable}}
|
====53====
||
*Referring ''again'' to the Whitney letter, the author notes that Joseph "recommended his friend, whose seventeen-year-old daughter he had just married, should 'come a little a head, and nock…at the window.'"
||
*{{InternalContradiction|p. 65: "Joseph requested that Sarah Ann Whitney visit him and ‘nock at the window...."}}
*[[Joseph Smith and polygamy/"Love letters"]]
*[[../../Use_of_sources#Sarah_Ann_Whitney_and_the_letter_to_the_Whitneys|Use of sources—Letter to Whitneys]]
*[[../../Loaded and prejudicial language]]
*[[../../Romance]]
*{{GLS-Nauvoo Polygamy-FARMS}}
*The author commonly exploits the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presentism_(literary_and_historical_analysis) presentist fallacy] in the matter of Joseph's wives' ages.
*[[Polygamy book/Age of wives|Age of wives]]
*[[../../Presentism]]
||
*Smith, Letter to "Brother and Sister [Newel K.] Whitney, and &c.," Nauvoo, Illinois, Aug. 18, 1842, LDS Church Archives, Salt Lake City.
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:Love_letters_Whitney}}
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:Age_wives}}
|-
|

====53====
||
*{{AuthorQuote|The prophet then poured out his heart, writing to his newest wife: "My feelings are so strong for you…now is the time to afford me succour….I know it is the will of God that you should comfort me now."}}
||
*Joseph is speaking '''to all three Whitneys''', and the author again distorts the letter as at the beginning of the book.
*[[Joseph Smith and polygamy/"Love letters"]]
*[[../../Use_of_sources#Sarah_Ann_Whitney_and_the_letter_to_the_Whitneys|Use of sources—Letter to Whitneys]]
*[[../../Loaded and prejudicial language]]
*[[../../Romance]]
*{{GLS-Nauvoo Polygamy-FARMS}}
||
*Whitney letter, Aug. 18, 1842.
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:Love_letters_Whitney}}
|-
|

====53====
||
*{{AuthorQuote|"Emma Hale, Joseph's wife of fifteen years, had left his side just twenty-four hours earlier. Now Joseph declared that he was "lonesome," and he pleaded with Sarah Ann to visit him under cover of darkness. After all, they had been married just three weeks earlier.}}
||
*[[../../Loaded and prejudicial language|Loaded language]] trying to make Joseph appear sexually voracious and insensitive to Emma.
*As stated in the letter, the reason for the visit was to perform ordinances.
*[[Joseph Smith and polygamy/"Love letters"]]
*[[../../Use_of_sources#Sarah_Ann_Whitney_and_the_letter_to_the_Whitneys|Use of sources—Letter to Whitneys]]
*[[../../Loaded and prejudicial language]]
*[[../../Romance]]
*{{GLS-Nauvoo Polygamy-FARMS}}
||
*Whitney letter, Aug. 18, 1842.
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:Love_letters_Whitney}}
|-
|

====54====
||
*{{AuthorQuote|“Did Sarah Ann keep this rendezvous on that humid summer night? Unfortunately, the documentary record is silent.” But “the letter survives to illuminate the complexity of Smith’s life in Nauvoo."}}
||
*The documentary record is not silent, however, as to why Joseph sought a visit with his plural wife and her parents: to “tell you all my plans . . . [and] to git the fulness of my blessings sealed upon our heads, &c.”
*Small wonder that Joseph didn’t want a hostile Emma present while trying to administer what he and the Whitneys regarded as sacred ordinances. And, it is unsurprising that he considered a single private room sufficient for the purposes for which he summoned his plural wife and her parents.
*[[Joseph Smith and polygamy/"Love letters"]]
*[[../../Use_of_sources#Sarah_Ann_Whitney_and_the_letter_to_the_Whitneys|Use of sources—Letter to Whitneys]]
*[[../../Loaded and prejudicial language]]
*[[../../Romance]]
*{{GLS-Nauvoo Polygamy-FARMS}}
||
*No source provided.
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:Love_letters_Whitney}}
|-
|

====54====
||
*The author states that what interested him the most was how Joseph "went about courting…these women."
||
*No evidence that Joseph did any courting. He often used intermediaries.
*[[../../Loaded and prejudicial language]]
*[[../../Mind reading]]
*[[../../Romance]]
*[[../../Assumptions and presumptions]]
||
*No source provided.
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:Womanizing and romance}}
|-
|
====55====
||
*It is claimed that when polygamy was officially abandoned in 1890, that "what previously had been called 'celestial marriage' was subtly redefined to specify something new: marriage performed in LDS temples for this life and for an expected eternal afterlife."
||
*The claimed "redefinition" was present from the very beginning of plural marriage. The emphasis changed:
** [[Polygamy_book/Introduction_of_the_eternal_marriage|Plural marriage vs. celestial marriage in the beginning]]
** [[Polygamy a requirement for exaltation]]

||
*No source provided.
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:Necessary_for_salvation}}
|-
|

====55====
||
*Plural marriage is claimed to have originally been a "key principle" of exaltation, "but by adaption, celestial marriage was still said to be required, only now it meant monogamy rather than polygamy."

||
*[[Polygamy a requirement for exaltation]]
||
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:Necessary_for_salvation}}
|-
|

====55====
||
*{{AuthorQuote|"Despite his crowded daily schedule, the prophet interrupted other activities for secret liaisons with women and girls…."}}
||
*This is pure assumption by the author. He notes elsewhere that Joseph never even recorded anything about his plural marriages, much less anything about "secret liaisons with women and girls."
*[[../../Loaded and prejudicial language]]
||
*No source provided.
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:Womanizing and romance}}
|-
|
====55====
||
*The author notes that Joseph "assured the women and their families that such unions were not only sanctioned but were demanded by heaven and fulfilled the ethereal principle of 'restoration.'"
||
*Does not tell us that Joseph had the women get their OWN witness.
**[[Divine manifestations to plural wives and families]]
*Women could and did turn Joseph down with no consequences.
**[[Joseph Smith and polygamy/Did women turn Joseph down]]
*[[../../Loaded and prejudicial language]]
||
*No source provided.
|-
|

====56====
||
*The author assumes that "[t]here may have been even more wives and plural children."
||
*Anything ''might'' have happened. The author provides no evidence.
*This is the [[Logical_fallacies#Appeal_to_probability|fallacy of probability]].
||
*No source provided.
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:Fallacy of probability}}
|-
|

====57====
||
*The author notes that ''History of the Church'' says nothing about Nauvoo on the day of Louisa Beaman's marriage to Joseph.
||
*[[Censorship_and_revision_of_LDS_history]]
*[[../../Censorship]]
*{{GLS-Nauvoo Polygamy-FARMS}}
||
*No source provided.
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:Censorship}}
|-
|
====63====
||
*{{AuthorQuote|"As will be seen, conjugal visits appear furtive and constantly shadowed by the threat of disclosure."}}
||
*This is pure assumption on the part of the author—he provides no such evidence save his repeated distortion of the Whitney letter.
||
*No source provided.
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:Love_letters_Whitney}}
|-
|
====65====
||
*{{AuthorQuote|“when Joseph requested that Sarah Ann Whitney visit him and ‘nock at the window,’ he reassured his new young wife that Emma would not be there, telegraphing his fear of discovery if Emma happened upon his trysts.”}}
||
*{{InternalContradiction|p. 55: The invitation was to Sarah and her parents—[Joseph] "recommended his friend, whose seventeen-year-old daughter he had just married, should 'come a little a head, and nock…at the window.'"}}
*[[../../Contradictions]]
*[[Joseph Smith and polygamy/"Love letters"]]
*[[../../Use_of_sources#Sarah_Ann_Whitney_and_the_letter_to_the_Whitneys|Use of sources—Letter to Whitneys]]
*[[../../Loaded and prejudicial language]]
*[[../../Mind reading]]
*[[../../Romance]]
*{{GLS-Nauvoo Polygamy-FARMS}}
||
*No citation given
*{{HistoricalError}}
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:Love_letters_Whitney}}
|-
|

====65====
||
*The author claims that "[o]ne of the instrumental people in the inauguration of plural marriage was John [C.] Bennett…."
||
*A huge leap, presuming that Bennett's adulteries were ever sanctioned by Joseph, or had anything to do with plural marriage.
*[[Polygamy book/John C. Bennett|John C. Bennett]]
||
*Author's opinion.
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:John_C._Bennett}}
|-
|

====65====
||
*The author notes that in 1841, John C. Bennett was Joseph Smith's "closest confident." {{attn}}
||
*Ignores that Joseph began to distrust him for cause long before their public rupture.
*[[Polygamy book/John C. Bennett|John C. Bennett]]
||

* No source provided.
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:John_C._Bennett}}
|-
|

====65====
||
*It is claimed that Joseph was "sharing power" with Bennett.
||
*Bennett's power was mainly secular. He did little in the religious realm. Joseph had wanted to be relieved of temporal responsibilities, and Bennett was available.
*[[Polygamy book/John C. Bennett|John C. Bennett]]
||
*No source provided.
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:John_C._Bennett}}
|-
|
====65====
||
*It is claimed that in 1842, John C. Bennett spoke out against Joseph "and was soon stripped of his offices and titles."
||
*Bennett was guilty of serial immoralities, and had been disciplined on multiple occasions. He only "spoke out" once he learned that he was to be stripped of membership in the Church.
*The author has cause and effect reversed, perhaps because he doesn't want us to know of the overwhelming evidence of Bennett's guilt.
*[[Polygamy book/John C. Bennett|John C. Bennett]]
||
*No source provided.
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:John_C._Bennett}}
|-
|
====65====
||
*It is claimed that John C. Bennett and Joseph each "accused the other of immoral behavior."
||
*Bennett was accused by far more people, over a far greater length of time, of "immoral behavior." Many of his accusers were not LDS and had nothing to do with the Mormons.
*Bennett only began to accuse Joseph once his own crimes were repeatedly revealed.
*[[Polygamy book/John C. Bennett|John C. Bennett]]
||
*No source provided.
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:John_C._Bennett}}
|-
|

====65====
||
*The author attempts to rehabilitate John C. Bennett by claiming: "While some of his claims may have been exaggerations, much of what he reported can be confirmed by other eyewitness accounts."
||
*Many of Bennett's claims are clearly false.
*The author uses Bennett uncritically, and naively.
*The things which Bennett can "confirm" are mostly things like names of people Joseph married.
*Bennett also clearly forged some material from others.
*[[Polygamy book/John C. Bennett|John C. Bennett]]
||
*No source provided.
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:John_C._Bennett}}
|-
|

====65====
||
*Yet more attempt to make Bennett a credible witness: "Even though his statements must be weighed critically, he cannot be merely dismissed as an unfriendly source who fabricated scandal."
||
*The author never does this weighing for us.
*Much of what he writes, after analysis, must be dismissed as fabrication or exaggeration, however.
*Even anti-Mormon authors warned of Bennett's problems:
::"There is, no doubt, much truth in Bennett's book…but no statement that he makes can be received with confidence."{{ref|stenhouse1}}
*[[Polygamy book/John C. Bennett|John C. Bennett]]
||
*Author's opinion.
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:John_C._Bennett}}
|-
|

====65====
||
*The author claims that "Bennett had an ambitious but colorful background."
||
*This hides a mountain of evidence about Bennett's pre-LDS behavior, including:
**repeatedly using others' names to fraudulently support the establishment of medical colleges
**selling bogus medical diplomas
**selling bogus diplomas in other fields (e.g., law)
**lying and misrepresentation
**serial adulteries and infidelities
**abandonment of wife and children
*[[John C. Bennett]]
||
*No source provided
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:John_C._Bennett}}
|-
|

====66-67====
||
*{{AuthorQuote|"Writing on March 23, 1846, Bennett claimed to have known 'Joseph better than any other man living for at least fourteen months!'….Bennett was well positioned to know all about any behind-the-scenes transactions.}}
||
*The author here accepts Bennett uncritically.
*Despite his claim, he was never part of the inner circle which received the highest temple ordinances introduced by Joseph. Bennett and Rigdon "were conspicuously absent" when Joseph Smith spoke to those who would be among the first to receive the full endowment necessary "to finish their work and prevent imposition" by Satan.
*Bennett had secular influence, but relatively little to do with religious matters in Nauvoo:
:"Thus, the considerable embarrassment to Joseph Smith and Mormonism which some have inferred from Bennett's alleged duping of the Mormons is cast in a new light because Bennett himself so effectively refutes his own claim that he was a close confidant of Joseph Smith. Unwittingly, Bennett indisputably demonstrates that he was neither directly involved with the endowment, eternal marriage, nor plural marriage—the most significant private theological developments during Bennett's stay in Nauvoo.{{ref|ehat1}}
*[[Polygamy book/John C. Bennett|John C. Bennett]]
||
*Smith, ''Saintly Scoundrel'', 56.
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:John_C._Bennett}}
|-
|

====68====
||
*The author claims that Joseph is merely “feigning impartiality” before going on to practice “undemocratic block voting.”
||
*Block voting is not undemocratic—many interest groups vote ''en masse'' for candidates which will meet their needs.
*Joseph was not feigning when he said, "We care not a fig for a Whig or Democrat….We shall go for our friends." (p. 68) He was indicating that party made no difference to the Saints; what mattered is who would agree to defend them.
*[[../../Loaded and prejudicial language]]
||
*No source provided.
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:Bloc voting}}
|-
|

====69====
||
*The author notes that Joseph was apparently "undeterred" by reports of a negative assessment of Bennett, and proceeded to name him Assistant President of the Church.
||
*Joseph knew from personal experience that "it is no uncommon thing for good men to be evil spoken against," and did nothing precipitous.
*The accusations against Bennett gained credence when Joseph learned of his attempts to persuade a young woman "that he intended to marry her." Joseph dispatched Hyrum Smith and William Law to make inquiries, and in early July 1841 he learned that Bennett had a wife and children living in the east. Non-LDS sources confirmed Bennett's infidelity: one noted that he "heard it from almost every person in town that [his wife] left him in consequence of his ill treatment of her home and his intimacy with other women." Another source reported that Bennett's wife "declared that she could no longer live with him…it would be the seventh family that he had parted during their union."
*[[Polygamy book/John C. Bennett|John C. Bennett]]
||
* No source provided.
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:John_C._Bennett}}
|-
|

====69====
||
*It is noted that John C. Bennett was Assistant President of the Church.
||
*Sidney Rigdon, a counselor in the First Presidency, was frequently ill. On April 8, "John C. Bennett was presented, with the First Presidency, as Assistant President until President Rigdon's health should be restored." Modern readers should be cautious in projecting the role of the current First Presidency on Joseph's day. In the modern Church, the First Presidency is almost always composed of two apostles who have extensive experience in ecclesiastical affairs called to serve with the President. In Joseph's day, this was not the case. Most of Joseph's counselors in the First Presidency were to betray his trust, including Jesse Gause, Frederick G. Williams, Sidney Rigdon, William Law and John C. Bennett. While some of these counselors received keys, Bennett did not. None were apostles prior to their call.
*[[Polygamy book/John C. Bennett|John C. Bennett]]
*[[../../Presentism]]
||
*No source provided.
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:John_C._Bennett}}
|-
|

====69====
||
*It is claimed that John C. Bennett had religious influence by being Assistant President of the Church.
||
*[This is not stated baldly, but some readers might be confused.]
*With few exceptions, Bennett "played little role in church conferences. There might have been an unofficial division of labor between Bennett and Smith. Smith handled church affairs; Bennett took the lead in secular matters."
*[[Polygamy book/John C. Bennett|John C. Bennett]]
||
*No source provided.
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:John_C._Bennett}}
|-
|

====70====
||
*The author claims that Joseph Smith and John C. Bennett remained confidants until about March the next year (1842)
||
* Bennett was confronted with the charges mentioned above in the summer of 1841.
*When confronted with these charges, Bennett broke down and confessed. Emma's nephew, Lorenzo D. Wasson, claimed to have been upstairs and heard Joseph "give J. C. Bennett a tremendous flagellation for practicing iniquity under the base pretence of authority from the heads of the church." Claiming to be mortified at the idea of public censure, Bennett took poison in a suicide gesture, but recovered.
*[[Polygamy book/John C. Bennett|John C. Bennett]]
||
*No source provided.
*{{HistoricalError}}
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:John_C._Bennett}}
|-
|

====70====
||
*It is claimed that there seemed to be "no office or honor within reach that Smith did not hasten to grant to Bennett."
||
*This is false: Bennett was never inducted into the "Quorum of the Anointed"—those who were receiving the temple endowment from Joseph (see above, [[../Chapter_2#66-67|66-67]]).
*He was also never made an apostle.
*[[Polygamy book/John C. Bennett|John C. Bennett]]
||
*{{HistoricalError}}
*No source provided.
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:John_C._Bennett}}
|-
|

====70====
||
*{{AuthorQuote|"Zina Huntington, who married Henry Jacobs instead but then reconsidered seven months later in response to Joseph's restated interest."}}
||
*Zina said the Lord [[Plural_marriage_spiritual_manifestations#Zina_Huntington|told her what to do]].
*[[Joseph Smith and polygamy/Zina and Henry Jacobs|Zina and Henry Jacobs]]
*[[Joseph Smith and polyandry]]
*{{Wyatt-Zina}}
||
*No source provided.
|-
|

====70-71====
||
*{{AuthorQuote|"Seemingly impatient, Joseph soon after married Zina's sister, Presendia, who was also already married."}}
||
*[[Joseph Smith and polyandry]]
*[[../../Mind reading]]
*{{Wyatt-Zina}}
||
*No source provided.
|-
|

====71====
||
*The author notes that "Bennett alleged that during the summer and fall of 1841, Smith made unsuccessful advances toward Apostle Orson Pratt's wife, Sarah."
||
*The author does not tell us that Sarah and Bennett were probably having an affair, as witnessed by LDS and non-LDS witnesses, and a plausible time-line.
*[[Polygamy book/John C. Bennett|John C. Bennett]]
||
*No source provided.
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:John_C._Bennett}}
|-
|

====71====
||
*It is notes that "[w]hatever the accuracy of the quotes [i.e., Bennett's claims] the two men [Orson and Joseph] quarrelled…."
||
*The author here avoids the necessity of dealing with the problems in Bennett's account.
*[[Polygamy book/John C. Bennett|John C. Bennett]]
||
*No source provided.
|-
|
====71====
||
*{{AuthorQuote|"…the important aspect of this incident is that it tells us less about Bennett's motive in recalling this dispute and more about Orson's willingness to support his wife over his religious leader…."}}
||
*"Recalling" assumes that Bennett's account is truthful, and not fabricated. This has not been demonstrated.
*[[Polygamy book/John C. Bennett|John C. Bennett]]
||
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:John_C._Bennett}}
|-
|

====71====
||
*The author concludes that Joseph believe that Sarah Pratt "had been wrong to reject him—and that she had failed the test. The defiance she exhibited ultimately led to alienation with her husband…."
||
*The author again says nothing about Sarah and Bennett's affair, which probably had something to do with her "alienation."
*[[Polygamy book/John C. Bennett|John C. Bennett]]
||
* No source provided.
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:John_C._Bennett}}
|-
|

====72====
||
*The author notes that Orson Pratt eventually accepted Joseph's explanation "that he merely wanted to test Sarah's obedience, and was not seriously courting this married woman."
||
*The author does not tell us that Orson eventually believed Sarah and Bennett had misled him, saying he was first informed by "a wicked source, from those disaffected, but as soon as he learned the truth he was satisfied."{{ref|pratt1}} He presents no evidence for what explanation Joseph gave Orson, or what Orson believed.
*[[Polygamy book/John C. Bennett|John C. Bennett]]
||
*No source provided.
|-
|

====72====
||
*{{AuthorQuote|"Meanwhile, Bennett seems to have followed his leader in courting several women himself."}}
||
*The author is here presuming that Bennett imitated Joseph.
*Bennett was also involved in operating a prostitution ring and house of ill repute in Nauvoo.{{ref|bennett2}}
*[[Polygamy book/John C. Bennett|John C. Bennett]]
||
* No source provided
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:John_C._Bennett}}
|-
|

====72====
||
*The author claims that John C. Bennett resigned from the church on May 17, 1842.
||
*{{HistoricalError}}: In fact, Bennett was forced to resign by Joseph, who wrote to the Church recorder: "be so good as to permit Bennett to withdraw his name from the Church record, if he desires to do so, and this with the best of feelings towards…General Bennett."{{ref|bennett1}}
*[[Polygamy book/John C. Bennett|John C. Bennett]]
||
* Andrew Smith, ''Saintly Scoundrel'', 86–89. (Note that The author does not properly represent the source's contents.)
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:John_C._Bennett}}
|-
|

====72====
||
*It is claimed that Bennett was excommunicated from the Church in "retaliation."
||
*This was not in retaliation, since Joseph had pushed for Bennett's resignation.
*A high council trial of Chauncey Higbee concluded on May 24, at which it became clear that Higbee had been seducing women under Bennett's direction.
*Bennett was told that his withdrawal from the Church would be made public. Bennett once more begged for mercy, claiming that public exposure would distress his mother.{{ref|HC1}} Joseph again deferred a public announcement, and Bennett would soon also make confession to the Nauvoo Masonic Lodge. Weeping, Bennett pleaded for leniency, with Joseph as his advocate.{{ref|HC2}} Even Joseph's patience had an end, however. It soon became clear that still other members had used Bennett's arguments to seduce women—his excommunication was made public on 15 June. The Masonic Lodge published Bennett's crimes the next day.{{ref|bushman1}} His Nauvoo reputation in tatters, Bennett left and began plotting his revenge.
*[[Polygamy book/John C. Bennett|John C. Bennett]]
||
*{{HistoricalError}}
*Andrew Smith, ''Saintly Scoundrel'', 86–89.
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:John_C._Bennett}}
|-
|

====72====
||
*John C. Bennett claimed that his excommunication was postdated to May 11 to appear that it had occurred before his resignation.
||
*{{GDS-See also|2a|119}}
:''(The author later acts as if this claim of Bennett's is established fact.)''
*The author mischaracterizes his source, and does not tell us that Bennett's claim was false. Bennett's biographer wrote:

:"On May 11 Smith and several others signed a statement to disfellowship Bennett….

:"According to Bennett, three of the signatories were not in Nauvoo on that date….

:"[However] William Law, one of the signatories…testified that he signed it on the evening of May 11. Some four or five days later Law had a conversation with Bennett 'and intimated to him that such a thing was concluded upon.'…The best explanation for this matter is that Joseph Smith had the disfellowship document drawn up on May 11 Those who were in Nauvoo were asked to sign it….As others returned to the city, they added their names." (Andrew Smith, ''Saintly Scoundrel'', 86, 100).
*[[Polygamy book/John C. Bennett|John C. Bennett]]
||
*Andrew Smith, ''Saintly Scoundrel'', 86–89.
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:John_C._Bennett}}
|-
|

====73====
||
*The author claims that up until early 1842, Joseph Smith and John C. Bennett "seemed to be on good terms."
||
*Joseph was aware of Bennett's problems by 1841 at least.
*[[Polygamy book/John C. Bennett|John C. Bennett]]
||
*No source provided.
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:John_C._Bennett}}
|-
|

====73====
||
*{{AuthorQuote|"It is entirely plausible that Bennett was then privy to Smith's domestic matters."}}
||
*The author wants to rehabilitate Bennett as a source, while glossing over the problems.
*[[Polygamy book/John C. Bennett|John C. Bennett]]
||
*No source provided.
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:John_C._Bennett}}
|-
|
====73====
||
*The author notes that "[i]n the spring of 1842, the two men quarreled and Smith had Bennett excommunicated…."
||
*Joseph and Bennett did not "quarrel"—evidence of further seduction and infidelity by Bennett came to light.
*Bennett was given the chance to resign, and did so.
*Further disclosure to the high council led to Bennett's exposure and excommunication.
*[[Polygamy book/John C. Bennett|John C. Bennett]]
||
* No source provided.
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:John_C._Bennett}}
|-
|
====75====
||
*Zina and Henry Jacobs "were apparently willing to let the prophet insinuate himself into their marriage."
||
*{{InternalContradiction|compare p. 81}}
*[[../../Loaded and prejudicial language]]
*{{Wyatt-Zina}}
||
*No source provided.
|-
|

====75====
||
*{{AuthorQuote|"In the context of having just married a pregnant wife, [Joseph's] words acquire added meaning: 'If you will not accuse me, I will not accuse you….'"}}
||
*The author implies that sexuality was involved in this polyandrous marriage.
*He tries to prejudice the reader by pointing out that Zina was pregnant when she and Henry approved her sealing to Joseph.
*{{Wyatt-Zina}}
||
*''History of the Church'' 4:445.
|-
|
====75====
||
*It is noted that Joseph's diary and the ''History of the Church'' do not "give any hint of conjugal contacts Smith might have had with this wife."
||
*There is no evidence ''anywhere'' for any conjungal contact. The author has repeatedly mentioned that a given event is not recorded in the ''History of the Church'', and so can here imply that there ''might be'' evidence of "conjugal contacts," but the Smith diary and ''History'' are hiding it. There is no evidence, period.
*[[Censorship_and_revision_of_LDS_history]]
*[[../../Censorship]]
||
*No source provided.
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:Censorship}}

|-
|

====75====
||
*The author claims that when Henry Jacobs returned from his mission in June 1844 that "he found Zina accompanying Joseph to private meetings involving Masonic-like handshakes, oaths, and special clothing."
||
*[[../../Loaded and prejudicial language|Prejudicial language]], in which the author tries to make the endowment seem foreign, strange and alienating.
*[[../../Loaded and prejudicial language]]
*{{Wyatt-Zina}}
||
*MORE…. Zina D.H. Young, Journal, "June 5, 6, 7, 8, 9," 1844, Zina Card Brown Collection; see Bradley and Woodward, Four Zinas, 124.
*CHECK THIS SOURCE!!
|-
|

====77====
||
*{{AuthorQuote|"Even though Zina was pregnant with Henry's child when she married Joseph, the theology of 'sealing' meant that in the next life she and her children would be Joseph's 'eternal possessions,' unconnected to Henry.}}
||
*The author gives no evidence for this. It may be that some early sealings (especially polyandrous ones) were intended to bind families to each and Joseph in salvation in the next world.
*The image which this gives of Joseph "taking away" Henry's children is inflammatory and probably misleading.
*[[The_Law_of_Adoption]]
*{{Wyatt-Zina}}
||
*No source provided.
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo Polygamy:See also:Taking away families}}
|-
|

====77====
||
*The author claims that "[s]ome sources say [Brigham] Young advised [Henry Jacobs] to find a wife who could be his eternal partner."
||
*This from a single source (not "sources") and comes from a virulently anti-Mormon work, William Hall, ''Abominations of Mormonism Exposed'' (Cincinnati: I. Hart & Co., 1852), 43–44.
*Besides being hostile, this source has numerous problems which make it implausible.
*{{Wyatt-Zina}}
||
*No source provided.
|-
|

====77====
||
*Henry's subsequent life is not discussed by the author, perhaps because it would provide insight into why Zina chose to remain with Brigham.
||
*{{Wyatt-Zina}}
||
*No source provided.
|-
|
====78====
||
*Brigham Young said that "if a woman can find a man holding the keys of the priesthood with higher power and authority than her husband, and he is disposed to take her, he can do so, otherwise she has got to remain where she is. In either of these ways of sep[a]ration, you can discover, there is no need for a bill of divorcement."
||
*The author omits key parts of Brigham's recorded discourse: "…if a man magnifies his priesthood, observing faithfully his covenants to the end of his life, all the wives and children sealed to him, all the blessings and honors promised to him in his ordinations and sealing blessings are immutably and eternally fixed; no power can wrench them from his possession. You may inquire, in case a wife becomes disaffected with her husband, her affections lost, she becomes alienated from him and wishes to be the wife of another, can she not leave him? I know of no law in heaven or on earth by which she can be made free while her husband remains faithful and magnifies his priesthood before God and he is not disposed to put her away, she having done nothing worthy of being put away."
*[[Primary sources/Brigham Young 8 October 1861 discourse on plural marriage|Brigham Young 8 October 1861 discourse on plural marriage]]
*{{Wyatt-Zina}}
||
*Brigham Young, "A few words of Doctrine," Oct 8, 1861, LDS Archives.
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo Polygamy:See also:October 8 1861}}
|-
|

====79====
||
*Presendia Buell is claimed to have "displayed an affinity for mystical religious experiences as one of the women who began speaking and singing in tongues…."
||
*Speaking in tongues is not a form of "mysticism."
*This characterization is inaccurate, alienating, and prejudicial.
*[[../../Loaded and prejudicial language]]
||
*No source provided.
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:Buell}}
|-
|

====79====
||
*It is claimed that Presendia Buell "did not take the prophet's advice [to leave for Illinois while he was in Liberty Jail] prior to his escape from jail on April 16. Nine months later, on January 31, 1841, she gave birth to a son Oliver. Later that year [she went to Illinois]….."
||
*The main text clearly implies that Joseph was the father of Prescendia's son Norman. Else, why mention that "nine months later" she had a child, with no further comment?
*Smith disguises the fact that DNA evidence has proved that Oliver was not Joseph's son.
*[[Joseph Smith and polygamy/Children of polygamous marriages]]
*{{GLS-Nauvoo Polygamy-FARMS}}
||
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:Buell}}
|-
|
====80 n. 63====
||
*Fawn Brodie pointed out that Oliver was born at least a year after Presendia's husband left the church and that Oliver had the angular features and high forehead of the Smith line (''No Man Knows'', 2989ff, 301, 460).[Note continues below]
||
*[[Joseph Smith and polygamy/Children of polygamous marriages]]
*[[Joseph_Smith_and_polygamy/Children_of_polygamous_marriages/Presendia Buell|Children by Presendia Buell?]]
*{{GLS-Nauvoo Polygamy-FARMS}}
||
* See left column
|-
|
====80 n. 63====
||
*[Continued from above] Compton considered it improbable that Joseph and Presendia would have found time together during the brief window opportunity after his release from prison in Missouri (Sacred Loneliness, 670, 673)."[Note continues below]
||
* The problems are [[Joseph_Smith_and_polygamy/Children_of_polygamous_marriages/Presendia Buell|far greater]] than "finding time together."
*[[Joseph Smith and polygamy/Children of polygamous marriages]]
*{{GLS-Nauvoo Polygamy-FARMS}}
||
* See left column
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:Buell}}
|-
|

====80 n. 63====
||
*[Note continued from above]"….There is no DNA connection (Carrie A. Moore, “DNA tests rule out 2 as Smith descendants,” ''Deseret Morning News'', 10 November 2007). Compton finds it "unlikely, though not impossible, that Joseph Smith was the actual father" of John Hiram, born November 1843; Presendia's last child during her marriage to Norman Buell. (Sacred Loneliness, 124, 670–71)."
||
*The author makes no mention in the main text that Oliver’s paternity has been definitively ruled out by DNA testing. What is the point of the long discussion about the possibility of Oliver being Joseph's son, when we know that he ''can't'' be?
*[[Joseph Smith and polygamy/Children of polygamous marriages]]
*[[Joseph_Smith_and_polygamy/Children_of_polygamous_marriages/Presendia Buell|Children by Presendia Buell?]]
*{{GLS-Nauvoo Polygamy-FARMS}}
||
* See left column
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:Buell}}
|-
|

====81====
||
*{{AuthorQuote|"Occasionally, as King David did with Uriah the Hittite, Smith sent the husband [of potential polyandrous marriage partners] away on a mission which provided the privacy needed for a plural relationship to flower."}}
||
*Unmentioned—but perhaps not unimplied—is the fact that David had already committed adultery with Bathsheba, and sought to have her husband killed so he could marry her (see 2 Samuel 11). This metaphor imputes motives to Joseph where no textual evidence exists.
*[[../../Mind reading]]
*{{GLS-Nauvoo Polygamy-FARMS}}
||
*No source provided.
|-
|

====81====
||
*"This [see above] applied to Zina…."
||
*Henry Jacobs was present at the sealing to Zina. Henry knew of Joseph's plural proposal to Joseph before their marriage.
*{{InternalContradiction|compare p. 75}}
*[[Joseph Smith and polygamy/Zina and Henry Jacobs|Zina and Henry Jacobs]]
*{{Wyatt-Zina}}
||
*No source provided.
|-
|

====82====
||
*The author notes that the History of the Church "makes no mention of the second Huntington nuptial…."
||
*[[Censorship_and_revision_of_LDS_history]]
*[[../../Censorship]]
*{{GLS-Nauvoo Polygamy-FARMS}}
||
*No source provided.
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:Censorship}}
|-
|
====82====
||
*The author notes a Buell child being sealed to a proxy for Joseph with “wording [that] hints that it might have been Smith’s child….It is not clear…which of her children it might have been."
||
*There is no good evidence that this child was Joseph's.
*[[Joseph_Smith_and_polygamy/Children_of_polygamous_marriages/Presendia Buell|Children by Presendia Buell?]]
*{{GLS-Nauvoo Polygamy-FARMS}}
||
*Oliver Huntington Journal, Nov 14, 1884, USHS; see Compton, ''In Sacred Loneliness'', 140, 673.
|-
|

====84====
||
*The author notes: "From the inception of plural marriage, Smith demanded confidentiality from those whom he taught the principle."
||
*[[Lying_for_the_Lord%3F]]
*[[Joseph Smith and polygamy#Hiding the Truth?|Joseph Smith and polygamy—Hiding the truth?]]
||
*''History of the Church'' 4:479; Woodruff Journals 2:143.
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:Lying}}
|-
|

====85====
||
*The author assumes that Joseph "evidently adapted and redefined [elements] from the Masonic rituals and incorporated [them] as part of the unfolding Mormon temple ceremonies."
||
*[[Temple endowment and Freemasonry]]
||
*No source given.
|-
|
====85====
||
*{{AuthorQuote|"The [temple] vows of secrecy and threats of blood penalties intensified the mysterious rites of celestial marriage…."}}
||
*There are no "blood penalties" associated with plural marriage.
*Note the prejudicial language, in which the author tries to make the endowment seem foreign, strange and alienating.

*[[Penalties_in_the_endowment]]
*[[../../Loaded and prejudicial language]]
||
*Author's opinion.
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo Polygamy:See also:Temple}}
|-
|

====88====
||
*The author notes that there is no mention of Joseph's sealing to Agnes Smith in the History of the Church.
||

*[[Censorship_and_revision_of_LDS_history]]
*[[../../Censorship]]
*{{GLS-Nauvoo Polygamy-FARMS}}
||
*No source provided.
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:Censorship}}
|-
|
====92====
||
*Sarah Pratt is claimed to have reported in 1886 that Lucinda had told her nearly forty-five years earlier in 1842: "Why[,] I am his [Smith's] mistress since four years."
||
*Compton notes that this statement is "antagonistic, third-hand, and late" (''In Sacred Loneliness'', 650). It seems implausible that Harris would admit to being a "mistress."
*Newel and Avery, ''Mormon Enigma'', 346 have likewise seen the "mistress" label as "an embellishment by either Sarah Pratt or W. Wyl."
*The author provides none of this perspective.
*[[../../Loaded and prejudicial language]]
||
*Wyl, ''Mormon Portraits'', 60.
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:Lucinda Harris}}
|-
|

====99====
||
*The author notes that "[a]s usual, the History of the Church made no mention of Sylvia [Sessions Lyon] on February 8, 1842…."
||

*[[Censorship_and_revision_of_LDS_history]]
*[[../../Censorship]]
*{{GLS-Nauvoo Polygamy-FARMS}}
||
*No source provided.
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:Censorship}}
|-
|
====100====
||
*The author claims that "[d]uring these years as Windsor's wife, Sylvia reportedly bore Smith a child in 1844…."
||
*The author ignores Brian C. Hales, “The Joseph Smith–Sylvia Sessions Plural Sealing: Polyandry or Polygyny?” ''Mormon Historical Studies'' 9/1 (Spring 2008): 41–57, which argues that Sylvia considered herself divorced prior to marrying Joseph polygamously, contrary to evidence misread by Compton.
*[[Joseph_Smith_and_polygamy/Children_of_polygamous_marriages]]
||
*{{CriticalWork:Compton:Sacred Loneliness|pages=180–81}}
|-
|

====103====
||
*{{AuthorQuote|"Typically, [Joseph] never mentioned his marriage to Patty [Sessions] on paper…."}}
||
*[[Censorship_and_revision_of_LDS_history]]
*[[../../Censorship]]
*{{GLS-Nauvoo Polygamy-FARMS}}
||
*No source provided.
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:Censorship}}
|-
|
====105====
||
*It is claimed that Sarah Cleveland's husband "was a Swedenborgian, embracing a world view compatible with that of Mormons."
||
*These needs more argument than the author gives it. It is not clear how being a Swedenborgian would predispose Cleveland to accept a modern prophet, new scripture, and restored priesthood authority (for example).
*Surely any world-view was somewhat compatible with the Mormons', but what about Cleveland's views were more compatible than, say, other Christians?
*[[Swedenborg_and_three_degrees_of_glory]]
||
*Biography of Sarah Maryetta Kingsley, LDS Archives.
|-
|

====106====
||
*{{AuthorQuote|"John Cleveland's Swedenborgian faith might have helped prepare Sarah for some of Joseph's teachings. Like Smith, followers of Emanuel Swedenborg conceived of a pre-existent life, 'eternal marriage' for couples who had a true 'affinity' for each other, and a three-tiered heaven that required marriage for admission to the highest level."}}
||
*Three degrees in heaven is a Biblical notion, it did not originate with Swedenborg or Joseph Smith.
*It is not clear what Swedenborg's "affinity" between spouses has to do with LDS plural marriage.
*[[Swedenborg_and_three_degrees_of_glory]]
||
*Author's speculation.
*Emanuel Swedenborg, ''Heaven and Hell'', trans. George F. Dole (West Chester, Pa.: Swedenborg Foundation, 2002), 18–32.
*CHECK THIS SOURCE!{{nw}}
|-
|

====106====
||
*The author notes that John Cleveland's continued willingness to host LDS events "indicated a likely compatibility of beliefs."
||
*There are other options:
**Perhaps Cleveland was simply a tolerant man?
**Perhaps he respected the Mormons for what he had seen of them personally?
**Perhaps he respected his wife's desire to practice her own faith, despite not sharing it.
||
* No source provided.
|-
|

====106====
||
*{{AuthorQuote|"Like some of the other husbands of women who agreed to marry the prophet, John Cleveland nevertheless became 'more and more bitter towards the Mormons.'"}}
||

*The author does not tell the reader that this difficulty did not occur until after Joseph's death, and the Saints had gone west. He neglects to point out that Compton noted that even six months before Joseph's death, Sarah's husband was "very friendly and frequently visited the Prophet." (Compton, ''In Sacred Loneliness'', 281).
*Thus, the implication that Joseph's plural marriage caused problems for Cleveland is not sustained by the evidence.
*The author also does not tell us that one version of Sarah's decision to remain behind instead of going to Utah reads:
:"Brigham Young and council…counciled her to stay with her Husband as he was a good man, having shown himself kind ever helping those in need, although for some reason his mind was darkened as to the Gospel. She obey[ed] the council and stayed with her Husband, and was faithfull and true to her religion and died a faithfull member of the Church…." (Compton, ''In Sacred Loneliness'', 283).
*[[Joseph_Smith_and_polyandry/Book_chapter#Sarah_Kingsley_Howe_Cleveland|Sarah Cleveland]]
||
*Sarah Cleveland to August Lyman, 1847, John Lyman Smith Collection, L. Tom Perry Special Collections, cited by Compton, ''In Sacred Loneliness'', 284.
|-
|

====106====
||
*Besides Cleveland (see above) other polyandrous husbands are claimed to have become more bitter against the Church.
||
*As shown above, Cleveland was not bitter about the Church or Joseph during Joseph's lifetime.
*No other examples are given. It is not clear to whom the author is referring.
*[[Joseph_Smith_and_polyandry/Book_chapter]]
||
* No source provided.
|-
|
{{EndClaimsTable}}

==Endnotes==
#{{note|stenhouse1}} T. B. H. Stenhouse, ''The Rocky Mountain Saints : A Full and Complete History of the Mormons....'' (New York: D. Appleton and Company, 1878 [1873]), 184 note.
#{{note|ehat1}} Andrew F. Ehat, "Joseph Smith's Introduction of Temple Ordinances and the 1844 Mormon Succession Question," (Master's Thesis, Brigham Young University, 1981), 40.
#{{note|pratt1}} George L. Mitton and Rhett S. James, "A Response to D. Michael Quinn's Homosexual Distortion of Latter-Day Saint History," ''FARMS Review of Books'' 10/1 (1998): footnote 70, citing T. Edgar Lyon, "Orson Pratt—Early Mormon Leader," (M.A. diss., University of Chicago, 1932), 31. See also ''Millennial Star'' 40 (16 December 1878): 788.
#{{note|bushman2}}{{RSR1|start=411}}
#{{note|bennett1}} Bennett, ''History of the Saints'', 40–41.
#{{note|HC1}} {{HoC1|vol=5|num=18}}
#{{note|HC2}} Smith, ''History of the Church'', 5:18 (26 May 1842).
#{{note|bushman1}} {{RSR1|start=461}}; see ''Times and Seasons'' 3/15 (15 June 1842): 830; Smith, ''History of the Church'', 5:32.

=Further reading=
{{FAIRAnalysisWiki}}

Joseph Smith/Polygamy/Children of polygamous marriages

2009-08-15T20:17:20Z

SuzanneArmitage: /* Hancock */

{{PolygamyPortal}}
==Criticism==
*Critics claim that Joseph Smith fathered children with some of his plural wives, and that he covered up the evidence of pregnancies.
*Critics claim that Joseph Smith had intimate relations with other men’s wives to whom he had been sealed, and that children resulted from these unions.

===Source(s) of the criticism===
*{{CriticalWork:Brodie:No Man Knows|pages=Chapter 24}}
*{{CriticalWork:McKeeverJohnson:Mormonism 101|pages=Chapter 17}}
*{{CriticalWork:Tanner:Changing World|pages=231}}
*{{CriticalWork:Van Wagoner:Mormon Polygamy|pages=49}} (Source: Brodie)
*{{CriticalWork:Wikipedia:Joseph Smith, Jr.}}

==Response==
There is no question that Joseph Smith was capable of producing children by Emma. It is logical to assume that if Joseph had intimate relations with many other women, that there would be evidence of pregnancy and children. The focus of the critics is primarily on Joseph’s sealings to women who were married to other husbands, since having a child by any of the previously single women to whom he was married would fall within the expected scope of plural marriage.

The available evidence, however, does not support the claim that Joseph had intimate relations with married women. Fawn Brodie, who repeatedly stated her belief that Joseph had intimate relations with many of his plural wives, identified several individuals that she thought “might” be children of Joseph Smith, Jr. Yet, even Brodie noted that “it is astonishing that evidence of other children than these has never come to light.” Brodie postulated, in spite of a complete lack of evidence, that Joseph must have been able to successfully practice some sort of primitive birth control, or that abortions must have been routinely employed.

Brodie does indeed identify some specific individuals whom she claims are likely to have been the progeny of Joseph Smith. These individuals are examined, along with a comparison of Brodie’s claims against modern evidence.

{| valign="top" border="1" style="width:100%; font-size:85%"
!width=10%|Mother
!width="45%"|Brodie’s claim (‘’No Man Knows My History’’, p. 301, 345, 465)
!width="45%"|Modern evidence
|-
|
====Buell====
||Brodie claims that “the physiognomy revealed in a rare photograph of Oliver Buell seems to weight the balance overwhelmingly on the side of Joseph’s paternity.”
||Oliver Buell is not the son of Joseph Smith, Jr.

DNA research in 2007 confirmed Presendia Huntington Buell’s son Oliver, born sometime in 1838-1839, was the son of Norman Buell.{{ref|deseretnews1}} "Only 9 of the 23 genetic markers match when comparing the inferred Oliver Buell haplotype to that of Joseph Smith. Such a low degree of correlation between the two haplotypes provides strong evidence that they belong to two unrelated paternal lineages, thus excluding with high likelihood Joseph Smith Jr. as the biological father of Oliver N. Buell. Further weight is given to this observation by the close match of the inferred haplotype of Owen F. Buell to the independent Buell record in the SMGF data base, which genetic relationship dates back prior to Joseph Smith's era. Additionally, the two genetic profiles were run through a haplogroup predictor algorithm that assigned the Smith haplotypes to a cluster known as R1b and the cluster for the Buell's haplotypes to I1b2a, two deeply divergent clades that separated anciently, thus providing further evidence that the Oliver Buell and Joseph Smith lineages are not closely related" {{ref|JJHWA1}}

|-
|

====Alger====
||Brodie states that “[t]here is some evidence that Fannie Alger bore Joseph a child in Kirtland.”
||DNA research in 2005 confirmed Fanny Alger’s son Orrison Smith is not the son of Joseph Smith, Jr.{{ref|perego1}}
|-
|

====Hancock====
||”Legend among the descendants of Levi W. Hancock points to another son of the prophet. If the legend is true, the child was probably John Reed Hancock, born April 19, 1841.”
|| Nothing is yet known regarding the patrilineage John Reed Hancock.

John Reed's brother Mosiah is not the son of Joseph Smith, Jr.

DNA research in 2007 confirmed Clarissa Hancock's son Mosiah, born 9 April 1834, was the son of Levi Hancock.{{ref|deseretnews2}} "A 12-marker haplotype was already available for a paternal descendant of Mosiah Hancock, generated by an independent commercial laboratory. A comparison of the 12 markers to the shortened Joseph Smith haplotype showed only 5 matches, indicating a low likelihood of a biological relationship between Mosiah and Joseph. Additionally, we queried the SMGF database with the 12 Ycs Hancock markers. Six independent records returned matching all 12 markers, all having the surname Hancock with documented connections to Mosiah's grandfather Thomas Hancock III." {{ref|JJHWA2}}

|-
|

====Lightner====
||The son of Mary Rollins Lightner “may as easily have been the prophet’s son as that of Adam Lightner.”
|| George Algernon Lightner, born March 22, 1842, died as an infant and therefore had no descendants. DNA testing cannot help determine paternity.
|-
|
====Hyde====
||Mrs. Orson Hyde’s sons Orson and Frank “could have been Joseph’s sons.”
|| Orson Washington Hyde, born November 9, 1843, died as an infant and therefore had no descendants. DNA testing cannot help determine paternity.
|-
|
====Pratt====
||Mrs. Parley P. Pratt’s son Moroni “might also be added to this list.”
|| Moroni Llewellyn Pratt is not the son of Joseph Smith, Jr.

DNA research in 2005 confirmed Mary Ann Frost Pratt's son Moroni, born 7 December 1844, was the son of Parley P. Pratt.{{ref|perego2}}
|-
|

====Snow====
||”According to tradition,” Emma beat Eliza Snow and caused her to abort Joseph’s child.
||Both LDS and non-LDS reviewers have found several flaws in the story about Eliza.{{ref|emmaeliza1}} Emma's biographers note that "Eliza continued to teach school for a month after her abrupt departure from the Smith household. Her own class attendance record shows that she did not miss a day during the months she taught the Smith children, which would be unlikely had she suffered a miscarriage."{{ref|emmaeliza2}}
|-
|
====Jacobs====
||Zina was “about seven months pregnant with Jacobs' child at the time of her marriage to the prophet.” (Brodie, p. 465) John D. Lee and William Hall stated that Zina had been “pregnant by Smith.”
|| Zebulon Jacobs is not the son of Joseph Smith, Jr.

DNA research in 2005 confirmed Zina Diantha Huntington Jacobs's son Zebulon was the son of Henry Bailey Jacobs.{{ref|perego3}}
|}

====Josephine Lyon====

In 1915, Sylvia Sessions Lyon's daughter, Josephine, signed a statement that in 1882 Sylvia "told me that I was the daughter of the Prophet Joseph Smith, she having been sealed to the Prophet at the time that her husband Mr. Lyon was out of fellowship with the Church." It is not known whether Sylvia was referring to her daughter as being a literal descendant of Joseph Smith, or if she was referring to the fact that she had been sealed to the prophet.

In an article published in ''Mormon Historical Studies'', Brian C. Hales demonstrates that Sylvia considered herself divorced prior to marrying Joseph polygamously. [See: Hales, Brian C. "The Joseph Smith-Sylvia Sessions Plural Sealing: Polyandry or Polygyny?" Mormon Historical Studies 9/1 (Spring 2008): 41–57.]

DNA research is ongoing but it is rendered more difficult since the Y chromosome evidence of paternal lineage is not present in females.

For more detail regarding the investigation into possible children from Joseph's polygamous marriages, please refer to the [[/Book chapter|book chapter]] on this subject.

==Conclusion==
Critics have long had difficulty reconciling their concept of Joseph as a promiscuous womanizer with the fact that the only recorded children of the prophet are those that he had with Emma. Science is now shedding new light on this issue as DNA research has so far eliminated a number of possibilities that had long been rumored to be descendants of Joseph Smith.

==Endnotes==

#{{note|deseretnews1}}[http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,695226318,00.html DNA Tests rule out 2 as Smith descendants], ''Deseret News'' Nov. 10, 2007.
#{{note|JJHWA1}}Ugo A. Perego, Jayne E. Ekins, and Scott R. Woodward, "Resolving the Paternities of Oliver N. Buell and Mosiah L. Hancock through DNA," JJHWA, 133.
#{{note|perego1}}Ugo A. Perego, Natalie M. Myers, and Scott R. Woodward, “Reconstructing the Y-Chromosome of Joseph Smith Jr.: Genealogical Applications, ''Journal of Mormon History'' Vol. 32, No. 2 (Summer 2005) 70-88.
#{{note|deseretnews2}} ''Deseret News'', 2007.
#{{note|JJHWA1}}Ugo A. Perego, Jayne E. Ekins, and Scott R. Woodward, "Resolving the Paternities of Oliver N. Buell and Mosiah L. Hancock through DNA," JJHWA, 134-135.
#{{note|perego2}}Perego, Myers and Woodward, 2005.
#{{note|emmaeliza1}} This bit of folklore is explored in {{BYUS1|author=Maureen Ursenbach Beecher et al.|article=Emma and Eliza and the Stairs|vol=22|num=1|date=Fall 1982|start=86|end=96}}. RLDS author Richard Price also argues that the physical layout of the Mansion House makes the story as reported by Charles C. Rich unlikely, see "Eliza Snow Was Not Pushed Down the Mansion House Stairs," in Richard Price. "Joseph Smith Fought Polygamy: How Men Nearest the Prophet Attached Polygamy to His Name in Order to Justify Their Own Polygamous Crimes." (n.p.: Price Publishing Company, 2001), chapter 9. Price's dogmatic insistence that Joseph never taught plural marriage, however, cannot be sustained by the evidence.
#{{note|emmaeliza2}}Linda King Newell and Valeen Tippetts Avery, ''Mormon Enigma: Emma Hale Smith'', 2nd ed. (Urbana, Illinois: University of Illinois Press, 1994), 136. See also discussion in Danel Bachman, "Plural Marriage Before the Death of Joseph Smith'' (Master's Thesis, Purdue University, 1975), 140n173.
#{{note|perego3}}Perego, Myers and Woodward, 2005.

==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===
{{PolygamyWiki}}

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

===Videos===
{{Video:Wyatt:2006:Zina and Her Men}}

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

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

Joseph Smith/Polygamy/Children of polygamous marriages

2009-08-15T20:13:44Z

SuzanneArmitage: /* Response */

{{PolygamyPortal}}
==Criticism==
*Critics claim that Joseph Smith fathered children with some of his plural wives, and that he covered up the evidence of pregnancies.
*Critics claim that Joseph Smith had intimate relations with other men’s wives to whom he had been sealed, and that children resulted from these unions.

===Source(s) of the criticism===
*{{CriticalWork:Brodie:No Man Knows|pages=Chapter 24}}
*{{CriticalWork:McKeeverJohnson:Mormonism 101|pages=Chapter 17}}
*{{CriticalWork:Tanner:Changing World|pages=231}}
*{{CriticalWork:Van Wagoner:Mormon Polygamy|pages=49}} (Source: Brodie)
*{{CriticalWork:Wikipedia:Joseph Smith, Jr.}}

==Response==
There is no question that Joseph Smith was capable of producing children by Emma. It is logical to assume that if Joseph had intimate relations with many other women, that there would be evidence of pregnancy and children. The focus of the critics is primarily on Joseph’s sealings to women who were married to other husbands, since having a child by any of the previously single women to whom he was married would fall within the expected scope of plural marriage.

The available evidence, however, does not support the claim that Joseph had intimate relations with married women. Fawn Brodie, who repeatedly stated her belief that Joseph had intimate relations with many of his plural wives, identified several individuals that she thought “might” be children of Joseph Smith, Jr. Yet, even Brodie noted that “it is astonishing that evidence of other children than these has never come to light.” Brodie postulated, in spite of a complete lack of evidence, that Joseph must have been able to successfully practice some sort of primitive birth control, or that abortions must have been routinely employed.

Brodie does indeed identify some specific individuals whom she claims are likely to have been the progeny of Joseph Smith. These individuals are examined, along with a comparison of Brodie’s claims against modern evidence.

{| valign="top" border="1" style="width:100%; font-size:85%"
!width=10%|Mother
!width="45%"|Brodie’s claim (‘’No Man Knows My History’’, p. 301, 345, 465)
!width="45%"|Modern evidence
|-
|
====Buell====
||Brodie claims that “the physiognomy revealed in a rare photograph of Oliver Buell seems to weight the balance overwhelmingly on the side of Joseph’s paternity.”
||Oliver Buell is not the son of Joseph Smith, Jr.

DNA research in 2007 confirmed Presendia Huntington Buell’s son Oliver, born sometime in 1838-1839, was the son of Norman Buell.{{ref|deseretnews1}} "Only 9 of the 23 genetic markers match when comparing the inferred Oliver Buell haplotype to that of Joseph Smith. Such a low degree of correlation between the two haplotypes provides strong evidence that they belong to two unrelated paternal lineages, thus excluding with high likelihood Joseph Smith Jr. as the biological father of Oliver N. Buell. Further weight is given to this observation by the close match of the inferred haplotype of Owen F. Buell to the independent Buell record in the SMGF data base, which genetic relationship dates back prior to Joseph Smith's era. Additionally, the two genetic profiles were run through a haplogroup predictor algorithm that assigned the Smith haplotypes to a cluster known as R1b and the cluster for the Buell's haplotypes to I1b2a, two deeply divergent clades that separated anciently, thus providing further evidence that the Oliver Buell and Joseph Smith lineages are not closely related" {{ref|JJHWA1}}

|-
|

====Alger====
||Brodie states that “[t]here is some evidence that Fannie Alger bore Joseph a child in Kirtland.”
||DNA research in 2005 confirmed Fanny Alger’s son Orrison Smith is not the son of Joseph Smith, Jr.{{ref|perego1}}
|-
|

====Hancock====
||”Legend among the descendants of Levi W. Hancock points to another son of the prophet. If the legend is true, the child was probably John Reed Hancock, born April 19, 1841.”
|| Mosiah Hancock is not the son of Joseph Smith, Jr.

DNA research in 2007 confirmed Clarissa Hancock's son Mosiah, born 9 April 1834, was the son of Levi Hancock.{{ref|deseretnews2}} "A 12-marker haplotype was already available for a paternal descendant of Mosiah Hancock, generated by an independent commercial laboratory. A comparison of the 12 markers to the shortened Joseph Smith haplotype showed only 5 matches, indicating a low likelihood of a biological relationship between Mosiah and Joseph. Additionally, we queried the SMGF database with the 12 Ycs Hancock markers. Six independent records returned matching all 12 markers, all having the surname Hancock with documented connections to Mosiah's grandfather Thomas Hancock III." {{ref|JJHWA2}}

Nothing is yet known regarding the patrilineage of Mosiah's brother, John Reed Hancock.
|-
|

====Lightner====
||The son of Mary Rollins Lightner “may as easily have been the prophet’s son as that of Adam Lightner.”
|| George Algernon Lightner, born March 22, 1842, died as an infant and therefore had no descendants. DNA testing cannot help determine paternity.
|-
|
====Hyde====
||Mrs. Orson Hyde’s sons Orson and Frank “could have been Joseph’s sons.”
|| Orson Washington Hyde, born November 9, 1843, died as an infant and therefore had no descendants. DNA testing cannot help determine paternity.
|-
|
====Pratt====
||Mrs. Parley P. Pratt’s son Moroni “might also be added to this list.”
|| Moroni Llewellyn Pratt is not the son of Joseph Smith, Jr.

DNA research in 2005 confirmed Mary Ann Frost Pratt's son Moroni, born 7 December 1844, was the son of Parley P. Pratt.{{ref|perego2}}
|-
|

====Snow====
||”According to tradition,” Emma beat Eliza Snow and caused her to abort Joseph’s child.
||Both LDS and non-LDS reviewers have found several flaws in the story about Eliza.{{ref|emmaeliza1}} Emma's biographers note that "Eliza continued to teach school for a month after her abrupt departure from the Smith household. Her own class attendance record shows that she did not miss a day during the months she taught the Smith children, which would be unlikely had she suffered a miscarriage."{{ref|emmaeliza2}}
|-
|
====Jacobs====
||Zina was “about seven months pregnant with Jacobs' child at the time of her marriage to the prophet.” (Brodie, p. 465) John D. Lee and William Hall stated that Zina had been “pregnant by Smith.”
|| Zebulon Jacobs is not the son of Joseph Smith, Jr.

DNA research in 2005 confirmed Zina Diantha Huntington Jacobs's son Zebulon was the son of Henry Bailey Jacobs.{{ref|perego3}}
|}

====Josephine Lyon====

In 1915, Sylvia Sessions Lyon's daughter, Josephine, signed a statement that in 1882 Sylvia "told me that I was the daughter of the Prophet Joseph Smith, she having been sealed to the Prophet at the time that her husband Mr. Lyon was out of fellowship with the Church." It is not known whether Sylvia was referring to her daughter as being a literal descendant of Joseph Smith, or if she was referring to the fact that she had been sealed to the prophet.

In an article published in ''Mormon Historical Studies'', Brian C. Hales demonstrates that Sylvia considered herself divorced prior to marrying Joseph polygamously. [See: Hales, Brian C. "The Joseph Smith-Sylvia Sessions Plural Sealing: Polyandry or Polygyny?" Mormon Historical Studies 9/1 (Spring 2008): 41–57.]

DNA research is ongoing but it is rendered more difficult since the Y chromosome evidence of paternal lineage is not present in females.

For more detail regarding the investigation into possible children from Joseph's polygamous marriages, please refer to the [[/Book chapter|book chapter]] on this subject.

==Conclusion==
Critics have long had difficulty reconciling their concept of Joseph as a promiscuous womanizer with the fact that the only recorded children of the prophet are those that he had with Emma. Science is now shedding new light on this issue as DNA research has so far eliminated a number of possibilities that had long been rumored to be descendants of Joseph Smith.

==Endnotes==

#{{note|deseretnews1}}[http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,695226318,00.html DNA Tests rule out 2 as Smith descendants], ''Deseret News'' Nov. 10, 2007.
#{{note|JJHWA1}}Ugo A. Perego, Jayne E. Ekins, and Scott R. Woodward, "Resolving the Paternities of Oliver N. Buell and Mosiah L. Hancock through DNA," JJHWA, 133.
#{{note|perego1}}Ugo A. Perego, Natalie M. Myers, and Scott R. Woodward, “Reconstructing the Y-Chromosome of Joseph Smith Jr.: Genealogical Applications, ''Journal of Mormon History'' Vol. 32, No. 2 (Summer 2005) 70-88.
#{{note|deseretnews2}} ''Deseret News'', 2007.
#{{note|JJHWA1}}Ugo A. Perego, Jayne E. Ekins, and Scott R. Woodward, "Resolving the Paternities of Oliver N. Buell and Mosiah L. Hancock through DNA," JJHWA, 134-135.
#{{note|perego2}}Perego, Myers and Woodward, 2005.
#{{note|emmaeliza1}} This bit of folklore is explored in {{BYUS1|author=Maureen Ursenbach Beecher et al.|article=Emma and Eliza and the Stairs|vol=22|num=1|date=Fall 1982|start=86|end=96}}. RLDS author Richard Price also argues that the physical layout of the Mansion House makes the story as reported by Charles C. Rich unlikely, see "Eliza Snow Was Not Pushed Down the Mansion House Stairs," in Richard Price. "Joseph Smith Fought Polygamy: How Men Nearest the Prophet Attached Polygamy to His Name in Order to Justify Their Own Polygamous Crimes." (n.p.: Price Publishing Company, 2001), chapter 9. Price's dogmatic insistence that Joseph never taught plural marriage, however, cannot be sustained by the evidence.
#{{note|emmaeliza2}}Linda King Newell and Valeen Tippetts Avery, ''Mormon Enigma: Emma Hale Smith'', 2nd ed. (Urbana, Illinois: University of Illinois Press, 1994), 136. See also discussion in Danel Bachman, "Plural Marriage Before the Death of Joseph Smith'' (Master's Thesis, Purdue University, 1975), 140n173.
#{{note|perego3}}Perego, Myers and Woodward, 2005.

==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===
{{PolygamyWiki}}

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

===Videos===
{{Video:Wyatt:2006:Zina and Her Men}}

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

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

Joseph Smith/Polygamy/Children of polygamous marriages

2009-08-15T20:06:49Z

SuzanneArmitage: /* Alger */

{{PolygamyPortal}}
==Criticism==
*Critics claim that Joseph Smith fathered children with some of his plural wives, and that he covered up the evidence of pregnancies.
*Critics claim that Joseph Smith had intimate relations with other men’s wives to whom he had been sealed, and that children resulted from these unions.

===Source(s) of the criticism===
*{{CriticalWork:Brodie:No Man Knows|pages=Chapter 24}}
*{{CriticalWork:McKeeverJohnson:Mormonism 101|pages=Chapter 17}}
*{{CriticalWork:Tanner:Changing World|pages=231}}
*{{CriticalWork:Van Wagoner:Mormon Polygamy|pages=49}} (Source: Brodie)
*{{CriticalWork:Wikipedia:Joseph Smith, Jr.}}

==Response==
There is no question that Joseph Smith was capable of producing children by Emma. It is logical to assume that if Joseph had intimate relations with many other women, that there would be evidence of pregnancy and children. The focus of the critics is primarily on Joseph’s sealings to women who were married to other husbands, since having a child by any of the previously single women to whom he was married would fall within the expected scope of plural marriage.

The available evidence, however, does not support the claim that Joseph had intimate relations with married women. Fawn Brodie, who repeatedly stated her belief that Joseph Smith had intimate relations with many of his plural wives, identified several individuals that she thought ‘’might’’ be children of Joseph Smith, Jr. Yet, even Brodie noted that “it is astonishing that evidence of other children than these has never come to light.” Brodie actually postulated, in spite of a complete lack of evidence, that Joseph must have been able to successfully practice some sort of primitive birth control, or that abortions must have been routinely employed.

Brodie does indeed identify some specific individuals whom she claims are likely to have been the progeny of Joseph Smith. These individuals are examined, along with a comparison of Brodie’s claims against modern evidence.

{| valign="top" border="1" style="width:100%; font-size:85%"
!width=10%|Mother
!width="45%"|Brodie’s claim (‘’No Man Knows My History’’, p. 301, 345, 465)
!width="45%"|Modern evidence
|-
|
====Buell====
||Brodie claims that “the physiognomy revealed in a rare photograph of Oliver Buell seems to weight the balance overwhelmingly on the side of Joseph’s paternity.”
||Oliver Buell is not the son of Joseph Smith, Jr.

DNA research in 2007 confirmed Presendia Huntington Buell’s son Oliver, born sometime in 1838-1839, was the son of Norman Buell.{{ref|deseretnews1}} "Only 9 of the 23 genetic markers match when comparing the inferred Oliver Buell haplotype to that of Joseph Smith. Such a low degree of correlation between the two haplotypes provides strong evidence that they belong to two unrelated paternal lineages, thus excluding with high likelihood Joseph Smith Jr. as the biological father of Oliver N. Buell. Further weight is given to this observation by the close match of the inferred haplotype of Owen F. Buell to the independent Buell record in the SMGF data base, which genetic relationship dates back prior to Joseph Smith's era. Additionally, the two genetic profiles were run through a haplogroup predictor algorithm that assigned the Smith haplotypes to a cluster known as R1b and the cluster for the Buell's haplotypes to I1b2a, two deeply divergent clades that separated anciently, thus providing further evidence that the Oliver Buell and Joseph Smith lineages are not closely related" {{ref|JJHWA1}}

|-
|

====Alger====
||Brodie states that “[t]here is some evidence that Fannie Alger bore Joseph a child in Kirtland.”
||DNA research in 2005 confirmed Fanny Alger’s son Orrison Smith is not the son of Joseph Smith, Jr.{{ref|perego1}}
|-
|

====Hancock====
||”Legend among the descendants of Levi W. Hancock points to another son of the prophet. If the legend is true, the child was probably John Reed Hancock, born April 19, 1841.”
|| Mosiah Hancock is not the son of Joseph Smith, Jr.

DNA research in 2007 confirmed Clarissa Hancock's son Mosiah, born 9 April 1834, was the son of Levi Hancock.{{ref|deseretnews2}} "A 12-marker haplotype was already available for a paternal descendant of Mosiah Hancock, generated by an independent commercial laboratory. A comparison of the 12 markers to the shortened Joseph Smith haplotype showed only 5 matches, indicating a low likelihood of a biological relationship between Mosiah and Joseph. Additionally, we queried the SMGF database with the 12 Ycs Hancock markers. Six independent records returned matching all 12 markers, all having the surname Hancock with documented connections to Mosiah's grandfather Thomas Hancock III." {{ref|JJHWA2}}

Nothing is yet known regarding the patrilineage of Mosiah's brother, John Reed Hancock.
|-
|

====Lightner====
||The son of Mary Rollins Lightner “may as easily have been the prophet’s son as that of Adam Lightner.”
|| George Algernon Lightner, born March 22, 1842, died as an infant and therefore had no descendants. DNA testing cannot help determine paternity.
|-
|
====Hyde====
||Mrs. Orson Hyde’s sons Orson and Frank “could have been Joseph’s sons.”
|| Orson Washington Hyde, born November 9, 1843, died as an infant and therefore had no descendants. DNA testing cannot help determine paternity.
|-
|
====Pratt====
||Mrs. Parley P. Pratt’s son Moroni “might also be added to this list.”
|| Moroni Llewellyn Pratt is not the son of Joseph Smith, Jr.

DNA research in 2005 confirmed Mary Ann Frost Pratt's son Moroni, born 7 December 1844, was the son of Parley P. Pratt.{{ref|perego2}}
|-
|

====Snow====
||”According to tradition,” Emma beat Eliza Snow and caused her to abort Joseph’s child.
||Both LDS and non-LDS reviewers have found several flaws in the story about Eliza.{{ref|emmaeliza1}} Emma's biographers note that "Eliza continued to teach school for a month after her abrupt departure from the Smith household. Her own class attendance record shows that she did not miss a day during the months she taught the Smith children, which would be unlikely had she suffered a miscarriage."{{ref|emmaeliza2}}
|-
|
====Jacobs====
||Zina was “about seven months pregnant with Jacobs' child at the time of her marriage to the prophet.” (Brodie, p. 465) John D. Lee and William Hall stated that Zina had been “pregnant by Smith.”
|| Zebulon Jacobs is not the son of Joseph Smith, Jr.

DNA research in 2005 confirmed Zina Diantha Huntington Jacobs's son Zebulon was the son of Henry Bailey Jacobs.{{ref|perego3}}
|}

====Josephine Lyon====

In 1915, Sylvia Sessions Lyon's daughter, Josephine, signed a statement that in 1882 Sylvia "told me that I was the daughter of the Prophet Joseph Smith, she having been sealed to the Prophet at the time that her husband Mr. Lyon was out of fellowship with the Church." It is not known whether Sylvia was referring to her daughter as being a literal descendant of Joseph Smith, or if she was referring to the fact that she had been sealed to the prophet.

In an article published in ''Mormon Historical Studies'', Brian C. Hales demonstrates that Sylvia considered herself divorced prior to marrying Joseph polygamously. [See: Hales, Brian C. "The Joseph Smith-Sylvia Sessions Plural Sealing: Polyandry or Polygyny?" Mormon Historical Studies 9/1 (Spring 2008): 41–57.]

DNA research is ongoing but it is rendered more difficult since the Y chromosome evidence of paternal lineage is not present in females.

For more detail regarding the investigation into possible children from Joseph's polygamous marriages, please refer to the [[/Book chapter|book chapter]] on this subject.

==Conclusion==
Critics have long had difficulty reconciling their concept of Joseph as a promiscuous womanizer with the fact that the only recorded children of the prophet are those that he had with Emma. Science is now shedding new light on this issue as DNA research has so far eliminated a number of possibilities that had long been rumored to be descendants of Joseph Smith.

==Endnotes==

#{{note|deseretnews1}}[http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,695226318,00.html DNA Tests rule out 2 as Smith descendants], ''Deseret News'' Nov. 10, 2007.
#{{note|JJHWA1}}Ugo A. Perego, Jayne E. Ekins, and Scott R. Woodward, "Resolving the Paternities of Oliver N. Buell and Mosiah L. Hancock through DNA," JJHWA, 133.
#{{note|perego1}}Ugo A. Perego, Natalie M. Myers, and Scott R. Woodward, “Reconstructing the Y-Chromosome of Joseph Smith Jr.: Genealogical Applications, ''Journal of Mormon History'' Vol. 32, No. 2 (Summer 2005) 70-88.
#{{note|deseretnews2}} ''Deseret News'', 2007.
#{{note|JJHWA1}}Ugo A. Perego, Jayne E. Ekins, and Scott R. Woodward, "Resolving the Paternities of Oliver N. Buell and Mosiah L. Hancock through DNA," JJHWA, 134-135.
#{{note|perego2}}Perego, Myers and Woodward, 2005.
#{{note|emmaeliza1}} This bit of folklore is explored in {{BYUS1|author=Maureen Ursenbach Beecher et al.|article=Emma and Eliza and the Stairs|vol=22|num=1|date=Fall 1982|start=86|end=96}}. RLDS author Richard Price also argues that the physical layout of the Mansion House makes the story as reported by Charles C. Rich unlikely, see "Eliza Snow Was Not Pushed Down the Mansion House Stairs," in Richard Price. "Joseph Smith Fought Polygamy: How Men Nearest the Prophet Attached Polygamy to His Name in Order to Justify Their Own Polygamous Crimes." (n.p.: Price Publishing Company, 2001), chapter 9. Price's dogmatic insistence that Joseph never taught plural marriage, however, cannot be sustained by the evidence.
#{{note|emmaeliza2}}Linda King Newell and Valeen Tippetts Avery, ''Mormon Enigma: Emma Hale Smith'', 2nd ed. (Urbana, Illinois: University of Illinois Press, 1994), 136. See also discussion in Danel Bachman, "Plural Marriage Before the Death of Joseph Smith'' (Master's Thesis, Purdue University, 1975), 140n173.
#{{note|perego3}}Perego, Myers and Woodward, 2005.

==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===
{{PolygamyWiki}}

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

===Videos===
{{Video:Wyatt:2006:Zina and Her Men}}

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

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

Joseph Smith/Polygamy/Children of polygamous marriages

2009-08-15T20:06:07Z

SuzanneArmitage: /* Alger */

{{PolygamyPortal}}
==Criticism==
*Critics claim that Joseph Smith fathered children with some of his plural wives, and that he covered up the evidence of pregnancies.
*Critics claim that Joseph Smith had intimate relations with other men’s wives to whom he had been sealed, and that children resulted from these unions.

===Source(s) of the criticism===
*{{CriticalWork:Brodie:No Man Knows|pages=Chapter 24}}
*{{CriticalWork:McKeeverJohnson:Mormonism 101|pages=Chapter 17}}
*{{CriticalWork:Tanner:Changing World|pages=231}}
*{{CriticalWork:Van Wagoner:Mormon Polygamy|pages=49}} (Source: Brodie)
*{{CriticalWork:Wikipedia:Joseph Smith, Jr.}}

==Response==
There is no question that Joseph Smith was capable of producing children by Emma. It is logical to assume that if Joseph had intimate relations with many other women, that there would be evidence of pregnancy and children. The focus of the critics is primarily on Joseph’s sealings to women who were married to other husbands, since having a child by any of the previously single women to whom he was married would fall within the expected scope of plural marriage.

The available evidence, however, does not support the claim that Joseph had intimate relations with married women. Fawn Brodie, who repeatedly stated her belief that Joseph Smith had intimate relations with many of his plural wives, identified several individuals that she thought ‘’might’’ be children of Joseph Smith, Jr. Yet, even Brodie noted that “it is astonishing that evidence of other children than these has never come to light.” Brodie actually postulated, in spite of a complete lack of evidence, that Joseph must have been able to successfully practice some sort of primitive birth control, or that abortions must have been routinely employed.

Brodie does indeed identify some specific individuals whom she claims are likely to have been the progeny of Joseph Smith. These individuals are examined, along with a comparison of Brodie’s claims against modern evidence.

{| valign="top" border="1" style="width:100%; font-size:85%"
!width=10%|Mother
!width="45%"|Brodie’s claim (‘’No Man Knows My History’’, p. 301, 345, 465)
!width="45%"|Modern evidence
|-
|
====Buell====
||Brodie claims that “the physiognomy revealed in a rare photograph of Oliver Buell seems to weight the balance overwhelmingly on the side of Joseph’s paternity.”
||Oliver Buell is not the son of Joseph Smith, Jr.

DNA research in 2007 confirmed Presendia Huntington Buell’s son Oliver, born sometime in 1838-1839, was the son of Norman Buell.{{ref|deseretnews1}} "Only 9 of the 23 genetic markers match when comparing the inferred Oliver Buell haplotype to that of Joseph Smith. Such a low degree of correlation between the two haplotypes provides strong evidence that they belong to two unrelated paternal lineages, thus excluding with high likelihood Joseph Smith Jr. as the biological father of Oliver N. Buell. Further weight is given to this observation by the close match of the inferred haplotype of Owen F. Buell to the independent Buell record in the SMGF data base, which genetic relationship dates back prior to Joseph Smith's era. Additionally, the two genetic profiles were run through a haplogroup predictor algorithm that assigned the Smith haplotypes to a cluster known as R1b and the cluster for the Buell's haplotypes to I1b2a, two deeply divergent clades that separated anciently, thus providing further evidence that the Oliver Buell and Joseph Smith lineages are not closely related" {{ref|JJHWA1}}

|-
|

====Alger====
||Brodie states that “[t]here is some evidence that Fannie Alger bore Joseph a child in Kirtland.”
||DNA research in 2005 confirmed Fanny Alger’s son Orrison Smith was not the son of Joseph Smith, Jr.{{ref|perego1}}
|-
|

====Hancock====
||”Legend among the descendants of Levi W. Hancock points to another son of the prophet. If the legend is true, the child was probably John Reed Hancock, born April 19, 1841.”
|| Mosiah Hancock is not the son of Joseph Smith, Jr.

DNA research in 2007 confirmed Clarissa Hancock's son Mosiah, born 9 April 1834, was the son of Levi Hancock.{{ref|deseretnews2}} "A 12-marker haplotype was already available for a paternal descendant of Mosiah Hancock, generated by an independent commercial laboratory. A comparison of the 12 markers to the shortened Joseph Smith haplotype showed only 5 matches, indicating a low likelihood of a biological relationship between Mosiah and Joseph. Additionally, we queried the SMGF database with the 12 Ycs Hancock markers. Six independent records returned matching all 12 markers, all having the surname Hancock with documented connections to Mosiah's grandfather Thomas Hancock III." {{ref|JJHWA2}}

Nothing is yet known regarding the patrilineage of Mosiah's brother, John Reed Hancock.
|-
|

====Lightner====
||The son of Mary Rollins Lightner “may as easily have been the prophet’s son as that of Adam Lightner.”
|| George Algernon Lightner, born March 22, 1842, died as an infant and therefore had no descendants. DNA testing cannot help determine paternity.
|-
|
====Hyde====
||Mrs. Orson Hyde’s sons Orson and Frank “could have been Joseph’s sons.”
|| Orson Washington Hyde, born November 9, 1843, died as an infant and therefore had no descendants. DNA testing cannot help determine paternity.
|-
|
====Pratt====
||Mrs. Parley P. Pratt’s son Moroni “might also be added to this list.”
|| Moroni Llewellyn Pratt is not the son of Joseph Smith, Jr.

DNA research in 2005 confirmed Mary Ann Frost Pratt's son Moroni, born 7 December 1844, was the son of Parley P. Pratt.{{ref|perego2}}
|-
|

====Snow====
||”According to tradition,” Emma beat Eliza Snow and caused her to abort Joseph’s child.
||Both LDS and non-LDS reviewers have found several flaws in the story about Eliza.{{ref|emmaeliza1}} Emma's biographers note that "Eliza continued to teach school for a month after her abrupt departure from the Smith household. Her own class attendance record shows that she did not miss a day during the months she taught the Smith children, which would be unlikely had she suffered a miscarriage."{{ref|emmaeliza2}}
|-
|
====Jacobs====
||Zina was “about seven months pregnant with Jacobs' child at the time of her marriage to the prophet.” (Brodie, p. 465) John D. Lee and William Hall stated that Zina had been “pregnant by Smith.”
|| Zebulon Jacobs is not the son of Joseph Smith, Jr.

DNA research in 2005 confirmed Zina Diantha Huntington Jacobs's son Zebulon was the son of Henry Bailey Jacobs.{{ref|perego3}}
|}

====Josephine Lyon====

In 1915, Sylvia Sessions Lyon's daughter, Josephine, signed a statement that in 1882 Sylvia "told me that I was the daughter of the Prophet Joseph Smith, she having been sealed to the Prophet at the time that her husband Mr. Lyon was out of fellowship with the Church." It is not known whether Sylvia was referring to her daughter as being a literal descendant of Joseph Smith, or if she was referring to the fact that she had been sealed to the prophet.

In an article published in ''Mormon Historical Studies'', Brian C. Hales demonstrates that Sylvia considered herself divorced prior to marrying Joseph polygamously. [See: Hales, Brian C. "The Joseph Smith-Sylvia Sessions Plural Sealing: Polyandry or Polygyny?" Mormon Historical Studies 9/1 (Spring 2008): 41–57.]

DNA research is ongoing but it is rendered more difficult since the Y chromosome evidence of paternal lineage is not present in females.

For more detail regarding the investigation into possible children from Joseph's polygamous marriages, please refer to the [[/Book chapter|book chapter]] on this subject.

==Conclusion==
Critics have long had difficulty reconciling their concept of Joseph as a promiscuous womanizer with the fact that the only recorded children of the prophet are those that he had with Emma. Science is now shedding new light on this issue as DNA research has so far eliminated a number of possibilities that had long been rumored to be descendants of Joseph Smith.

==Endnotes==

#{{note|deseretnews1}}[http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,695226318,00.html DNA Tests rule out 2 as Smith descendants], ''Deseret News'' Nov. 10, 2007.
#{{note|JJHWA1}}Ugo A. Perego, Jayne E. Ekins, and Scott R. Woodward, "Resolving the Paternities of Oliver N. Buell and Mosiah L. Hancock through DNA," JJHWA, 133.
#{{note|perego1}}Ugo A. Perego, Natalie M. Myers, and Scott R. Woodward, “Reconstructing the Y-Chromosome of Joseph Smith Jr.: Genealogical Applications, ''Journal of Mormon History'' Vol. 32, No. 2 (Summer 2005) 70-88.
#{{note|deseretnews2}} ''Deseret News'', 2007.
#{{note|JJHWA1}}Ugo A. Perego, Jayne E. Ekins, and Scott R. Woodward, "Resolving the Paternities of Oliver N. Buell and Mosiah L. Hancock through DNA," JJHWA, 134-135.
#{{note|perego2}}Perego, Myers and Woodward, 2005.
#{{note|emmaeliza1}} This bit of folklore is explored in {{BYUS1|author=Maureen Ursenbach Beecher et al.|article=Emma and Eliza and the Stairs|vol=22|num=1|date=Fall 1982|start=86|end=96}}. RLDS author Richard Price also argues that the physical layout of the Mansion House makes the story as reported by Charles C. Rich unlikely, see "Eliza Snow Was Not Pushed Down the Mansion House Stairs," in Richard Price. "Joseph Smith Fought Polygamy: How Men Nearest the Prophet Attached Polygamy to His Name in Order to Justify Their Own Polygamous Crimes." (n.p.: Price Publishing Company, 2001), chapter 9. Price's dogmatic insistence that Joseph never taught plural marriage, however, cannot be sustained by the evidence.
#{{note|emmaeliza2}}Linda King Newell and Valeen Tippetts Avery, ''Mormon Enigma: Emma Hale Smith'', 2nd ed. (Urbana, Illinois: University of Illinois Press, 1994), 136. See also discussion in Danel Bachman, "Plural Marriage Before the Death of Joseph Smith'' (Master's Thesis, Purdue University, 1975), 140n173.
#{{note|perego3}}Perego, Myers and Woodward, 2005.

==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===
{{PolygamyWiki}}

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

===Videos===
{{Video:Wyatt:2006:Zina and Her Men}}

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

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

Joseph Smith/Polygamy/Children of polygamous marriages

2009-08-15T20:00:57Z

SuzanneArmitage: /* Jacobs */

{{PolygamyPortal}}
==Criticism==
*Critics claim that Joseph Smith fathered children with some of his plural wives, and that he covered up the evidence of pregnancies.
*Critics claim that Joseph Smith had intimate relations with other men’s wives to whom he had been sealed, and that children resulted from these unions.

===Source(s) of the criticism===
*{{CriticalWork:Brodie:No Man Knows|pages=Chapter 24}}
*{{CriticalWork:McKeeverJohnson:Mormonism 101|pages=Chapter 17}}
*{{CriticalWork:Tanner:Changing World|pages=231}}
*{{CriticalWork:Van Wagoner:Mormon Polygamy|pages=49}} (Source: Brodie)
*{{CriticalWork:Wikipedia:Joseph Smith, Jr.}}

==Response==
There is no question that Joseph Smith was capable of producing children by Emma. It is logical to assume that if Joseph had intimate relations with many other women, that there would be evidence of pregnancy and children. The focus of the critics is primarily on Joseph’s sealings to women who were married to other husbands, since having a child by any of the previously single women to whom he was married would fall within the expected scope of plural marriage.

The available evidence, however, does not support the claim that Joseph had intimate relations with married women. Fawn Brodie, who repeatedly stated her belief that Joseph Smith had intimate relations with many of his plural wives, identified several individuals that she thought ‘’might’’ be children of Joseph Smith, Jr. Yet, even Brodie noted that “it is astonishing that evidence of other children than these has never come to light.” Brodie actually postulated, in spite of a complete lack of evidence, that Joseph must have been able to successfully practice some sort of primitive birth control, or that abortions must have been routinely employed.

Brodie does indeed identify some specific individuals whom she claims are likely to have been the progeny of Joseph Smith. These individuals are examined, along with a comparison of Brodie’s claims against modern evidence.

{| valign="top" border="1" style="width:100%; font-size:85%"
!width=10%|Mother
!width="45%"|Brodie’s claim (‘’No Man Knows My History’’, p. 301, 345, 465)
!width="45%"|Modern evidence
|-
|
====Buell====
||Brodie claims that “the physiognomy revealed in a rare photograph of Oliver Buell seems to weight the balance overwhelmingly on the side of Joseph’s paternity.”
||Oliver Buell is not the son of Joseph Smith, Jr.

DNA research in 2007 confirmed Presendia Huntington Buell’s son Oliver, born sometime in 1838-1839, was the son of Norman Buell.{{ref|deseretnews1}} "Only 9 of the 23 genetic markers match when comparing the inferred Oliver Buell haplotype to that of Joseph Smith. Such a low degree of correlation between the two haplotypes provides strong evidence that they belong to two unrelated paternal lineages, thus excluding with high likelihood Joseph Smith Jr. as the biological father of Oliver N. Buell. Further weight is given to this observation by the close match of the inferred haplotype of Owen F. Buell to the independent Buell record in the SMGF data base, which genetic relationship dates back prior to Joseph Smith's era. Additionally, the two genetic profiles were run through a haplogroup predictor algorithm that assigned the Smith haplotypes to a cluster known as R1b and the cluster for the Buell's haplotypes to I1b2a, two deeply divergent clades that separated anciently, thus providing further evidence that the Oliver Buell and Joseph Smith lineages are not closely related" {{ref|JJHWA1}}

|-
|

====Alger====
||Brodie states that “[t]here is some evidence that Fannie Alger bore Joseph a child in Kirtland.”
||Fanny Alger’s son Orrison Smith was determined through DNA testing in 2005 not to be a descendant of Joseph Smith, Jr.{{ref|perego1}}
|-
|
====Hancock====
||”Legend among the descendants of Levi W. Hancock points to another son of the prophet. If the legend is true, the child was probably John Reed Hancock, born April 19, 1841.”
|| Mosiah Hancock is not the son of Joseph Smith, Jr.

DNA research in 2007 confirmed Clarissa Hancock's son Mosiah, born 9 April 1834, was the son of Levi Hancock.{{ref|deseretnews2}} "A 12-marker haplotype was already available for a paternal descendant of Mosiah Hancock, generated by an independent commercial laboratory. A comparison of the 12 markers to the shortened Joseph Smith haplotype showed only 5 matches, indicating a low likelihood of a biological relationship between Mosiah and Joseph. Additionally, we queried the SMGF database with the 12 Ycs Hancock markers. Six independent records returned matching all 12 markers, all having the surname Hancock with documented connections to Mosiah's grandfather Thomas Hancock III." {{ref|JJHWA2}}

Nothing is yet known regarding the patrilineage of Mosiah's brother, John Reed Hancock.
|-
|

====Lightner====
||The son of Mary Rollins Lightner “may as easily have been the prophet’s son as that of Adam Lightner.”
|| George Algernon Lightner, born March 22, 1842, died as an infant and therefore had no descendants. DNA testing cannot help determine paternity.
|-
|
====Hyde====
||Mrs. Orson Hyde’s sons Orson and Frank “could have been Joseph’s sons.”
|| Orson Washington Hyde, born November 9, 1843, died as an infant and therefore had no descendants. DNA testing cannot help determine paternity.
|-
|
====Pratt====
||Mrs. Parley P. Pratt’s son Moroni “might also be added to this list.”
|| Moroni Llewellyn Pratt is not the son of Joseph Smith, Jr.

DNA research in 2005 confirmed Mary Ann Frost Pratt's son Moroni, born 7 December 1844, was the son of Parley P. Pratt.{{ref|perego2}}
|-
|

====Snow====
||”According to tradition,” Emma beat Eliza Snow and caused her to abort Joseph’s child.
||Both LDS and non-LDS reviewers have found several flaws in the story about Eliza.{{ref|emmaeliza1}} Emma's biographers note that "Eliza continued to teach school for a month after her abrupt departure from the Smith household. Her own class attendance record shows that she did not miss a day during the months she taught the Smith children, which would be unlikely had she suffered a miscarriage."{{ref|emmaeliza2}}
|-
|
====Jacobs====
||Zina was “about seven months pregnant with Jacobs' child at the time of her marriage to the prophet.” (Brodie, p. 465) John D. Lee and William Hall stated that Zina had been “pregnant by Smith.”
|| Zebulon Jacobs is not the son of Joseph Smith, Jr.

DNA research in 2005 confirmed Zina Diantha Huntington Jacobs's son Zebulon was the son of Henry Bailey Jacobs.{{ref|perego3}}
|}

====Josephine Lyon====

In 1915, Sylvia Sessions Lyon's daughter, Josephine, signed a statement that in 1882 Sylvia "told me that I was the daughter of the Prophet Joseph Smith, she having been sealed to the Prophet at the time that her husband Mr. Lyon was out of fellowship with the Church." It is not known whether Sylvia was referring to her daughter as being a literal descendant of Joseph Smith, or if she was referring to the fact that she had been sealed to the prophet.

In an article published in ''Mormon Historical Studies'', Brian C. Hales demonstrates that Sylvia considered herself divorced prior to marrying Joseph polygamously. [See: Hales, Brian C. "The Joseph Smith-Sylvia Sessions Plural Sealing: Polyandry or Polygyny?" Mormon Historical Studies 9/1 (Spring 2008): 41–57.]

DNA research is ongoing but it is rendered more difficult since the Y chromosome evidence of paternal lineage is not present in females.

For more detail regarding the investigation into possible children from Joseph's polygamous marriages, please refer to the [[/Book chapter|book chapter]] on this subject.

==Conclusion==
Critics have long had difficulty reconciling their concept of Joseph as a promiscuous womanizer with the fact that the only recorded children of the prophet are those that he had with Emma. Science is now shedding new light on this issue as DNA research has so far eliminated a number of possibilities that had long been rumored to be descendants of Joseph Smith.

==Endnotes==

#{{note|deseretnews1}}[http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,695226318,00.html DNA Tests rule out 2 as Smith descendants], ''Deseret News'' Nov. 10, 2007.
#{{note|JJHWA1}}Ugo A. Perego, Jayne E. Ekins, and Scott R. Woodward, "Resolving the Paternities of Oliver N. Buell and Mosiah L. Hancock through DNA," JJHWA, 133.
#{{note|perego1}}Ugo A. Perego, Natalie M. Myers, and Scott R. Woodward, “Reconstructing the Y-Chromosome of Joseph Smith Jr.: Genealogical Applications, ''Journal of Mormon History'' Vol. 32, No. 2 (Summer 2005) 70-88.
#{{note|deseretnews2}} ''Deseret News'', 2007.
#{{note|JJHWA1}}Ugo A. Perego, Jayne E. Ekins, and Scott R. Woodward, "Resolving the Paternities of Oliver N. Buell and Mosiah L. Hancock through DNA," JJHWA, 134-135.
#{{note|perego2}}Perego, Myers and Woodward, 2005.
#{{note|emmaeliza1}} This bit of folklore is explored in {{BYUS1|author=Maureen Ursenbach Beecher et al.|article=Emma and Eliza and the Stairs|vol=22|num=1|date=Fall 1982|start=86|end=96}}. RLDS author Richard Price also argues that the physical layout of the Mansion House makes the story as reported by Charles C. Rich unlikely, see "Eliza Snow Was Not Pushed Down the Mansion House Stairs," in Richard Price. "Joseph Smith Fought Polygamy: How Men Nearest the Prophet Attached Polygamy to His Name in Order to Justify Their Own Polygamous Crimes." (n.p.: Price Publishing Company, 2001), chapter 9. Price's dogmatic insistence that Joseph never taught plural marriage, however, cannot be sustained by the evidence.
#{{note|emmaeliza2}}Linda King Newell and Valeen Tippetts Avery, ''Mormon Enigma: Emma Hale Smith'', 2nd ed. (Urbana, Illinois: University of Illinois Press, 1994), 136. See also discussion in Danel Bachman, "Plural Marriage Before the Death of Joseph Smith'' (Master's Thesis, Purdue University, 1975), 140n173.
#{{note|perego3}}Perego, Myers and Woodward, 2005.

==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===
{{PolygamyWiki}}

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

===Videos===
{{Video:Wyatt:2006:Zina and Her Men}}

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

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

Joseph Smith/Polygamy/Children of polygamous marriages

2009-08-15T19:59:36Z

SuzanneArmitage: /* Jacobs */

{{PolygamyPortal}}
==Criticism==
*Critics claim that Joseph Smith fathered children with some of his plural wives, and that he covered up the evidence of pregnancies.
*Critics claim that Joseph Smith had intimate relations with other men’s wives to whom he had been sealed, and that children resulted from these unions.

===Source(s) of the criticism===
*{{CriticalWork:Brodie:No Man Knows|pages=Chapter 24}}
*{{CriticalWork:McKeeverJohnson:Mormonism 101|pages=Chapter 17}}
*{{CriticalWork:Tanner:Changing World|pages=231}}
*{{CriticalWork:Van Wagoner:Mormon Polygamy|pages=49}} (Source: Brodie)
*{{CriticalWork:Wikipedia:Joseph Smith, Jr.}}

==Response==
There is no question that Joseph Smith was capable of producing children by Emma. It is logical to assume that if Joseph had intimate relations with many other women, that there would be evidence of pregnancy and children. The focus of the critics is primarily on Joseph’s sealings to women who were married to other husbands, since having a child by any of the previously single women to whom he was married would fall within the expected scope of plural marriage.

The available evidence, however, does not support the claim that Joseph had intimate relations with married women. Fawn Brodie, who repeatedly stated her belief that Joseph Smith had intimate relations with many of his plural wives, identified several individuals that she thought ‘’might’’ be children of Joseph Smith, Jr. Yet, even Brodie noted that “it is astonishing that evidence of other children than these has never come to light.” Brodie actually postulated, in spite of a complete lack of evidence, that Joseph must have been able to successfully practice some sort of primitive birth control, or that abortions must have been routinely employed.

Brodie does indeed identify some specific individuals whom she claims are likely to have been the progeny of Joseph Smith. These individuals are examined, along with a comparison of Brodie’s claims against modern evidence.

{| valign="top" border="1" style="width:100%; font-size:85%"
!width=10%|Mother
!width="45%"|Brodie’s claim (‘’No Man Knows My History’’, p. 301, 345, 465)
!width="45%"|Modern evidence
|-
|
====Buell====
||Brodie claims that “the physiognomy revealed in a rare photograph of Oliver Buell seems to weight the balance overwhelmingly on the side of Joseph’s paternity.”
||Oliver Buell is not the son of Joseph Smith, Jr.

DNA research in 2007 confirmed Presendia Huntington Buell’s son Oliver, born sometime in 1838-1839, was the son of Norman Buell.{{ref|deseretnews1}} "Only 9 of the 23 genetic markers match when comparing the inferred Oliver Buell haplotype to that of Joseph Smith. Such a low degree of correlation between the two haplotypes provides strong evidence that they belong to two unrelated paternal lineages, thus excluding with high likelihood Joseph Smith Jr. as the biological father of Oliver N. Buell. Further weight is given to this observation by the close match of the inferred haplotype of Owen F. Buell to the independent Buell record in the SMGF data base, which genetic relationship dates back prior to Joseph Smith's era. Additionally, the two genetic profiles were run through a haplogroup predictor algorithm that assigned the Smith haplotypes to a cluster known as R1b and the cluster for the Buell's haplotypes to I1b2a, two deeply divergent clades that separated anciently, thus providing further evidence that the Oliver Buell and Joseph Smith lineages are not closely related" {{ref|JJHWA1}}

|-
|

====Alger====
||Brodie states that “[t]here is some evidence that Fannie Alger bore Joseph a child in Kirtland.”
||Fanny Alger’s son Orrison Smith was determined through DNA testing in 2005 not to be a descendant of Joseph Smith, Jr.{{ref|perego1}}
|-
|
====Hancock====
||”Legend among the descendants of Levi W. Hancock points to another son of the prophet. If the legend is true, the child was probably John Reed Hancock, born April 19, 1841.”
|| Mosiah Hancock is not the son of Joseph Smith, Jr.

DNA research in 2007 confirmed Clarissa Hancock's son Mosiah, born 9 April 1834, was the son of Levi Hancock.{{ref|deseretnews2}} "A 12-marker haplotype was already available for a paternal descendant of Mosiah Hancock, generated by an independent commercial laboratory. A comparison of the 12 markers to the shortened Joseph Smith haplotype showed only 5 matches, indicating a low likelihood of a biological relationship between Mosiah and Joseph. Additionally, we queried the SMGF database with the 12 Ycs Hancock markers. Six independent records returned matching all 12 markers, all having the surname Hancock with documented connections to Mosiah's grandfather Thomas Hancock III." {{ref|JJHWA2}}

Nothing is yet known regarding the patrilineage of Mosiah's brother, John Reed Hancock.
|-
|

====Lightner====
||The son of Mary Rollins Lightner “may as easily have been the prophet’s son as that of Adam Lightner.”
|| George Algernon Lightner, born March 22, 1842, died as an infant and therefore had no descendants. DNA testing cannot help determine paternity.
|-
|
====Hyde====
||Mrs. Orson Hyde’s sons Orson and Frank “could have been Joseph’s sons.”
|| Orson Washington Hyde, born November 9, 1843, died as an infant and therefore had no descendants. DNA testing cannot help determine paternity.
|-
|
====Pratt====
||Mrs. Parley P. Pratt’s son Moroni “might also be added to this list.”
|| Moroni Llewellyn Pratt is not the son of Joseph Smith, Jr.

DNA research in 2005 confirmed Mary Ann Frost Pratt's son Moroni, born 7 December 1844, was the son of Parley P. Pratt.{{ref|perego2}}
|-
|

====Snow====
||”According to tradition,” Emma beat Eliza Snow and caused her to abort Joseph’s child.
||Both LDS and non-LDS reviewers have found several flaws in the story about Eliza.{{ref|emmaeliza1}} Emma's biographers note that "Eliza continued to teach school for a month after her abrupt departure from the Smith household. Her own class attendance record shows that she did not miss a day during the months she taught the Smith children, which would be unlikely had she suffered a miscarriage."{{ref|emmaeliza2}}
|-
|
====Jacobs====
||Zina was “about seven months pregnant with Jacobs' child at the time of her marriage to the prophet.” (Brodie, p. 465) John D. Lee and William Hall stated that Zina had been “pregnant by Smith.”
|| Zebulon Jacobs is not the son of Joseph Smith, Jr.

DNA research in 2005 confirmed Zina Diantha Huntington Jacobs's son Zebulon was the son of Henry Bailey Jacobs.{{ref|perego3}}
|}

In 1915, Sylvia Sessions Lyon's daughter, Josephine, signed a statement that in 1882 Sylvia "told me that I was the daughter of the Prophet Joseph Smith, she having been sealed to the Prophet at the time that her husband Mr. Lyon was out of fellowship with the Church." It is not known whether Sylvia was referring to her daughter as being a literal descendant of Joseph Smith, or if she was referring to the fact that she had been sealed to the prophet.

In an article published in ''Mormon Historical Studies'', Brian C. Hales demonstrates that Sylvia considered herself divorced prior to marrying Joseph polygamously. [See: Hales, Brian C. "The Joseph Smith-Sylvia Sessions Plural Sealing: Polyandry or Polygyny?" Mormon Historical Studies 9/1 (Spring 2008): 41–57.]

DNA research is ongoing but it is rendered more difficult since the Y chromosome evidence of paternal lineage is not present in females.

For more detail regarding the investigation into possible children from Joseph's polygamous marriages, please refer to the [[/Book chapter|book chapter]] on this subject.

==Conclusion==
Critics have long had difficulty reconciling their concept of Joseph as a promiscuous womanizer with the fact that the only recorded children of the prophet are those that he had with Emma. Science is now shedding new light on this issue as DNA research has so far eliminated a number of possibilities that had long been rumored to be descendants of Joseph Smith.

==Endnotes==

#{{note|deseretnews1}}[http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,695226318,00.html DNA Tests rule out 2 as Smith descendants], ''Deseret News'' Nov. 10, 2007.
#{{note|JJHWA1}}Ugo A. Perego, Jayne E. Ekins, and Scott R. Woodward, "Resolving the Paternities of Oliver N. Buell and Mosiah L. Hancock through DNA," JJHWA, 133.
#{{note|perego1}}Ugo A. Perego, Natalie M. Myers, and Scott R. Woodward, “Reconstructing the Y-Chromosome of Joseph Smith Jr.: Genealogical Applications, ''Journal of Mormon History'' Vol. 32, No. 2 (Summer 2005) 70-88.
#{{note|deseretnews2}} ''Deseret News'', 2007.
#{{note|JJHWA1}}Ugo A. Perego, Jayne E. Ekins, and Scott R. Woodward, "Resolving the Paternities of Oliver N. Buell and Mosiah L. Hancock through DNA," JJHWA, 134-135.
#{{note|perego2}}Perego, Myers and Woodward, 2005.
#{{note|emmaeliza1}} This bit of folklore is explored in {{BYUS1|author=Maureen Ursenbach Beecher et al.|article=Emma and Eliza and the Stairs|vol=22|num=1|date=Fall 1982|start=86|end=96}}. RLDS author Richard Price also argues that the physical layout of the Mansion House makes the story as reported by Charles C. Rich unlikely, see "Eliza Snow Was Not Pushed Down the Mansion House Stairs," in Richard Price. "Joseph Smith Fought Polygamy: How Men Nearest the Prophet Attached Polygamy to His Name in Order to Justify Their Own Polygamous Crimes." (n.p.: Price Publishing Company, 2001), chapter 9. Price's dogmatic insistence that Joseph never taught plural marriage, however, cannot be sustained by the evidence.
#{{note|emmaeliza2}}Linda King Newell and Valeen Tippetts Avery, ''Mormon Enigma: Emma Hale Smith'', 2nd ed. (Urbana, Illinois: University of Illinois Press, 1994), 136. See also discussion in Danel Bachman, "Plural Marriage Before the Death of Joseph Smith'' (Master's Thesis, Purdue University, 1975), 140n173.
#{{note|perego3}}Perego, Myers and Woodward, 2005.

==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===
{{PolygamyWiki}}

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

===Videos===
{{Video:Wyatt:2006:Zina and Her Men}}

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

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

Joseph Smith/Polygamy/Children of polygamous marriages

2009-08-15T19:56:40Z

SuzanneArmitage: /* Jacobs */

{{PolygamyPortal}}
==Criticism==
*Critics claim that Joseph Smith fathered children with some of his plural wives, and that he covered up the evidence of pregnancies.
*Critics claim that Joseph Smith had intimate relations with other men’s wives to whom he had been sealed, and that children resulted from these unions.

===Source(s) of the criticism===
*{{CriticalWork:Brodie:No Man Knows|pages=Chapter 24}}
*{{CriticalWork:McKeeverJohnson:Mormonism 101|pages=Chapter 17}}
*{{CriticalWork:Tanner:Changing World|pages=231}}
*{{CriticalWork:Van Wagoner:Mormon Polygamy|pages=49}} (Source: Brodie)
*{{CriticalWork:Wikipedia:Joseph Smith, Jr.}}

==Response==
There is no question that Joseph Smith was capable of producing children by Emma. It is logical to assume that if Joseph had intimate relations with many other women, that there would be evidence of pregnancy and children. The focus of the critics is primarily on Joseph’s sealings to women who were married to other husbands, since having a child by any of the previously single women to whom he was married would fall within the expected scope of plural marriage.

The available evidence, however, does not support the claim that Joseph had intimate relations with married women. Fawn Brodie, who repeatedly stated her belief that Joseph Smith had intimate relations with many of his plural wives, identified several individuals that she thought ‘’might’’ be children of Joseph Smith, Jr. Yet, even Brodie noted that “it is astonishing that evidence of other children than these has never come to light.” Brodie actually postulated, in spite of a complete lack of evidence, that Joseph must have been able to successfully practice some sort of primitive birth control, or that abortions must have been routinely employed.

Brodie does indeed identify some specific individuals whom she claims are likely to have been the progeny of Joseph Smith. These individuals are examined, along with a comparison of Brodie’s claims against modern evidence.

{| valign="top" border="1" style="width:100%; font-size:85%"
!width=10%|Mother
!width="45%"|Brodie’s claim (‘’No Man Knows My History’’, p. 301, 345, 465)
!width="45%"|Modern evidence
|-
|
====Buell====
||Brodie claims that “the physiognomy revealed in a rare photograph of Oliver Buell seems to weight the balance overwhelmingly on the side of Joseph’s paternity.”
||Oliver Buell is not the son of Joseph Smith, Jr.

DNA research in 2007 confirmed Presendia Huntington Buell’s son Oliver, born sometime in 1838-1839, was the son of Norman Buell.{{ref|deseretnews1}} "Only 9 of the 23 genetic markers match when comparing the inferred Oliver Buell haplotype to that of Joseph Smith. Such a low degree of correlation between the two haplotypes provides strong evidence that they belong to two unrelated paternal lineages, thus excluding with high likelihood Joseph Smith Jr. as the biological father of Oliver N. Buell. Further weight is given to this observation by the close match of the inferred haplotype of Owen F. Buell to the independent Buell record in the SMGF data base, which genetic relationship dates back prior to Joseph Smith's era. Additionally, the two genetic profiles were run through a haplogroup predictor algorithm that assigned the Smith haplotypes to a cluster known as R1b and the cluster for the Buell's haplotypes to I1b2a, two deeply divergent clades that separated anciently, thus providing further evidence that the Oliver Buell and Joseph Smith lineages are not closely related" {{ref|JJHWA1}}

|-
|

====Alger====
||Brodie states that “[t]here is some evidence that Fannie Alger bore Joseph a child in Kirtland.”
||Fanny Alger’s son Orrison Smith was determined through DNA testing in 2005 not to be a descendant of Joseph Smith, Jr.{{ref|perego1}}
|-
|
====Hancock====
||”Legend among the descendants of Levi W. Hancock points to another son of the prophet. If the legend is true, the child was probably John Reed Hancock, born April 19, 1841.”
|| Mosiah Hancock is not the son of Joseph Smith, Jr.

DNA research in 2007 confirmed Clarissa Hancock's son Mosiah, born 9 April 1834, was the son of Levi Hancock.{{ref|deseretnews2}} "A 12-marker haplotype was already available for a paternal descendant of Mosiah Hancock, generated by an independent commercial laboratory. A comparison of the 12 markers to the shortened Joseph Smith haplotype showed only 5 matches, indicating a low likelihood of a biological relationship between Mosiah and Joseph. Additionally, we queried the SMGF database with the 12 Ycs Hancock markers. Six independent records returned matching all 12 markers, all having the surname Hancock with documented connections to Mosiah's grandfather Thomas Hancock III." {{ref|JJHWA2}}

Nothing is yet known regarding the patrilineage of Mosiah's brother, John Reed Hancock.
|-
|

====Lightner====
||The son of Mary Rollins Lightner “may as easily have been the prophet’s son as that of Adam Lightner.”
|| George Algernon Lightner, born March 22, 1842, died as an infant and therefore had no descendants. DNA testing cannot help determine paternity.
|-
|
====Hyde====
||Mrs. Orson Hyde’s sons Orson and Frank “could have been Joseph’s sons.”
|| Orson Washington Hyde, born November 9, 1843, died as an infant and therefore had no descendants. DNA testing cannot help determine paternity.
|-
|
====Pratt====
||Mrs. Parley P. Pratt’s son Moroni “might also be added to this list.”
|| Moroni Llewellyn Pratt is not the son of Joseph Smith, Jr.

DNA research in 2005 confirmed Mary Ann Frost Pratt's son Moroni, born 7 December 1844, was the son of Parley P. Pratt.{{ref|perego2}}
|-
|

====Snow====
||”According to tradition,” Emma beat Eliza Snow and caused her to abort Joseph’s child.
||Both LDS and non-LDS reviewers have found several flaws in the story about Eliza.{{ref|emmaeliza1}} Emma's biographers note that "Eliza continued to teach school for a month after her abrupt departure from the Smith household. Her own class attendance record shows that she did not miss a day during the months she taught the Smith children, which would be unlikely had she suffered a miscarriage."{{ref|emmaeliza2}}
|-
|
====Jacobs====
||Zina was “about seven months pregnant with Jacobs' child at the time of her marriage to the prophet.” (Brodie, p. 465) John D. Lee and William Hall stated that Zina had been “pregnant by Smith.”
|| Zebulon Jacobs is not the son of Joseph Smith, Jr.

DNA research in 2005 confirmed Zina Diantha Huntington Jacobs's son Zebulon was the son of Henry Bailey Jacobs.{{ref|perego3}}
|}

In 1915, Sylvia Sessions Lyon's daughter, Josephine, signed a statement that in 1882 Sylvia "told me that I was the daughter of the Prophet Joseph Smith, she having been sealed to the Prophet at the time that her husband Mr. Lyon was out of fellowship with the Church." It is not known whether Sylvia was referring to her daughter as being a literal descendant of Joseph Smith, or if she was referring to the fact that she had been sealed to the prophet.

In an article published in ''Mormon Historical Studies'', Brian C. Hales demonstrates that Sylvia considered herself divorced prior to marrying Joseph polygamously. ("The Joseph Smith–Sylvia Sessions Plural Sealing: Polyandry or Polygyny?" Mormon Historical Studies 9/1 (Spring 2008): 41–57).

DNA research is ongoing but it is rendered more difficult since the Y chromosome evidence of paternal lineage is not present in females.

For more detail regarding the investigation into possible children from Joseph's polygamous marriages, please refer to the [[/Book chapter|book chapter]] on this subject.

==Conclusion==
Critics have long had difficulty reconciling their concept of Joseph as a promiscuous womanizer with the fact that the only recorded children of the prophet are those that he had with Emma. Science is now shedding new light on this issue as DNA research has so far eliminated a number of possibilities that had long been rumored to be descendants of Joseph Smith.

==Endnotes==

#{{note|deseretnews1}}[http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,695226318,00.html DNA Tests rule out 2 as Smith descendants], ''Deseret News'' Nov. 10, 2007.
#{{note|JJHWA1}}Ugo A. Perego, Jayne E. Ekins, and Scott R. Woodward, "Resolving the Paternities of Oliver N. Buell and Mosiah L. Hancock through DNA," JJHWA, 133.
#{{note|perego1}}Ugo A. Perego, Natalie M. Myers, and Scott R. Woodward, “Reconstructing the Y-Chromosome of Joseph Smith Jr.: Genealogical Applications, ''Journal of Mormon History'' Vol. 32, No. 2 (Summer 2005) 70-88.
#{{note|deseretnews2}} ''Deseret News'', 2007.
#{{note|JJHWA1}}Ugo A. Perego, Jayne E. Ekins, and Scott R. Woodward, "Resolving the Paternities of Oliver N. Buell and Mosiah L. Hancock through DNA," JJHWA, 134-135.
#{{note|perego2}}Perego, Myers and Woodward, 2005.
#{{note|emmaeliza1}} This bit of folklore is explored in {{BYUS1|author=Maureen Ursenbach Beecher et al.|article=Emma and Eliza and the Stairs|vol=22|num=1|date=Fall 1982|start=86|end=96}}. RLDS author Richard Price also argues that the physical layout of the Mansion House makes the story as reported by Charles C. Rich unlikely, see "Eliza Snow Was Not Pushed Down the Mansion House Stairs," in Richard Price. "Joseph Smith Fought Polygamy: How Men Nearest the Prophet Attached Polygamy to His Name in Order to Justify Their Own Polygamous Crimes." (n.p.: Price Publishing Company, 2001), chapter 9. Price's dogmatic insistence that Joseph never taught plural marriage, however, cannot be sustained by the evidence.
#{{note|emmaeliza2}}Linda King Newell and Valeen Tippetts Avery, ''Mormon Enigma: Emma Hale Smith'', 2nd ed. (Urbana, Illinois: University of Illinois Press, 1994), 136. See also discussion in Danel Bachman, "Plural Marriage Before the Death of Joseph Smith'' (Master's Thesis, Purdue University, 1975), 140n173.
#{{note|perego3}}Perego, Myers and Woodward, 2005.

==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===
{{PolygamyWiki}}

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

===Videos===
{{Video:Wyatt:2006:Zina and Her Men}}

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

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

Joseph Smith/Polygamy/Children of polygamous marriages

2009-08-15T19:27:17Z

SuzanneArmitage: /* Pratt */

{{PolygamyPortal}}
==Criticism==
*Critics claim that Joseph Smith fathered children with some of his plural wives, and that he covered up the evidence of pregnancies.
*Critics claim that Joseph Smith had intimate relations with other men’s wives to whom he had been sealed, and that children resulted from these unions.

===Source(s) of the criticism===
*{{CriticalWork:Brodie:No Man Knows|pages=Chapter 24}}
*{{CriticalWork:McKeeverJohnson:Mormonism 101|pages=Chapter 17}}
*{{CriticalWork:Tanner:Changing World|pages=231}}
*{{CriticalWork:Van Wagoner:Mormon Polygamy|pages=49}} (Source: Brodie)
*{{CriticalWork:Wikipedia:Joseph Smith, Jr.}}

==Response==
There is no question that Joseph Smith was capable of producing children by Emma. It is logical to assume that if Joseph had intimate relations with many other women, that there would be evidence of pregnancy and children. The focus of the critics is primarily on Joseph’s sealings to women who were married to other husbands, since having a child by any of the previously single women to whom he was married would fall within the expected scope of plural marriage.

The available evidence, however, does not support the claim that Joseph had intimate relations with married women. Fawn Brodie, who repeatedly stated her belief that Joseph Smith had intimate relations with many of his plural wives, identified several individuals that she thought ‘’might’’ be children of Joseph Smith, Jr. Yet, even Brodie noted that “it is astonishing that evidence of other children than these has never come to light.” Brodie actually postulated, in spite of a complete lack of evidence, that Joseph must have been able to successfully practice some sort of primitive birth control, or that abortions must have been routinely employed.

Brodie does indeed identify some specific individuals whom she claims are likely to have been the progeny of Joseph Smith. These individuals are examined, along with a comparison of Brodie’s claims against modern evidence.

{| valign="top" border="1" style="width:100%; font-size:85%"
!width=10%|Mother
!width="45%"|Brodie’s claim (‘’No Man Knows My History’’, p. 301, 345, 465)
!width="45%"|Modern evidence
|-
|
====Buell====
||Brodie claims that “the physiognomy revealed in a rare photograph of Oliver Buell seems to weight the balance overwhelmingly on the side of Joseph’s paternity.”
||Oliver Buell is not the son of Joseph Smith, Jr.

DNA research in 2007 confirmed Presendia Huntington Buell’s son Oliver, born sometime in 1838-1839, was the son of Norman Buell.{{ref|deseretnews1}} "Only 9 of the 23 genetic markers match when comparing the inferred Oliver Buell haplotype to that of Joseph Smith. Such a low degree of correlation between the two haplotypes provides strong evidence that they belong to two unrelated paternal lineages, thus excluding with high likelihood Joseph Smith Jr. as the biological father of Oliver N. Buell. Further weight is given to this observation by the close match of the inferred haplotype of Owen F. Buell to the independent Buell record in the SMGF data base, which genetic relationship dates back prior to Joseph Smith's era. Additionally, the two genetic profiles were run through a haplogroup predictor algorithm that assigned the Smith haplotypes to a cluster known as R1b and the cluster for the Buell's haplotypes to I1b2a, two deeply divergent clades that separated anciently, thus providing further evidence that the Oliver Buell and Joseph Smith lineages are not closely related" {{ref|JJHWA1}}

|-
|

====Alger====
||Brodie states that “[t]here is some evidence that Fannie Alger bore Joseph a child in Kirtland.”
||Fanny Alger’s son Orrison Smith was determined through DNA testing in 2005 not to be a descendant of Joseph Smith, Jr.{{ref|perego1}}
|-
|
====Hancock====
||”Legend among the descendants of Levi W. Hancock points to another son of the prophet. If the legend is true, the child was probably John Reed Hancock, born April 19, 1841.”
|| Mosiah Hancock is not the son of Joseph Smith, Jr.

DNA research in 2007 confirmed Clarissa Hancock's son Mosiah, born 9 April 1834, was the son of Levi Hancock.{{ref|deseretnews2}} "A 12-marker haplotype was already available for a paternal descendant of Mosiah Hancock, generated by an independent commercial laboratory. A comparison of the 12 markers to the shortened Joseph Smith haplotype showed only 5 matches, indicating a low likelihood of a biological relationship between Mosiah and Joseph. Additionally, we queried the SMGF database with the 12 Ycs Hancock markers. Six independent records returned matching all 12 markers, all having the surname Hancock with documented connections to Mosiah's grandfather Thomas Hancock III." {{ref|JJHWA2}}

Nothing is yet known regarding the patrilineage of Mosiah's brother, John Reed Hancock.
|-
|

====Lightner====
||The son of Mary Rollins Lightner “may as easily have been the prophet’s son as that of Adam Lightner.”
|| George Algernon Lightner, born March 22, 1842, died as an infant and therefore had no descendants. DNA testing cannot help determine paternity.
|-
|
====Hyde====
||Mrs. Orson Hyde’s sons Orson and Frank “could have been Joseph’s sons.”
|| Orson Washington Hyde, born November 9, 1843, died as an infant and therefore had no descendants. DNA testing cannot help determine paternity.
|-
|
====Pratt====
||Mrs. Parley P. Pratt’s son Moroni “might also be added to this list.”
|| Moroni Llewellyn Pratt is not the son of Joseph Smith, Jr.

DNA research in 2005 confirmed Mary Ann Frost Pratt's son Moroni, born 7 December 1844, was the son of Parley P. Pratt.{{ref|perego2}}
|-
|

====Snow====
||”According to tradition,” Emma beat Eliza Snow and caused her to abort Joseph’s child.
||Both LDS and non-LDS reviewers have found several flaws in the story about Eliza.{{ref|emmaeliza1}} Emma's biographers note that "Eliza continued to teach school for a month after her abrupt departure from the Smith household. Her own class attendance record shows that she did not miss a day during the months she taught the Smith children, which would be unlikely had she suffered a miscarriage."{{ref|emmaeliza2}}
|-
|
====Jacobs====
||Zina was “about seven months pregnant with Jacobs' child at the time of her marriage to the prophet.” (Brodie, p. 465) John D. Lee and William Hall stated that Zina had been “pregnant by Smith.”
||Zina Diantha Huntington Jacobs' son Zebulon was ruled out as a Joseph Smith descendant by DNA testing in 2005.{{ref|perego3}}
|}

Josephine Lyon, daughter of Sylvia Sessions Lyon, is reported to have told her daughter that she “was the daughter of the Prophet Joseph Smith” shortly before she died. It is not known whether Sessions was referring to her daughter as being a literal descendant of Joseph Smith, or if she was referring to that fact that she had been sealed to the prophet. DNA testing is ongoing in order to make this determination, but it is rendered more difficult since the Y chromosome evidence of paternal lineage is not present in females.

For more detail regarding the investigation into possible children from Joseph's polygamous marriages, please refer to the [[/Book chapter|book chapter]] on this subject.

==Conclusion==
Critics have long had difficulty reconciling their concept of Joseph as a promiscuous womanizer with the fact that the only recorded children of the prophet are those that he had with Emma. Science is now shedding new light on this issue as DNA research has so far eliminated a number of possibilities that had long been rumored to be descendants of Joseph Smith.

==Endnotes==

#{{note|deseretnews1}}[http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,695226318,00.html DNA Tests rule out 2 as Smith descendants], ''Deseret News'' Nov. 10, 2007.
#{{note|JJHWA1}}Ugo A. Perego, Jayne E. Ekins, and Scott R. Woodward, "Resolving the Paternities of Oliver N. Buell and Mosiah L. Hancock through DNA," JJHWA, 133.
#{{note|perego1}}Ugo A. Perego, Natalie M. Myers, and Scott R. Woodward, “Reconstructing the Y-Chromosome of Joseph Smith Jr.: Genealogical Applications, ''Journal of Mormon History'' Vol. 32, No. 2 (Summer 2005) 70-88.
#{{note|deseretnews2}} ''Deseret News'', 2007.
#{{note|JJHWA1}}Ugo A. Perego, Jayne E. Ekins, and Scott R. Woodward, "Resolving the Paternities of Oliver N. Buell and Mosiah L. Hancock through DNA," JJHWA, 134-135.
#{{note|perego2}}Perego, Myers and Woodward, 2005.
#{{note|emmaeliza1}} This bit of folklore is explored in {{BYUS1|author=Maureen Ursenbach Beecher et al.|article=Emma and Eliza and the Stairs|vol=22|num=1|date=Fall 1982|start=86|end=96}}. RLDS author Richard Price also argues that the physical layout of the Mansion House makes the story as reported by Charles C. Rich unlikely, see "Eliza Snow Was Not Pushed Down the Mansion House Stairs," in Richard Price. "Joseph Smith Fought Polygamy: How Men Nearest the Prophet Attached Polygamy to His Name in Order to Justify Their Own Polygamous Crimes." (n.p.: Price Publishing Company, 2001), chapter 9. Price's dogmatic insistence that Joseph never taught plural marriage, however, cannot be sustained by the evidence.
#{{note|emmaeliza2}}Linda King Newell and Valeen Tippetts Avery, ''Mormon Enigma: Emma Hale Smith'', 2nd ed. (Urbana, Illinois: University of Illinois Press, 1994), 136. See also discussion in Danel Bachman, "Plural Marriage Before the Death of Joseph Smith'' (Master's Thesis, Purdue University, 1975), 140n173.
#{{note|perego3}}Perego, Myers and Woodward, 2005.

==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===
{{PolygamyWiki}}

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

===Videos===
{{Video:Wyatt:2006:Zina and Her Men}}

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

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

Joseph Smith/Polygamy/Children of polygamous marriages

2009-08-15T19:23:36Z

SuzanneArmitage: /* Hancock */

{{PolygamyPortal}}
==Criticism==
*Critics claim that Joseph Smith fathered children with some of his plural wives, and that he covered up the evidence of pregnancies.
*Critics claim that Joseph Smith had intimate relations with other men’s wives to whom he had been sealed, and that children resulted from these unions.

===Source(s) of the criticism===
*{{CriticalWork:Brodie:No Man Knows|pages=Chapter 24}}
*{{CriticalWork:McKeeverJohnson:Mormonism 101|pages=Chapter 17}}
*{{CriticalWork:Tanner:Changing World|pages=231}}
*{{CriticalWork:Van Wagoner:Mormon Polygamy|pages=49}} (Source: Brodie)
*{{CriticalWork:Wikipedia:Joseph Smith, Jr.}}

==Response==
There is no question that Joseph Smith was capable of producing children by Emma. It is logical to assume that if Joseph had intimate relations with many other women, that there would be evidence of pregnancy and children. The focus of the critics is primarily on Joseph’s sealings to women who were married to other husbands, since having a child by any of the previously single women to whom he was married would fall within the expected scope of plural marriage.

The available evidence, however, does not support the claim that Joseph had intimate relations with married women. Fawn Brodie, who repeatedly stated her belief that Joseph Smith had intimate relations with many of his plural wives, identified several individuals that she thought ‘’might’’ be children of Joseph Smith, Jr. Yet, even Brodie noted that “it is astonishing that evidence of other children than these has never come to light.” Brodie actually postulated, in spite of a complete lack of evidence, that Joseph must have been able to successfully practice some sort of primitive birth control, or that abortions must have been routinely employed.

Brodie does indeed identify some specific individuals whom she claims are likely to have been the progeny of Joseph Smith. These individuals are examined, along with a comparison of Brodie’s claims against modern evidence.

{| valign="top" border="1" style="width:100%; font-size:85%"
!width=10%|Mother
!width="45%"|Brodie’s claim (‘’No Man Knows My History’’, p. 301, 345, 465)
!width="45%"|Modern evidence
|-
|
====Buell====
||Brodie claims that “the physiognomy revealed in a rare photograph of Oliver Buell seems to weight the balance overwhelmingly on the side of Joseph’s paternity.”
||Oliver Buell is not the son of Joseph Smith, Jr.

DNA research in 2007 confirmed Presendia Huntington Buell’s son Oliver, born sometime in 1838-1839, was the son of Norman Buell.{{ref|deseretnews1}} "Only 9 of the 23 genetic markers match when comparing the inferred Oliver Buell haplotype to that of Joseph Smith. Such a low degree of correlation between the two haplotypes provides strong evidence that they belong to two unrelated paternal lineages, thus excluding with high likelihood Joseph Smith Jr. as the biological father of Oliver N. Buell. Further weight is given to this observation by the close match of the inferred haplotype of Owen F. Buell to the independent Buell record in the SMGF data base, which genetic relationship dates back prior to Joseph Smith's era. Additionally, the two genetic profiles were run through a haplogroup predictor algorithm that assigned the Smith haplotypes to a cluster known as R1b and the cluster for the Buell's haplotypes to I1b2a, two deeply divergent clades that separated anciently, thus providing further evidence that the Oliver Buell and Joseph Smith lineages are not closely related" {{ref|JJHWA1}}

|-
|

====Alger====
||Brodie states that “[t]here is some evidence that Fannie Alger bore Joseph a child in Kirtland.”
||Fanny Alger’s son Orrison Smith was determined through DNA testing in 2005 not to be a descendant of Joseph Smith, Jr.{{ref|perego1}}
|-
|
====Hancock====
||”Legend among the descendants of Levi W. Hancock points to another son of the prophet. If the legend is true, the child was probably John Reed Hancock, born April 19, 1841.”
|| Mosiah Hancock is not the son of Joseph Smith, Jr.

DNA research in 2007 confirmed Clarissa Hancock's son Mosiah, born 9 April 1834, was the son of Levi Hancock.{{ref|deseretnews2}} "A 12-marker haplotype was already available for a paternal descendant of Mosiah Hancock, generated by an independent commercial laboratory. A comparison of the 12 markers to the shortened Joseph Smith haplotype showed only 5 matches, indicating a low likelihood of a biological relationship between Mosiah and Joseph. Additionally, we queried the SMGF database with the 12 Ycs Hancock markers. Six independent records returned matching all 12 markers, all having the surname Hancock with documented connections to Mosiah's grandfather Thomas Hancock III." {{ref|JJHWA2}}

Nothing is yet known regarding the patrilineage of Mosiah's brother, John Reed Hancock.
|-
|

====Lightner====
||The son of Mary Rollins Lightner “may as easily have been the prophet’s son as that of Adam Lightner.”
|| George Algernon Lightner, born March 22, 1842, died as an infant and therefore had no descendants. DNA testing cannot help determine paternity.
|-
|
====Hyde====
||Mrs. Orson Hyde’s sons Orson and Frank “could have been Joseph’s sons.”
|| Orson Washington Hyde, born November 9, 1843, died as an infant and therefore had no descendants. DNA testing cannot help determine paternity.
|-
|
====Pratt====
||Mrs. Parley P. Pratt’s son Moroni “might also be added to this list.”
|| Moroni Llewellyn Pratt, born December 7, 1844, was confirmed to be the son of Parley P. Pratt through DNA research. Moroni Pratt was not the son of Joseph Smith, Jr.{{ref|perego2}}
|-
|
====Snow====
||”According to tradition,” Emma beat Eliza Snow and caused her to abort Joseph’s child.
||Both LDS and non-LDS reviewers have found several flaws in the story about Eliza.{{ref|emmaeliza1}} Emma's biographers note that "Eliza continued to teach school for a month after her abrupt departure from the Smith household. Her own class attendance record shows that she did not miss a day during the months she taught the Smith children, which would be unlikely had she suffered a miscarriage."{{ref|emmaeliza2}}
|-
|
====Jacobs====
||Zina was “about seven months pregnant with Jacobs' child at the time of her marriage to the prophet.” (Brodie, p. 465) John D. Lee and William Hall stated that Zina had been “pregnant by Smith.”
||Zina Diantha Huntington Jacobs' son Zebulon was ruled out as a Joseph Smith descendant by DNA testing in 2005.{{ref|perego3}}
|}

Josephine Lyon, daughter of Sylvia Sessions Lyon, is reported to have told her daughter that she “was the daughter of the Prophet Joseph Smith” shortly before she died. It is not known whether Sessions was referring to her daughter as being a literal descendant of Joseph Smith, or if she was referring to that fact that she had been sealed to the prophet. DNA testing is ongoing in order to make this determination, but it is rendered more difficult since the Y chromosome evidence of paternal lineage is not present in females.

For more detail regarding the investigation into possible children from Joseph's polygamous marriages, please refer to the [[/Book chapter|book chapter]] on this subject.

==Conclusion==
Critics have long had difficulty reconciling their concept of Joseph as a promiscuous womanizer with the fact that the only recorded children of the prophet are those that he had with Emma. Science is now shedding new light on this issue as DNA research has so far eliminated a number of possibilities that had long been rumored to be descendants of Joseph Smith.

==Endnotes==

#{{note|deseretnews1}}[http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,695226318,00.html DNA Tests rule out 2 as Smith descendants], ''Deseret News'' Nov. 10, 2007.
#{{note|JJHWA1}}Ugo A. Perego, Jayne E. Ekins, and Scott R. Woodward, "Resolving the Paternities of Oliver N. Buell and Mosiah L. Hancock through DNA," JJHWA, 133.
#{{note|perego1}}Ugo A. Perego, Natalie M. Myers, and Scott R. Woodward, “Reconstructing the Y-Chromosome of Joseph Smith Jr.: Genealogical Applications, ''Journal of Mormon History'' Vol. 32, No. 2 (Summer 2005) 70-88.
#{{note|deseretnews2}} ''Deseret News'', 2007.
#{{note|JJHWA1}}Ugo A. Perego, Jayne E. Ekins, and Scott R. Woodward, "Resolving the Paternities of Oliver N. Buell and Mosiah L. Hancock through DNA," JJHWA, 134-135.
#{{note|perego2}}Perego, Myers and Woodward, 2005.
#{{note|emmaeliza1}} This bit of folklore is explored in {{BYUS1|author=Maureen Ursenbach Beecher et al.|article=Emma and Eliza and the Stairs|vol=22|num=1|date=Fall 1982|start=86|end=96}}. RLDS author Richard Price also argues that the physical layout of the Mansion House makes the story as reported by Charles C. Rich unlikely, see "Eliza Snow Was Not Pushed Down the Mansion House Stairs," in Richard Price. "Joseph Smith Fought Polygamy: How Men Nearest the Prophet Attached Polygamy to His Name in Order to Justify Their Own Polygamous Crimes." (n.p.: Price Publishing Company, 2001), chapter 9. Price's dogmatic insistence that Joseph never taught plural marriage, however, cannot be sustained by the evidence.
#{{note|emmaeliza2}}Linda King Newell and Valeen Tippetts Avery, ''Mormon Enigma: Emma Hale Smith'', 2nd ed. (Urbana, Illinois: University of Illinois Press, 1994), 136. See also discussion in Danel Bachman, "Plural Marriage Before the Death of Joseph Smith'' (Master's Thesis, Purdue University, 1975), 140n173.
#{{note|perego3}}Perego, Myers and Woodward, 2005.

==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===
{{PolygamyWiki}}

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

===Videos===
{{Video:Wyatt:2006:Zina and Her Men}}

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

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

Joseph Smith/Polygamy/Children of polygamous marriages

2009-08-15T19:21:16Z

SuzanneArmitage: /* Hancock */

{{PolygamyPortal}}
==Criticism==
*Critics claim that Joseph Smith fathered children with some of his plural wives, and that he covered up the evidence of pregnancies.
*Critics claim that Joseph Smith had intimate relations with other men’s wives to whom he had been sealed, and that children resulted from these unions.

===Source(s) of the criticism===
*{{CriticalWork:Brodie:No Man Knows|pages=Chapter 24}}
*{{CriticalWork:McKeeverJohnson:Mormonism 101|pages=Chapter 17}}
*{{CriticalWork:Tanner:Changing World|pages=231}}
*{{CriticalWork:Van Wagoner:Mormon Polygamy|pages=49}} (Source: Brodie)
*{{CriticalWork:Wikipedia:Joseph Smith, Jr.}}

==Response==
There is no question that Joseph Smith was capable of producing children by Emma. It is logical to assume that if Joseph had intimate relations with many other women, that there would be evidence of pregnancy and children. The focus of the critics is primarily on Joseph’s sealings to women who were married to other husbands, since having a child by any of the previously single women to whom he was married would fall within the expected scope of plural marriage.

The available evidence, however, does not support the claim that Joseph had intimate relations with married women. Fawn Brodie, who repeatedly stated her belief that Joseph Smith had intimate relations with many of his plural wives, identified several individuals that she thought ‘’might’’ be children of Joseph Smith, Jr. Yet, even Brodie noted that “it is astonishing that evidence of other children than these has never come to light.” Brodie actually postulated, in spite of a complete lack of evidence, that Joseph must have been able to successfully practice some sort of primitive birth control, or that abortions must have been routinely employed.

Brodie does indeed identify some specific individuals whom she claims are likely to have been the progeny of Joseph Smith. These individuals are examined, along with a comparison of Brodie’s claims against modern evidence.

{| valign="top" border="1" style="width:100%; font-size:85%"
!width=10%|Mother
!width="45%"|Brodie’s claim (‘’No Man Knows My History’’, p. 301, 345, 465)
!width="45%"|Modern evidence
|-
|
====Buell====
||Brodie claims that “the physiognomy revealed in a rare photograph of Oliver Buell seems to weight the balance overwhelmingly on the side of Joseph’s paternity.”
||Oliver Buell is not the son of Joseph Smith, Jr.

DNA research in 2007 confirmed Presendia Huntington Buell’s son Oliver, born sometime in 1838-1839, was the son of Norman Buell.{{ref|deseretnews1}} "Only 9 of the 23 genetic markers match when comparing the inferred Oliver Buell haplotype to that of Joseph Smith. Such a low degree of correlation between the two haplotypes provides strong evidence that they belong to two unrelated paternal lineages, thus excluding with high likelihood Joseph Smith Jr. as the biological father of Oliver N. Buell. Further weight is given to this observation by the close match of the inferred haplotype of Owen F. Buell to the independent Buell record in the SMGF data base, which genetic relationship dates back prior to Joseph Smith's era. Additionally, the two genetic profiles were run through a haplogroup predictor algorithm that assigned the Smith haplotypes to a cluster known as R1b and the cluster for the Buell's haplotypes to I1b2a, two deeply divergent clades that separated anciently, thus providing further evidence that the Oliver Buell and Joseph Smith lineages are not closely related" {{ref|JJHWA1}}

|-
|

====Alger====
||Brodie states that “[t]here is some evidence that Fannie Alger bore Joseph a child in Kirtland.”
||Fanny Alger’s son Orrison Smith was determined through DNA testing in 2005 not to be a descendant of Joseph Smith, Jr.{{ref|perego1}}
|-
|
====Hancock====
||”Legend among the descendants of Levi W. Hancock points to another son of the prophet. If the legend is true, the child was probably John Reed Hancock, born April 19, 1841.”
|| Mosiah Hancock is not the son of Joseph Smith, Jr.

DNA research in 2007 confirmed Clarissa Hancock's son Mosiah, born 9 April 1834, was the son of Levi Hancock.{{ref|deseretnews2}} "A 12-marker haplotype was already available for a paternal descendant of Mosiah Hancock, generated by an independent commercial laboratory. A comparison of the 12 markers to the shortened Joseph Smith haplotype showed only 5 matches, indicating a low likelihood of a biological relationship between Mosiah and Joseph. Additionally, we queried the SMGF database with the 12 Ycs Hancock markers. Six independent records returned matching all 12 markers, all having the surname Hancock with documented connections to Mosiah's grandfather Thomas Hancock III." {{ref|JJHWA2}}
{{note|JJHWA2}}
Nothing is yet known regarding the patrilineage of Mosiah's brother, John Reed Hancock.
|-
|

====Lightner====
||The son of Mary Rollins Lightner “may as easily have been the prophet’s son as that of Adam Lightner.”
|| George Algernon Lightner, born March 22, 1842, died as an infant and therefore had no descendants. DNA testing cannot help determine paternity.
|-
|
====Hyde====
||Mrs. Orson Hyde’s sons Orson and Frank “could have been Joseph’s sons.”
|| Orson Washington Hyde, born November 9, 1843, died as an infant and therefore had no descendants. DNA testing cannot help determine paternity.
|-
|
====Pratt====
||Mrs. Parley P. Pratt’s son Moroni “might also be added to this list.”
|| Moroni Llewellyn Pratt, born December 7, 1844, was confirmed to be the son of Parley P. Pratt through DNA research. Moroni Pratt was not the son of Joseph Smith, Jr.{{ref|perego2}}
|-
|
====Snow====
||”According to tradition,” Emma beat Eliza Snow and caused her to abort Joseph’s child.
||Both LDS and non-LDS reviewers have found several flaws in the story about Eliza.{{ref|emmaeliza1}} Emma's biographers note that "Eliza continued to teach school for a month after her abrupt departure from the Smith household. Her own class attendance record shows that she did not miss a day during the months she taught the Smith children, which would be unlikely had she suffered a miscarriage."{{ref|emmaeliza2}}
|-
|
====Jacobs====
||Zina was “about seven months pregnant with Jacobs' child at the time of her marriage to the prophet.” (Brodie, p. 465) John D. Lee and William Hall stated that Zina had been “pregnant by Smith.”
||Zina Diantha Huntington Jacobs' son Zebulon was ruled out as a Joseph Smith descendant by DNA testing in 2005.{{ref|perego3}}
|}

Josephine Lyon, daughter of Sylvia Sessions Lyon, is reported to have told her daughter that she “was the daughter of the Prophet Joseph Smith” shortly before she died. It is not known whether Sessions was referring to her daughter as being a literal descendant of Joseph Smith, or if she was referring to that fact that she had been sealed to the prophet. DNA testing is ongoing in order to make this determination, but it is rendered more difficult since the Y chromosome evidence of paternal lineage is not present in females.

For more detail regarding the investigation into possible children from Joseph's polygamous marriages, please refer to the [[/Book chapter|book chapter]] on this subject.

==Conclusion==
Critics have long had difficulty reconciling their concept of Joseph as a promiscuous womanizer with the fact that the only recorded children of the prophet are those that he had with Emma. Science is now shedding new light on this issue as DNA research has so far eliminated a number of possibilities that had long been rumored to be descendants of Joseph Smith.

==Endnotes==

#{{note|deseretnews1}}[http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,695226318,00.html DNA Tests rule out 2 as Smith descendants], ''Deseret News'' Nov. 10, 2007.
#{{note|JJHWA1}}Ugo A. Perego, Jayne E. Ekins, and Scott R. Woodward, "Resolving the Paternities of Oliver N. Buell and Mosiah L. Hancock through DNA," JJHWA, 133.
#{{note|perego1}}Ugo A. Perego, Natalie M. Myers, and Scott R. Woodward, “Reconstructing the Y-Chromosome of Joseph Smith Jr.: Genealogical Applications, ''Journal of Mormon History'' Vol. 32, No. 2 (Summer 2005) 70-88.
#{{note|deseretnews2}} ''Deseret News'', 2007.
#{{note|JJHWA1}}Ugo A. Perego, Jayne E. Ekins, and Scott R. Woodward, "Resolving the Paternities of Oliver N. Buell and Mosiah L. Hancock through DNA," JJHWA, 134-135.
#{{note|perego2}}Perego, Myers and Woodward, 2005.
#{{note|emmaeliza1}} This bit of folklore is explored in {{BYUS1|author=Maureen Ursenbach Beecher et al.|article=Emma and Eliza and the Stairs|vol=22|num=1|date=Fall 1982|start=86|end=96}}. RLDS author Richard Price also argues that the physical layout of the Mansion House makes the story as reported by Charles C. Rich unlikely, see "Eliza Snow Was Not Pushed Down the Mansion House Stairs," in Richard Price. "Joseph Smith Fought Polygamy: How Men Nearest the Prophet Attached Polygamy to His Name in Order to Justify Their Own Polygamous Crimes." (n.p.: Price Publishing Company, 2001), chapter 9. Price's dogmatic insistence that Joseph never taught plural marriage, however, cannot be sustained by the evidence.
#{{note|emmaeliza2}}Linda King Newell and Valeen Tippetts Avery, ''Mormon Enigma: Emma Hale Smith'', 2nd ed. (Urbana, Illinois: University of Illinois Press, 1994), 136. See also discussion in Danel Bachman, "Plural Marriage Before the Death of Joseph Smith'' (Master's Thesis, Purdue University, 1975), 140n173.
#{{note|perego3}}Perego, Myers and Woodward, 2005.

==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===
{{PolygamyWiki}}

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

===Videos===
{{Video:Wyatt:2006:Zina and Her Men}}

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

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

Joseph Smith/Polygamy/Children of polygamous marriages

2009-08-15T19:16:50Z

SuzanneArmitage: /* Hancock */

{{PolygamyPortal}}
==Criticism==
*Critics claim that Joseph Smith fathered children with some of his plural wives, and that he covered up the evidence of pregnancies.
*Critics claim that Joseph Smith had intimate relations with other men’s wives to whom he had been sealed, and that children resulted from these unions.

===Source(s) of the criticism===
*{{CriticalWork:Brodie:No Man Knows|pages=Chapter 24}}
*{{CriticalWork:McKeeverJohnson:Mormonism 101|pages=Chapter 17}}
*{{CriticalWork:Tanner:Changing World|pages=231}}
*{{CriticalWork:Van Wagoner:Mormon Polygamy|pages=49}} (Source: Brodie)
*{{CriticalWork:Wikipedia:Joseph Smith, Jr.}}

==Response==
There is no question that Joseph Smith was capable of producing children by Emma. It is logical to assume that if Joseph had intimate relations with many other women, that there would be evidence of pregnancy and children. The focus of the critics is primarily on Joseph’s sealings to women who were married to other husbands, since having a child by any of the previously single women to whom he was married would fall within the expected scope of plural marriage.

The available evidence, however, does not support the claim that Joseph had intimate relations with married women. Fawn Brodie, who repeatedly stated her belief that Joseph Smith had intimate relations with many of his plural wives, identified several individuals that she thought ‘’might’’ be children of Joseph Smith, Jr. Yet, even Brodie noted that “it is astonishing that evidence of other children than these has never come to light.” Brodie actually postulated, in spite of a complete lack of evidence, that Joseph must have been able to successfully practice some sort of primitive birth control, or that abortions must have been routinely employed.

Brodie does indeed identify some specific individuals whom she claims are likely to have been the progeny of Joseph Smith. These individuals are examined, along with a comparison of Brodie’s claims against modern evidence.

{| valign="top" border="1" style="width:100%; font-size:85%"
!width=10%|Mother
!width="45%"|Brodie’s claim (‘’No Man Knows My History’’, p. 301, 345, 465)
!width="45%"|Modern evidence
|-
|
====Buell====
||Brodie claims that “the physiognomy revealed in a rare photograph of Oliver Buell seems to weight the balance overwhelmingly on the side of Joseph’s paternity.”
||Oliver Buell is not the son of Joseph Smith, Jr.

DNA research in 2007 confirmed Presendia Huntington Buell’s son Oliver, born sometime in 1838-1839, was the son of Norman Buell.{{ref|deseretnews1}} "Only 9 of the 23 genetic markers match when comparing the inferred Oliver Buell haplotype to that of Joseph Smith. Such a low degree of correlation between the two haplotypes provides strong evidence that they belong to two unrelated paternal lineages, thus excluding with high likelihood Joseph Smith Jr. as the biological father of Oliver N. Buell. Further weight is given to this observation by the close match of the inferred haplotype of Owen F. Buell to the independent Buell record in the SMGF data base, which genetic relationship dates back prior to Joseph Smith's era. Additionally, the two genetic profiles were run through a haplogroup predictor algorithm that assigned the Smith haplotypes to a cluster known as R1b and the cluster for the Buell's haplotypes to I1b2a, two deeply divergent clades that separated anciently, thus providing further evidence that the Oliver Buell and Joseph Smith lineages are not closely related" {{ref|JJHWA1}}

|-
|

====Alger====
||Brodie states that “[t]here is some evidence that Fannie Alger bore Joseph a child in Kirtland.”
||Fanny Alger’s son Orrison Smith was determined through DNA testing in 2005 not to be a descendant of Joseph Smith, Jr.{{ref|perego1}}
|-
|
====Hancock====
||”Legend among the descendants of Levi W. Hancock points to another son of the prophet. If the legend is true, the child was probably John Reed Hancock, born April 19, 1841.”
|| Mosiah Hancock is not the son of Joseph Smith, Jr.

Through DNA testing in 2007 Mosiah Hancock (b. April 9th, 1834) was confirmed Levi and Clarissa Hancock's son.{{ref|deseretnews2}} "A 12-marker haplotype was already available for a paternal descendant of Mosiah Hancock, generated by an independent commercial laboratory. A comparison of the 12 markers to the shortened Joseph Smith haplotype showed only 5 matches, indicating a low likelihood of a biological relationship between Mosiah and Joseph. Additionally, we queried the SMGF database with the 12 Ycs Hancock markers. Six independent records returned matching all 12 markers, all having the surname Hancock with documented connections to Mosiah's grandfather Thomas Hancock III." {{ref|JJHWA2}}
{{note|JJHWA2}}
Nothing is yet known regarding the patrilineage of Mosiah's brother, John Reed Hancock.
|-
|

====Lightner====
||The son of Mary Rollins Lightner “may as easily have been the prophet’s son as that of Adam Lightner.”
|| George Algernon Lightner, born March 22, 1842, died as an infant and therefore had no descendants. DNA testing cannot help determine paternity.
|-
|
====Hyde====
||Mrs. Orson Hyde’s sons Orson and Frank “could have been Joseph’s sons.”
|| Orson Washington Hyde, born November 9, 1843, died as an infant and therefore had no descendants. DNA testing cannot help determine paternity.
|-
|
====Pratt====
||Mrs. Parley P. Pratt’s son Moroni “might also be added to this list.”
|| Moroni Llewellyn Pratt, born December 7, 1844, was confirmed to be the son of Parley P. Pratt through DNA research. Moroni Pratt was not the son of Joseph Smith, Jr.{{ref|perego2}}
|-
|
====Snow====
||”According to tradition,” Emma beat Eliza Snow and caused her to abort Joseph’s child.
||Both LDS and non-LDS reviewers have found several flaws in the story about Eliza.{{ref|emmaeliza1}} Emma's biographers note that "Eliza continued to teach school for a month after her abrupt departure from the Smith household. Her own class attendance record shows that she did not miss a day during the months she taught the Smith children, which would be unlikely had she suffered a miscarriage."{{ref|emmaeliza2}}
|-
|
====Jacobs====
||Zina was “about seven months pregnant with Jacobs' child at the time of her marriage to the prophet.” (Brodie, p. 465) John D. Lee and William Hall stated that Zina had been “pregnant by Smith.”
||Zina Diantha Huntington Jacobs' son Zebulon was ruled out as a Joseph Smith descendant by DNA testing in 2005.{{ref|perego3}}
|}

Josephine Lyon, daughter of Sylvia Sessions Lyon, is reported to have told her daughter that she “was the daughter of the Prophet Joseph Smith” shortly before she died. It is not known whether Sessions was referring to her daughter as being a literal descendant of Joseph Smith, or if she was referring to that fact that she had been sealed to the prophet. DNA testing is ongoing in order to make this determination, but it is rendered more difficult since the Y chromosome evidence of paternal lineage is not present in females.

For more detail regarding the investigation into possible children from Joseph's polygamous marriages, please refer to the [[/Book chapter|book chapter]] on this subject.

==Conclusion==
Critics have long had difficulty reconciling their concept of Joseph as a promiscuous womanizer with the fact that the only recorded children of the prophet are those that he had with Emma. Science is now shedding new light on this issue as DNA research has so far eliminated a number of possibilities that had long been rumored to be descendants of Joseph Smith.

==Endnotes==

#{{note|deseretnews1}}[http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,695226318,00.html DNA Tests rule out 2 as Smith descendants], ''Deseret News'' Nov. 10, 2007.
#{{note|JJHWA1}}Ugo A. Perego, Jayne E. Ekins, and Scott R. Woodward, "Resolving the Paternities of Oliver N. Buell and Mosiah L. Hancock through DNA," JJHWA, 133.
#{{note|perego1}}Ugo A. Perego, Natalie M. Myers, and Scott R. Woodward, “Reconstructing the Y-Chromosome of Joseph Smith Jr.: Genealogical Applications, ''Journal of Mormon History'' Vol. 32, No. 2 (Summer 2005) 70-88.
#{{note|deseretnews2}} ''Deseret News'', 2007.
#{{note|JJHWA1}}Ugo A. Perego, Jayne E. Ekins, and Scott R. Woodward, "Resolving the Paternities of Oliver N. Buell and Mosiah L. Hancock through DNA," JJHWA, 134-135.
#{{note|perego2}}Perego, Myers and Woodward, 2005.
#{{note|emmaeliza1}} This bit of folklore is explored in {{BYUS1|author=Maureen Ursenbach Beecher et al.|article=Emma and Eliza and the Stairs|vol=22|num=1|date=Fall 1982|start=86|end=96}}. RLDS author Richard Price also argues that the physical layout of the Mansion House makes the story as reported by Charles C. Rich unlikely, see "Eliza Snow Was Not Pushed Down the Mansion House Stairs," in Richard Price. "Joseph Smith Fought Polygamy: How Men Nearest the Prophet Attached Polygamy to His Name in Order to Justify Their Own Polygamous Crimes." (n.p.: Price Publishing Company, 2001), chapter 9. Price's dogmatic insistence that Joseph never taught plural marriage, however, cannot be sustained by the evidence.
#{{note|emmaeliza2}}Linda King Newell and Valeen Tippetts Avery, ''Mormon Enigma: Emma Hale Smith'', 2nd ed. (Urbana, Illinois: University of Illinois Press, 1994), 136. See also discussion in Danel Bachman, "Plural Marriage Before the Death of Joseph Smith'' (Master's Thesis, Purdue University, 1975), 140n173.
#{{note|perego3}}Perego, Myers and Woodward, 2005.

==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===
{{PolygamyWiki}}

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

===Videos===
{{Video:Wyatt:2006:Zina and Her Men}}

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

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

Joseph Smith/Polygamy/Children of polygamous marriages

2009-08-15T19:15:43Z

SuzanneArmitage: /* Hancock */

{{PolygamyPortal}}
==Criticism==
*Critics claim that Joseph Smith fathered children with some of his plural wives, and that he covered up the evidence of pregnancies.
*Critics claim that Joseph Smith had intimate relations with other men’s wives to whom he had been sealed, and that children resulted from these unions.

===Source(s) of the criticism===
*{{CriticalWork:Brodie:No Man Knows|pages=Chapter 24}}
*{{CriticalWork:McKeeverJohnson:Mormonism 101|pages=Chapter 17}}
*{{CriticalWork:Tanner:Changing World|pages=231}}
*{{CriticalWork:Van Wagoner:Mormon Polygamy|pages=49}} (Source: Brodie)
*{{CriticalWork:Wikipedia:Joseph Smith, Jr.}}

==Response==
There is no question that Joseph Smith was capable of producing children by Emma. It is logical to assume that if Joseph had intimate relations with many other women, that there would be evidence of pregnancy and children. The focus of the critics is primarily on Joseph’s sealings to women who were married to other husbands, since having a child by any of the previously single women to whom he was married would fall within the expected scope of plural marriage.

The available evidence, however, does not support the claim that Joseph had intimate relations with married women. Fawn Brodie, who repeatedly stated her belief that Joseph Smith had intimate relations with many of his plural wives, identified several individuals that she thought ‘’might’’ be children of Joseph Smith, Jr. Yet, even Brodie noted that “it is astonishing that evidence of other children than these has never come to light.” Brodie actually postulated, in spite of a complete lack of evidence, that Joseph must have been able to successfully practice some sort of primitive birth control, or that abortions must have been routinely employed.

Brodie does indeed identify some specific individuals whom she claims are likely to have been the progeny of Joseph Smith. These individuals are examined, along with a comparison of Brodie’s claims against modern evidence.

{| valign="top" border="1" style="width:100%; font-size:85%"
!width=10%|Mother
!width="45%"|Brodie’s claim (‘’No Man Knows My History’’, p. 301, 345, 465)
!width="45%"|Modern evidence
|-
|
====Buell====
||Brodie claims that “the physiognomy revealed in a rare photograph of Oliver Buell seems to weight the balance overwhelmingly on the side of Joseph’s paternity.”
||Oliver Buell is not the son of Joseph Smith, Jr.

DNA research in 2007 confirmed Presendia Huntington Buell’s son Oliver, born sometime in 1838-1839, was the son of Norman Buell.{{ref|deseretnews1}} "Only 9 of the 23 genetic markers match when comparing the inferred Oliver Buell haplotype to that of Joseph Smith. Such a low degree of correlation between the two haplotypes provides strong evidence that they belong to two unrelated paternal lineages, thus excluding with high likelihood Joseph Smith Jr. as the biological father of Oliver N. Buell. Further weight is given to this observation by the close match of the inferred haplotype of Owen F. Buell to the independent Buell record in the SMGF data base, which genetic relationship dates back prior to Joseph Smith's era. Additionally, the two genetic profiles were run through a haplogroup predictor algorithm that assigned the Smith haplotypes to a cluster known as R1b and the cluster for the Buell's haplotypes to I1b2a, two deeply divergent clades that separated anciently, thus providing further evidence that the Oliver Buell and Joseph Smith lineages are not closely related" {{ref|JJHWA1}}

|-
|

====Alger====
||Brodie states that “[t]here is some evidence that Fannie Alger bore Joseph a child in Kirtland.”
||Fanny Alger’s son Orrison Smith was determined through DNA testing in 2005 not to be a descendant of Joseph Smith, Jr.{{ref|perego1}}
|-
|
====Hancock====
||”Legend among the descendants of Levi W. Hancock points to another son of the prophet. If the legend is true, the child was probably John Reed Hancock, born April 19, 1841.”
|| Through DNA testing in 2007 Mosiah Hancock (b. April 9th, 1834) was confirmed Levi and Clarissa Hancock's son.{{ref|deseretnews2}} "A 12-marker haplotype was already available for a paternal descendant of Mosiah Hancock, generated by an independent commercial laboratory. A comparison of the 12 markers to the shortened Joseph Smith haplotype showed only 5 matches, indicating a low likelihood of a biological relationship between Mosiah and Joseph. Additionally, we queried the SMGF database with the 12 Ycs Hancock markers. Six independent records returned matching all 12 markers, all having the surname Hancock with documented connections to Mosiah's grandfather Thomas Hancock III." {{ref|JJHWA2}}
{{note|JJHWA2}}
Nothing is yet known regarding the patrilineage of Mosiah's brother, John Reed Hancock.
|-
|

====Lightner====
||The son of Mary Rollins Lightner “may as easily have been the prophet’s son as that of Adam Lightner.”
|| George Algernon Lightner, born March 22, 1842, died as an infant and therefore had no descendants. DNA testing cannot help determine paternity.
|-
|
====Hyde====
||Mrs. Orson Hyde’s sons Orson and Frank “could have been Joseph’s sons.”
|| Orson Washington Hyde, born November 9, 1843, died as an infant and therefore had no descendants. DNA testing cannot help determine paternity.
|-
|
====Pratt====
||Mrs. Parley P. Pratt’s son Moroni “might also be added to this list.”
|| Moroni Llewellyn Pratt, born December 7, 1844, was confirmed to be the son of Parley P. Pratt through DNA research. Moroni Pratt was not the son of Joseph Smith, Jr.{{ref|perego2}}
|-
|
====Snow====
||”According to tradition,” Emma beat Eliza Snow and caused her to abort Joseph’s child.
||Both LDS and non-LDS reviewers have found several flaws in the story about Eliza.{{ref|emmaeliza1}} Emma's biographers note that "Eliza continued to teach school for a month after her abrupt departure from the Smith household. Her own class attendance record shows that she did not miss a day during the months she taught the Smith children, which would be unlikely had she suffered a miscarriage."{{ref|emmaeliza2}}
|-
|
====Jacobs====
||Zina was “about seven months pregnant with Jacobs' child at the time of her marriage to the prophet.” (Brodie, p. 465) John D. Lee and William Hall stated that Zina had been “pregnant by Smith.”
||Zina Diantha Huntington Jacobs' son Zebulon was ruled out as a Joseph Smith descendant by DNA testing in 2005.{{ref|perego3}}
|}

Josephine Lyon, daughter of Sylvia Sessions Lyon, is reported to have told her daughter that she “was the daughter of the Prophet Joseph Smith” shortly before she died. It is not known whether Sessions was referring to her daughter as being a literal descendant of Joseph Smith, or if she was referring to that fact that she had been sealed to the prophet. DNA testing is ongoing in order to make this determination, but it is rendered more difficult since the Y chromosome evidence of paternal lineage is not present in females.

For more detail regarding the investigation into possible children from Joseph's polygamous marriages, please refer to the [[/Book chapter|book chapter]] on this subject.

==Conclusion==
Critics have long had difficulty reconciling their concept of Joseph as a promiscuous womanizer with the fact that the only recorded children of the prophet are those that he had with Emma. Science is now shedding new light on this issue as DNA research has so far eliminated a number of possibilities that had long been rumored to be descendants of Joseph Smith.

==Endnotes==

#{{note|deseretnews1}}[http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,695226318,00.html DNA Tests rule out 2 as Smith descendants], ''Deseret News'' Nov. 10, 2007.
#{{note|JJHWA1}}Ugo A. Perego, Jayne E. Ekins, and Scott R. Woodward, "Resolving the Paternities of Oliver N. Buell and Mosiah L. Hancock through DNA," JJHWA, 133.
#{{note|perego1}}Ugo A. Perego, Natalie M. Myers, and Scott R. Woodward, “Reconstructing the Y-Chromosome of Joseph Smith Jr.: Genealogical Applications, ''Journal of Mormon History'' Vol. 32, No. 2 (Summer 2005) 70-88.
#{{note|deseretnews2}} ''Deseret News'', 2007.
#{{note|JJHWA1}}Ugo A. Perego, Jayne E. Ekins, and Scott R. Woodward, "Resolving the Paternities of Oliver N. Buell and Mosiah L. Hancock through DNA," JJHWA, 134-135.
#{{note|perego2}}Perego, Myers and Woodward, 2005.
#{{note|emmaeliza1}} This bit of folklore is explored in {{BYUS1|author=Maureen Ursenbach Beecher et al.|article=Emma and Eliza and the Stairs|vol=22|num=1|date=Fall 1982|start=86|end=96}}. RLDS author Richard Price also argues that the physical layout of the Mansion House makes the story as reported by Charles C. Rich unlikely, see "Eliza Snow Was Not Pushed Down the Mansion House Stairs," in Richard Price. "Joseph Smith Fought Polygamy: How Men Nearest the Prophet Attached Polygamy to His Name in Order to Justify Their Own Polygamous Crimes." (n.p.: Price Publishing Company, 2001), chapter 9. Price's dogmatic insistence that Joseph never taught plural marriage, however, cannot be sustained by the evidence.
#{{note|emmaeliza2}}Linda King Newell and Valeen Tippetts Avery, ''Mormon Enigma: Emma Hale Smith'', 2nd ed. (Urbana, Illinois: University of Illinois Press, 1994), 136. See also discussion in Danel Bachman, "Plural Marriage Before the Death of Joseph Smith'' (Master's Thesis, Purdue University, 1975), 140n173.
#{{note|perego3}}Perego, Myers and Woodward, 2005.

==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===
{{PolygamyWiki}}

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

===Videos===
{{Video:Wyatt:2006:Zina and Her Men}}

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

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

Joseph Smith/Polygamy/Children of polygamous marriages

2009-08-15T19:05:05Z

SuzanneArmitage: /* Buell */

{{PolygamyPortal}}
==Criticism==
*Critics claim that Joseph Smith fathered children with some of his plural wives, and that he covered up the evidence of pregnancies.
*Critics claim that Joseph Smith had intimate relations with other men’s wives to whom he had been sealed, and that children resulted from these unions.

===Source(s) of the criticism===
*{{CriticalWork:Brodie:No Man Knows|pages=Chapter 24}}
*{{CriticalWork:McKeeverJohnson:Mormonism 101|pages=Chapter 17}}
*{{CriticalWork:Tanner:Changing World|pages=231}}
*{{CriticalWork:Van Wagoner:Mormon Polygamy|pages=49}} (Source: Brodie)
*{{CriticalWork:Wikipedia:Joseph Smith, Jr.}}

==Response==
There is no question that Joseph Smith was capable of producing children by Emma. It is logical to assume that if Joseph had intimate relations with many other women, that there would be evidence of pregnancy and children. The focus of the critics is primarily on Joseph’s sealings to women who were married to other husbands, since having a child by any of the previously single women to whom he was married would fall within the expected scope of plural marriage.

The available evidence, however, does not support the claim that Joseph had intimate relations with married women. Fawn Brodie, who repeatedly stated her belief that Joseph Smith had intimate relations with many of his plural wives, identified several individuals that she thought ‘’might’’ be children of Joseph Smith, Jr. Yet, even Brodie noted that “it is astonishing that evidence of other children than these has never come to light.” Brodie actually postulated, in spite of a complete lack of evidence, that Joseph must have been able to successfully practice some sort of primitive birth control, or that abortions must have been routinely employed.

Brodie does indeed identify some specific individuals whom she claims are likely to have been the progeny of Joseph Smith. These individuals are examined, along with a comparison of Brodie’s claims against modern evidence.

{| valign="top" border="1" style="width:100%; font-size:85%"
!width=10%|Mother
!width="45%"|Brodie’s claim (‘’No Man Knows My History’’, p. 301, 345, 465)
!width="45%"|Modern evidence
|-
|
====Buell====
||Brodie claims that “the physiognomy revealed in a rare photograph of Oliver Buell seems to weight the balance overwhelmingly on the side of Joseph’s paternity.”
||Oliver Buell is not the son of Joseph Smith, Jr.

DNA research in 2007 confirmed Presendia Huntington Buell’s son Oliver, born sometime in 1838-1839, was the son of Norman Buell.{{ref|deseretnews1}} "Only 9 of the 23 genetic markers match when comparing the inferred Oliver Buell haplotype to that of Joseph Smith. Such a low degree of correlation between the two haplotypes provides strong evidence that they belong to two unrelated paternal lineages, thus excluding with high likelihood Joseph Smith Jr. as the biological father of Oliver N. Buell. Further weight is given to this observation by the close match of the inferred haplotype of Owen F. Buell to the independent Buell record in the SMGF data base, which genetic relationship dates back prior to Joseph Smith's era. Additionally, the two genetic profiles were run through a haplogroup predictor algorithm that assigned the Smith haplotypes to a cluster known as R1b and the cluster for the Buell's haplotypes to I1b2a, two deeply divergent clades that separated anciently, thus providing further evidence that the Oliver Buell and Joseph Smith lineages are not closely related" {{ref|JJHWA1}}

|-
|

====Alger====
||Brodie states that “[t]here is some evidence that Fannie Alger bore Joseph a child in Kirtland.”
||Fanny Alger’s son Orrison Smith was determined through DNA testing in 2005 not to be a descendant of Joseph Smith, Jr.{{ref|perego1}}
|-
|
====Hancock====
||”Legend among the descendants of Levi W. Hancock points to another son of the prophet. If the legend is true, the child was probably John Reed Hancock, born April 19, 1841.”
|| Nothing is yet known regarding the patrilineage of John Reed Hancock. However, his brother, Mosiah Hancock (born April 9th, 1834) who was also thought to be one of Joseph’s children, was shown to be the son of Levi Hancock and Clarissa Hancock through DNA testing in 2007.{{ref|deseretnews2}} "A 12-marker haplotype was already available for a paternal descendant of Mosiah Hancock, generated by an independent commercial laboratory. A comparison of the 12 markers to the shortened Joseph Smith haplotype showed only 5 matches, indicating a low likelihood of a biological relationship between Mosiah and Joseph. Additionally, we queried the SMGF database with the 12 Ycs Hancock markers. Six independent records returned matching at all 12 markers, all having the surname Hancock with documented connections to Mosiah's grandfather Thomas Hancock III. The overwhelming bulk of the evidence excludes Joseph Smith as the biological father of Mosiah Hancock" {{ref|JJHWA2}}
{{note|JJHWA2}}
|-
|
====Lightner====
||The son of Mary Rollins Lightner “may as easily have been the prophet’s son as that of Adam Lightner.”
|| George Algernon Lightner, born March 22, 1842, died as an infant and therefore had no descendants. DNA testing cannot help determine paternity.
|-
|
====Hyde====
||Mrs. Orson Hyde’s sons Orson and Frank “could have been Joseph’s sons.”
|| Orson Washington Hyde, born November 9, 1843, died as an infant and therefore had no descendants. DNA testing cannot help determine paternity.
|-
|
====Pratt====
||Mrs. Parley P. Pratt’s son Moroni “might also be added to this list.”
|| Moroni Llewellyn Pratt, born December 7, 1844, was confirmed to be the son of Parley P. Pratt through DNA research. Moroni Pratt was not the son of Joseph Smith, Jr.{{ref|perego2}}
|-
|
====Snow====
||”According to tradition,” Emma beat Eliza Snow and caused her to abort Joseph’s child.
||Both LDS and non-LDS reviewers have found several flaws in the story about Eliza.{{ref|emmaeliza1}} Emma's biographers note that "Eliza continued to teach school for a month after her abrupt departure from the Smith household. Her own class attendance record shows that she did not miss a day during the months she taught the Smith children, which would be unlikely had she suffered a miscarriage."{{ref|emmaeliza2}}
|-
|
====Jacobs====
||Zina was “about seven months pregnant with Jacobs' child at the time of her marriage to the prophet.” (Brodie, p. 465) John D. Lee and William Hall stated that Zina had been “pregnant by Smith.”
||Zina Diantha Huntington Jacobs' son Zebulon was ruled out as a Joseph Smith descendant by DNA testing in 2005.{{ref|perego3}}
|}

Josephine Lyon, daughter of Sylvia Sessions Lyon, is reported to have told her daughter that she “was the daughter of the Prophet Joseph Smith” shortly before she died. It is not known whether Sessions was referring to her daughter as being a literal descendant of Joseph Smith, or if she was referring to that fact that she had been sealed to the prophet. DNA testing is ongoing in order to make this determination, but it is rendered more difficult since the Y chromosome evidence of paternal lineage is not present in females.

For more detail regarding the investigation into possible children from Joseph's polygamous marriages, please refer to the [[/Book chapter|book chapter]] on this subject.

==Conclusion==
Critics have long had difficulty reconciling their concept of Joseph as a promiscuous womanizer with the fact that the only recorded children of the prophet are those that he had with Emma. Science is now shedding new light on this issue as DNA research has so far eliminated a number of possibilities that had long been rumored to be descendants of Joseph Smith.

==Endnotes==

#{{note|deseretnews1}}[http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,695226318,00.html DNA Tests rule out 2 as Smith descendants], ''Deseret News'' Nov. 10, 2007.
#{{note|JJHWA1}}Ugo A. Perego, Jayne E. Ekins, and Scott R. Woodward, "Resolving the Paternities of Oliver N. Buell and Mosiah L. Hancock through DNA," JJHWA, 133.
#{{note|perego1}}Ugo A. Perego, Natalie M. Myers, and Scott R. Woodward, “Reconstructing the Y-Chromosome of Joseph Smith Jr.: Genealogical Applications, ''Journal of Mormon History'' Vol. 32, No. 2 (Summer 2005) 70-88.
#{{note|deseretnews2}} ''Deseret News'', 2007.
#{{note|JJHWA1}}Ugo A. Perego, Jayne E. Ekins, and Scott R. Woodward, "Resolving the Paternities of Oliver N. Buell and Mosiah L. Hancock through DNA," JJHWA, 134-135.
#{{note|perego2}}Perego, Myers and Woodward, 2005.
#{{note|emmaeliza1}} This bit of folklore is explored in {{BYUS1|author=Maureen Ursenbach Beecher et al.|article=Emma and Eliza and the Stairs|vol=22|num=1|date=Fall 1982|start=86|end=96}}. RLDS author Richard Price also argues that the physical layout of the Mansion House makes the story as reported by Charles C. Rich unlikely, see "Eliza Snow Was Not Pushed Down the Mansion House Stairs," in Richard Price. "Joseph Smith Fought Polygamy: How Men Nearest the Prophet Attached Polygamy to His Name in Order to Justify Their Own Polygamous Crimes." (n.p.: Price Publishing Company, 2001), chapter 9. Price's dogmatic insistence that Joseph never taught plural marriage, however, cannot be sustained by the evidence.
#{{note|emmaeliza2}}Linda King Newell and Valeen Tippetts Avery, ''Mormon Enigma: Emma Hale Smith'', 2nd ed. (Urbana, Illinois: University of Illinois Press, 1994), 136. See also discussion in Danel Bachman, "Plural Marriage Before the Death of Joseph Smith'' (Master's Thesis, Purdue University, 1975), 140n173.
#{{note|perego3}}Perego, Myers and Woodward, 2005.

==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===
{{PolygamyWiki}}

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

===Videos===
{{Video:Wyatt:2006:Zina and Her Men}}

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

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

Template:Book:Widtsoe:Evidences and Reconciliations

2009-08-15T18:16:51Z

SuzanneArmitage:

John A. Widtsoe, ''Evidences and Reconciliations: Aids to Faith in a Modern Day'', arranged by G. Homer Durham (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1960) {{{start}}}–{{{end}}}. {{GL|url=http://gospelink.com/library/contents/508}} (subscription required)

Template:Book:Robinson:Are Mormons Christians

2009-08-15T18:02:35Z

SuzanneArmitage:

Stephen E. Robinson, ''Are Mormons Christians?'' (Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book Company, 1993), {{{start}}}–{{{end}}}. {{link|url=http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/response/general/christians/index.htm#ser}}{{fairlink|url=http://store.fairlds.org/prod/p1570084092.html}}{{GL|url=http://gospelink.com/library/contents/690}}

Template:Book:Robinson:Are Mormons Christians

2009-08-15T18:00:57Z

SuzanneArmitage:

Stephen E. Robinson, ''Are Mormons Christians?'' (Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book Company, 1993), {{{start}}}90&ndash96;{{{end}}}. {{link|url=http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/response/general/christians/index.htm#ser}}{{fairlink|url=http://store.fairlds.org/prod/p1570084092.html}}{{GL|url=http://gospelink.com/library/contents/690}}

Template:Book:Robinson:Are Mormons Christians

2009-08-15T17:57:05Z

SuzanneArmitage: Fixed links.

Template:Book:Widtsoe:Evidences and Reconciliations

2009-08-15T17:31:37Z

SuzanneArmitage:

John A. Widtsoe, ''Evidences and Reconciliations: Aids to Faith in a Modern Day'', arranged by G. Homer Durham (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1960). {{GL|url=http://gospelink.com/library/contents/508}} (subscription required)

Template:Book:Widtsoe:Evidences and Reconciliations

2009-08-15T17:28:42Z

SuzanneArmitage:

John A. Widtsoe, ''Evidences and Reconciliations: Aids to Faith in a Modern Day'', arranged by G. Homer Durham (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1960). ISBN 088494073 {{GL|url=http://gospelink.com/library/contents/508}} (subscription required)

Template:Book:Widtsoe:Evidences and Reconciliations

2009-08-15T17:26:55Z

SuzanneArmitage:

John A. Widtsoe, ''Evidences and Reconciliations: Aids to Faith in a Modern Day'', arranged by G. Homer Durham (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1960), {{{start}}}–{{{end}}}. ISBN 088494073 {{GL|url=http://gospelink.com/library/contents/508}} (subscription required)

Template:Book:Widtsoe:Evidences and Reconciliations

2009-08-15T17:13:51Z

SuzanneArmitage:

Template:Book:Widtsoe:Evidences and Reconciliations

2009-08-15T17:10:01Z

SuzanneArmitage:

Official Declaration Number 1

2009-08-15T17:07:15Z

SuzanneArmitage: /* Printed material */

{{PolygamyPortal}}
==Criticism==

Critics allege that the Manifesto ending the practice of polygamy, printed as Official Declaration 1 in the LDS scriptures, was not the product of revelation but rather of legal pressure from the U.S. government, or alternately, of a compromise to achieve statehood.

Critics also point to some marriages contracted [[Polygamy_after_the_Manifesto|after the Manifesto]] as evidence for their claims.

===Source of the criticism===
* ''Need source'' {{NeedCite}}

==Response==

===Biblical parallels===
This event has a parallel in the book of Jeremiah. The Torah instructs the Israelites to remain an independent people and to not make contracts or treaties with the surrounding nations. Many Jews in Jeremiah's day likely saw that instruction as further reason to rebel against their vassal-state condition as a subject of Babylon.{{NeedCite}} Jeremiah, however, told them they should submit to their present political condition. He particularly warned them that if they disobeyed, they would lose their freedom ''and the temple''. Choosing to heed their own interpretation of a dead prophet's word rather than obey the living prophet, the Jews did not submit to Babylonian rule and lost their lands, possessions, and access to the holy temple.

This outcome is very similar to what Wilford Woodruff saw in vision.

:The Lord showed me by vision and revelation exactly what would take place if we did not stop this practice. If we had not stopped it, you would have had no use for . . . any of the men in this temple at Logan; for all ordinances would be stopped throughout the land of Zion. Confusion would reign throughout Israel, and many men would be made prisoners. This trouble would have come upon the whole Church, and we should have been compelled to stop the practice. Now, the question is, whether it should be stopped in this manner, or in the way the Lord has manifested to us, and leave our Prophets and Apostles and fathers free men, and the temples in the hands of the people, so that the dead may be redeemed. . . . I say to you that that is exactly the condition we as a people would have been in had we not taken the course we have. {{link|url=http://scriptures.lds.org/od/1 OD—1}}

===The legal climate===
The Edmunds-Tucker Act granted the federal government unprecedented powers in prosecuting Mormon polygamists, and prosecutors took these powers to cruel and illegal extremes:

:in the Edmunds-Tucker Act, [Congress] provided that a wife was a competent witness in polygamy, bigamy, and cohabitation trials and required that records be kept of weddings in the territories. These provisions still retained one restraint on spousal testimony, however; they provided only that a willing wife would be allowed to testify. The act specifically forbade attempts by the judiciary to compel wives to testify against their husbands. Utah’s judges did not always follow the law, however. A number of Mormon women were required to testify against their husbands or face contempt charges. The power of contempt could be a fearful weapon. On the basis of the most sketchy or nonexistent hearings, Mormon wives who refused to testify against their husbands could be sent to prison for indefinite periods. In 1888 Representative Burnes read to the House of Representatives a report by a visitor to Utah’s prison:

::“I found in one cell (meaning a cell of the penitentiary in Utah) 10 by 13 1/2 feet, without a floor, six women, three of whom had babies under six months of age, who were incarcerated for contempt of court in refusing to acknowledge the paternity of their children. When I plead with them to answer the court and be released, they said: “If we do, there are many wives and children to suffer the loss of a father.”{{ref|fn1}}

The most reprehensible aspect of this treatment of the women is that it was completely unnecessary. With the evisceration of evidentiary standards, the courts were practically assured of convictions without the testimony of Mormon wives:

:In retrospect it is difficult to offer any explanation for this judicial conduct toward Mormon wives other than a spirit of vindictiveness. The polygamy laws, which were being vigorously enforced in the latter part of the 1880s, imposed ample punishment for the women who stubbornly clung to polygamy. The imposition of contempt sentences on wives who refused to testify introduced a sort of random sexual equality in the federal punishment of polygamy that was being imposed on Utah’s Mormons. Courts had reduced the quantum of evidence required to establish polygamy or cohabitation to such a low level that in almost any case ample alternate sources of proof must have been available. So Utah’s courts could not have believed that they needed to compel Mormon women to testify in order to convict their polygamous husbands. The cohabitation cases produced heartrending stories of suffering and pathos. Men were forbidden to associate with their children or provide for their former wives. Women were denied care and association with former husbands. Moreover, the law, not limited to prohibiting future polygamous marriages, fell with all its severity upon people whose relationships had most often been established when the law did not unambiguously forbid them.{{ref|fn2}}

Legal challenges brought against Edmunds-Tucker failed, removing the final obstacle to those who sought to use the law to not simply stop polygamy, but to destroy the Church:

:Congress, the Presidency, and the Supreme Court combined to generate repressive legislation and distortions of Constitutional jurisprudence which to this day are unequalled in the degree to which they destroyed individual and institutional rights, freedoms, and privileges. Politicians so successfully exploited the situation that at times the nation was prepared to accept the destruction of the Church and its members.{{ref|fn3}}

===The Manifesto===

President Woodruff attended a council meeting on 24 September 1890, and presented a statement which he had written, declaring: “I have been struggling all night with the Lord about what should be done under the existing circumstances of the Church. And here is the result.”{{ref|fn4}}

This document was to become the Manifesto. After the Manifesto was revised by the First Presidency, three members of the Quorum of the Twelve, and a few others, it was sent to the media.

Of the process, George Q. Cannon wrote:

:This whole matter has been at President Woodruff’s own instance. He has felt strongly impelled to do what he has, and he has spoken with great plainness to the brethren in regard to the necessity of something of this kind being done. He has stated that the Lord had made it plain to him that this was his duty, and he felt perfectly clear in his mind that it was the right thing.{{ref|fn5}}

President Cannon also spoke soon after the Manifesto's publication, and indicated that President Woodruff’s writing of the Manifesto had been done “under the influence of the ‘Spirit’” and promised that “when God speaks and…makes known His mind and will, I hope that I and all Latter-day Saints will bow in submission to it.”{{ref|fn7}} Thus, the Manifesto was considered to be a divinely mandated and inspired step by leaders at the time.

==Conclusion==

There was great political, legal, and even military pressure brought against the Saints because of plural marriage. The members endured great privations for their faith.{{ref|fn6}}

Wilford Woodruff was clear that the Lord had made it his "duty" to issue the Manifesto. It is impossible to know what President Woodruff "really" thought about what he was doing. But, he insisted and the other Church leaders insisted that he had been guided by the Lord in the decisions made during this difficult period.

His decision also has clear Biblical parallels for peoples in similarly oppressive political circumstances.

==Endnotes==

#{{note|fn1}} {{BYUS|author=Edwin B. Firmage|article=The Judicial Campaign against Polygamy and the Enduring Legal Questions|vol=27|num=3|date=Summer 1987|start=107|end=108}}; {{link|url=http://byustudies.byu.edu/Products/MoreInfoPage/MoreInfo.aspx?Type=7&ProdID=1272}} citing 19 ''Congressional Record'' 9231 (1888).
#{{note|fn2}}Firmage, “Enduring Questions,” 108.
#{{note|fn3}}{{Dialogue1|author=Gordon C. Thomasson|article=The Manifesto was a Victory!|vol=6|num=1|date=Spring 1971|start=43}} {{link|url=http://content.lib.utah.edu/cdm4/document.php?CISOROOT=/dialogue&CISOPTR=6509&REC=1}}
#{{note|fn4}} Statement of John R. Winder, 6 July 1902 meeting of temple workers, Salt Lake Temple Historical Record, 1893–1918, Book 71, LDS Church Archives; see also his nearly identical statement at a meeting of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve on the same day as reported in Rudger Clawson, Diary, 6 July 1902, University of Utah.
#{{note|fn5}}George Q. Cannon, Diary, 24 September 1890, copy in ''Conference Report'' 1:48; Wilford Woodruff, Diary, 25 September 1890, Franklin S. Richards, “Address Delivered by President Franklin S. Richards to the High Priests Quorum of Ensign Stake, Sunday November 13, 1932,” in Richards Papers, LDS Church Archives.
#{{note|fn6}} For a detailed treatment of the history of plural marriage before, during, and after the Manifesto period, please see: Gregory Smith, "Polygamy, Prophets, and Prevarication: Frequently and Rarely Asked Questions about the Initiation, Practice, and Cessation of Plural Marriage in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." {{fairlink|url=http://www.fairlds.org/apol/misc/misc39.html}} {{pdflink|url=http://www.fairlds.org/apol/misc/misc39.pdf}}
#{{note|fn7}} George Q. Cannon, “Remarks…,” ''Deseret Weekly'' (18 October 1890).

==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===
{{PolygamyWiki}}

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

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

===Printed material===
* {{EaR|start=103|end=106}}. {{GL1|url=http://gospelink.com/library/contents/540}} (subscription required)
{{PolygamyPrint}}

Template:WV0

2009-08-15T16:47:48Z

SuzanneArmitage:

Jeni Broberg Holzapfel and Richard Neitzel Holzapfel, eds., ''A Woman's View: Helen Mar Whitney's Reminiscences of Early Church History'' (Provo: Religious Studies Center, BYU, 1997). ISBN 1570083576. ISBN 978-1570083570. {{GL|url=http://gospelink.com/library/contents/965#}} (subscription required)

Template:WV0

2009-08-15T16:44:33Z

SuzanneArmitage:

Template:FR-10-2-7

2009-08-15T15:52:26Z

SuzanneArmitage:

{{FR-10-2|author=Danel W. Bachman |article=Prologue to the Study of Joseph Smith's Marital Theology (Review of ''In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith'') |start=105|end=137|url=http://mi.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=10&num=2&id=291 |pdf=http://mi.byu.edu/display/pdf.php?table=review&id=291 }}

Template:FR-10-2-6

2009-08-15T15:50:29Z

SuzanneArmitage:

{{FR-10-2|author=Richard Lloyd Anderson and Scott H. Faulring|article=The Prophet Joseph Smith and His Plural Wives (Review of ''In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith'') |start=67|end=104|url=http://mi.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=10&num=2&id=290 |pdf=http://mi.byu.edu/display/pdf.php?table=review&id=290 }}

Template:ISLReviews

2009-08-15T15:46:51Z

SuzanneArmitage:

*Reviews of ''In Sacred Loneliness:''
**{{FR-10-2-6}}
**Alma G. Allred, “Variations on a Theme,” Presentation to Mormon History Association, 1999, updated on-line version of 6 December 1999. {{pdflink|url=http://www.shields-research.org/Reviews/MHA-Alma1.PDF}}
** Danel W. Bachman, “’Let No One…Set On My Servant Joseph’: Religious Historians Missing the Lessons of Religious History,” Presentation to Mormon History Association, 22 May 1999.
**{{FR-10-2-7}}
**Kathryn Daynes, “Review of ''In Sacred Loneliness'',” ''Pacific Historical Review'' 68 (August 1999): 466–468.
**Todd Compton's response to Anderson, Faulring and Bachman Reviews of ''In Sacred Loneliness''{{link|url=http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Oracle/7207/rev.html}}
** Todd Compton's response to Jerald and Sandra Tanners' Review of ''In Sacred Loneliness'' {{link|url=http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Oracle/7207/tanners.html}}

Template:ISLReviews

2009-08-15T15:46:25Z

SuzanneArmitage:

*Reviews of ''In Sacred Loneliness:''
**{{FR-10-2-6}}
**Alma G. Allred, “Variations on a Theme,” Presentation to Mormon History Association, 1999, updated on-line version of 6 December 1999. {{pdflink|url=http://www.shields-research.org/Reviews/MHA-Alma1.PDF}}
** Danel W. Bachman, “’Let No One…Set On My Servant Joseph’: Religious Historians Missing the Lessons of Religious History,” Presentation to Mormon History Association, 22 May 1999.
**{{FR-10-2-7}}
**Kathryn Daynes, “Review of ''In Sacred Loneliness'',” ''Pacific Historical Review'' 68 (August 1999): 466–468.
**Todd Compton's response to Anderson, Faulring and Bachman Reviews of In Sacred Loneliness{{link|url=http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Oracle/7207/rev.html}}
** Todd Compton's response to Jerald and Sandra Tanners' Review of ''In Sacred Loneliness'' {{link|url=http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Oracle/7207/tanners.html}}

Template:ISLReviews

2009-08-15T15:35:33Z

SuzanneArmitage:

*Reviews of ''In Sacred Loneliness:''
**{{FR-10-2-6}}
**Alma G. Allred, “Variations on a Theme,” Presentation to Mormon History Association, 1999, updated on-line version of 6 December 1999. {{pdflink|url=http://www.shields-research.org/Reviews/MHA-Alma1.PDF}}
** Danel W. Bachman, “’Let No One…Set On My Servant Joseph’: Religious Historians Missing the Lessons of Religious History,” Presentation to Mormon History Association, 22 May 1999.
**{{FR-10-2-7}}
**Kathryn Daynes, “Review of ''In Sacred Loneliness'',” ''Pacific Historical Review'' 68 (August 1999): 466–468.
**Todd Compton's response to Anderson and Faulring and Bachman {{link|url=http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Oracle/7207/rev.html}}
** Todd Compton's response to Jerald and Sandra Tanners' Review of ''In Sacred Loneliness'' {{link|url=http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Oracle/7207/tanners.html}}

Template:CriticalWorks

2008-08-27T23:35:38Z

SuzanneArmitage:

{{editme|url=Template:SpecificAuthorsAndWorks|before=|after='''''Specific Authors and Works'''''}}
* Richard Abanes
**[[One Nation Under Gods|''One Nation Under Gods'']]
**[[Becoming Gods|''Becoming Gods: A Closer Look at 21st-Century Mormonism'']] — ([[Becoming Gods/Index|Index of claims]])
* Will Bagley
** [[Blood of the Prophets: Brigham Young and the Massacre at Mountain Meadows|''Blood of the Prophets: Brigham Young and the Massacre at Mountain Meadows'']]
* [[Fawn McKay Brodie]]
** [[No Man Knows My History: The Life of Joseph Smith|''No Man Knows My History: The Life of Joseph Smith'']] — ([[No Man Knows My History: The Life of Joseph Smith/Index|Index of claims]])
* [[Todd Compton]]
** ''In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith''
* Ed Decker
** [[The God Makers|''The God Makers'']] (film)
* [[Quote_mining%2C_selective_quotation%2C_and_distortion#Dan Erickson|Dan Erickson]]
* [[Quote_mining%2C_selective_quotation%2C_and_distortion#Norman L. Geisler|Norman L. Geisler]]
** [[Quote_mining%2C_selective_quotation%2C_and_distortion#"Scripture," in The Counterfeit Gospel of Mormonism|''"Scripture," in The Counterfeit Gospel of Mormonism'']]
* Ronald V. Huggins
** [[From Captain Kidd's Treasure Ghost to the Angel Moroni: Changing Dramatis Personae in Early Mormonism|''From Captain Kidd's Treasure Ghost to the Angel Moroni: Changing Dramatis Personae in Early Mormonism'']]
* Charles Larson
** [[By His Own Hand upon Papyrus: A New Look at the Joseph Smith Papyri|''By His Own Hand upon Papyrus: A New Look at the Joseph Smith Papyri'']]
* [[Bob McCue]]
* McKeever & Johnson
** [[Mormonism 101|''Mormonism 101'']]
* [[Christopher Marc Nemelka]]
* Grant Palmer
** [[An Insider's View of Mormon Origins|''An Insider's View of Mormon Origins'']] — ([[An Insider's View of Mormon Origins/Index|Index of claims]])
* [[D. Michael Quinn|D. Michael Quinn]]
** [[Early Mormonism and the Magic World View|''Early Mormonism and the Magic World View'']]
** [[Quote_mining%2C_selective_quotation%2C_and_distortion2#"LDS Church Authority and New Plural Marriages, 1890–1904"|''"LDS Church Authority and New Plural Marriages, 1890–1904" ]]
** [[Quote_mining%2C_selective_quotation%2C_and_distortion2#The Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power|''The Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power'']]
** [[Quote_mining%2C_selective_quotation%2C_and_distortion2#The Mormon Hierarchy: Extensions of Power|''The Mormon Hierarchy: Extensions of Power'']]
** [[Quote_mining%2C_selective_quotation%2C_and_distortion2#Same-Sex Dynamics Among Nineteenth-Century Americans: A Mormon Example|''Same-Sex Dynamics Among Nineteenth-Century Americans: A Mormon Example'']]
* Carol Whang Shutter
** [[September Dawn|''September Dawn'']] (film)
* Simon G. Southerton
**[[Losing a Lost Tribe: Native Americans, DNA, and the Mormon Church|''Losing a Lost Tribe: Native Americans, DNA, and the Mormon Church'']] — ([[Losing a Lost Tribe: Native Americans, DNA, and the Mormon Church/Index|Index of claims]])
* [[Jerald and Sandra Tanner|Jerald and Sandra Tanner]]
**[[The Changing World of Mormonism|''The Changing World of Mormonism'']] — ([[The Changing World of Mormonism/Index|Index of claims]])
** [[Quote_mining%2C_selective_quotation%2C_and_distortion2#Mormonism: Shadow or Reality?|''Mormonism: Shadow or Reality?'']]

Specific works/In Sacred Loneliness

2008-08-27T22:59:29Z

SuzanneArmitage:

* [http://www.shields-research.org/Reviews/Rvw-Sacred_Loneliness_Allred.htm#1 ''Variations on a Theme''] by Alma G. Allred.

* [http://www.shields-research.org/Reviews/Rvw-Sacred_Loneliness.htm ''"Let no one...set on my servant Joseph:" Religious Historians Missing the Lessons of Religious History''] by Danel W. Bachman.

* [http://farms.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=10&num=2&id=290 ''The Prophet Joseph Smith and His Plural Wives''] by Richard Lloyd Anderson, and Scott H. Faulring.

Specific works/In Sacred Loneliness

2008-08-27T22:55:27Z

SuzanneArmitage:

* [http://www.shields-research.org/Reviews/Rvw-Sacred_Loneliness_Allred.htm#1 ''Variations on a Theme''] by Alma G. Allred

Specific works/In Sacred Loneliness

2008-08-27T22:54:55Z

SuzanneArmitage: New page: * [http://www.shields-research.org/Reviews/Rvw-Sacred_Loneliness_Allred.htm#1 ''Variations on a Theme'' by Alma G. Allred]

* [http://www.shields-research.org/Reviews/Rvw-Sacred_Loneliness_Allred.htm#1 ''Variations on a Theme'' by Alma G. Allred]

Book of Abraham/Papyri/Long article

2007-08-01T01:38:18Z

SuzanneArmitage: /* Endnotes */

{{LongVersion|topic=Joseph Smith papyri|url=http://www.fairwiki.org/index.php/Book_of_Abraham_papyri|extra=}}

{{BofAPortal}}In July 1835, Joseph Smith purchased a collection of papyri and mummies that had been discovered in Egypt and brought to the United States. Joseph Smith stated that one of the rolls contained, "the writings of Abraham while he was in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham, purportedly written by his own hand, upon papyrus,"{{ref|hc1}} and he commenced a translation of the papyri.

The translated text and facsimiles of three drawings were published in the early 1840s in serial fashion in the LDS newspaper ''Times and Seasons''. The entire work was published in 1852 in England as part of ''The Pearl of Great Price'', which was later canonized as part of LDS scripture.

The original papyri were thought to have been completely destroyed in the Chicago fire of 1871. However, fragments of them, including Facsimile number 1, were discovered in 1967 in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York City, and given to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

==Criticism==
Critics of the Book of Abraham attack it from several directions. This article will address these major criticisms:
*The Joseph Smith papyri date to about the 2nd century, <small>B.C.</small> Latter-day Saints, however (including, perhaps, Joseph Smith), have claimed that the papyri were written by Abraham who lived about 2,000 years earlier.

*From what may be surmised from the "Kirtland Egyptian Papers" (see below) the surviving Egyptian papyri appear to be the source for the Book of Abraham. Egyptologists, however, agree that these papyri are part of a collection of Egyptian funerary documents known as the ''Book of Breathings'' and do not deal with Abraham.

*Part of the drawings (vignettes) on the papyri have been destroyed. While it appears that Joseph "restored" these missing parts, non-LDS Egyptologists do not recognize these restorations as accurate.

===Source(s) of the criticism=== 
*Edward H. Ashment, ''The Use of Egyptian Magical Papyri to Authenticate the Book of Abraham: A Critical Review,'' Salt Lake City: Resource Communications, 1993.
*Charles M. Larson, ''By His Own Hand upon Papyrus: A New Look at the Joseph Smith Papyri,'' 2nd ed., Grand Rapids, MI: Institute for Religious Research, 1992.
*Jerald and Sandra Tanner, "Solving the Mystery of the Joseph Smith Papyri," ''Salt Lake City Messenger'' 82 (September 1992): 1–12.

==Responses==
===The date of the Book of Abraham vs. the date of the papyrus===
When Joseph Smith obtained the papyri in 1835, he reportedly said that "one of the rolls contained the writings of Abraham...."{{ref|hc2}} According to Joseph's scribes, this scroll was "written" by Abraham's "own hand upon papyrus."{{ref|marquardt1}} It seems reasonable to conclude that Joseph believed that Abraham himself, with pen in hand, wrote the very words that he was translating. The problem is that most modern scholars (including LDS scholars) date the papyri to a few centuries before Christ, whereas Abraham lived about two millennia before Christ. Obviously, Abraham himself could not have penned the papyri.

This issue is very similar to that of Book of Mormon geography. It is very likely that Joseph Smith believed in a hemispheric Book of Mormon geography—it made sense to his understanding of the world around him. Such a misinformed belief makes him no less a prophet; it simply provides us with an example of how Joseph—like any other human—tried to understand new information by integrating it with his current knowledge. So, likewise, with the Abrahamic papyri: Joseph, by way of revelation, saw that the papyri contained scriptural teachings of Abraham. It would be natural, therefore, to assume that Abraham wrote the papyri. But, some will ask, how could the teachings of Abraham be present on a document written two thousand years after Abraham lived? As Gee notes, we find the same thing with Biblical manuscripts. There is a major difference, he explains, "between the date of a text [the information contained on the papyri] and the date of a manuscript [the papyri itself]."{{ref|gee5}}

:The date of a text is the date when the text was written by its author. A text can be copied into various manuscripts or translated into other languages, and these manuscripts or translations will have different, later dates than the date of the original text. When we refer to the date of a text, we refer to the date of the original text. For example, the text of the Gospel of Matthew was written in the first century <small>A.D.</small>, but the earliest manuscript that we have of Matthew was copied in the third century.{{ref|gee6}}

If, for example, one held out a modern LDS Bible and pointing to 1 Corinthians asked, "Who penned this book?" most people would respond with, "Paul." The copy of the scriptures, however, was printed within the last few decades, and the English wording is based on what King James scholars decided that the ancient biblical manuscripts said. Paul, himself, did not pen any modern printing of the scriptural book even if he did author the original text. How can we fault Joseph for basically stating the same thing?

Some LDS scholars propose that the original Book of Abraham "text" was written by Abraham and then "passed down through his descendants (the Jews), some of whom took a copy to Egypt where it was copied (after being translated) onto a later manuscript."{{ref|gee7}} Such a proposal makes a lot of sense since we recognize that this the typical provenance of most Biblical documents.

===The Kirtland Egyptian Papers===
''(Main article: [[Kirtland Egyptian Papers]])''

Among the early Book-of-Abraham-related-manuscripts that have survived from the days of Joseph Smith are a number of papers collectively referred to as the "Kirtland Egyptian Papers" (KEP). These pages were written while the Saints lived in Kirtland, Ohio, and were recorded in the general time frame that Joseph was translating the Book of Abraham. They are in the same handwriting of several of Joseph's scribes.

There are at least two evidences which demonstrate an obvious connection between some of the Kirtland Egyptian papers and the Book of Breathings scroll from the Joseph Smith Papyri (JSP).

Like the Hebrews, the Egyptians read right to left. The "Scroll of Hor"-- which is the Book of Breathings scroll in the JSP collection-- begins (at the right end) with Facsimile 1 (as recorded in the Book of Abraham) followed by Egyptian characters.

Some of the KEP are divided by a vertical line at the left side of the paper. About three fourths of the paper is to the right of each line. To the left of the line are Egyptian characters. These are the same characters that follow Facsimile 1 of the Book of Breathings(these would be to the left of the vignette). To the right of the vertical line (on the Kirtland papers) appear to be "translations" of the Egyptian character on the left.

Secondly, we read in the Book of Abraham:

:...that you may have a knowledge of this altar, I will refer you to the representation [Facsimile 1] at the commencement of this record." ([http://scriptures.lds.org/abr/1/12#12 Abraham 1:12]-- keeping in mind that the scroll would have been read from right to left to and Facsimile 1 is virtually the first item at the right end of the scroll.)

On the surface, these two evidences suggest that the Scroll of Hor is the source of the Book of Abraham.

The critics also claim that, since the Scroll of Hor is a fairly typical Book of Breathings scroll, we would know that the entire scroll would not be much longer than the extant portions of the papyrus fragments; therefore, what we have is virtually all there was of this particular papyrus.

A superficially plausible initial assumption is that the KEP represent Joseph's attempt to translate the hieroglyphics from those portions that are still extant. Critics attempt to trouble the Saints, however, with the fact that Egyptologists tell us that the "translations" do not accurately reflect the meanings of the hieroglyphics. In some cases, several paragraphs of English text (the English translation of the Book of Abraham) are written in what appears to be an English translation of these Egyptian characters (in some instances, one character seems to yield several sentences of English text). To the critics, this is proof that Joseph was a false prophet.

There is, however, a more likely scenario that is compatible with Joseph's prophetic claims. Many LDS scholars have claimed that the Kirtland Egyptian Papers are an example of a backwards translation. In other words, Joseph translated the Book of Abraham prior to the creation of the KEP and then he, and other early LDS brethren, tried to match the translated text to what they believed were the characters that were used to elicit the translation. In this scenario the KEP was not the product of revelation, but was rather an attempt to "study out" the translation, after-the-fact, in what might have been an experiment to create an Egyptian alphabet.{{ref|nibley3}} In essense, Joseph and his friends were trying to "reverse engineer" the translation of Egyptian script using the inspired translation he had already produced. The men at Kirtland were treating the Book of Abraham as a sort of Rosetta Stone from which they hoped to crack the code for Egyptian (which was largely untranslatable by scholars of the time.)

But why would it appear that Joseph thought these Egyptian characters translated into Abrahamic scripture when they clearly do not?

====A Jewish Redactor====

It should first be undestood that we do not have all the papyri that Joseph Smith had when he translated the Book of Abraham. Some of the papyri were burned in the Chicago fire and it's possible that other fragments were lost or destroyed elsewhere. Yale-trained Egyptologist, Dr. John Gee, believes that Joseph Smith originally had five papyrus scrolls (one of which was the hypocephalus).{{ref|gee1}} Of these five scrolls, only eleven fragments of two scrolls have survived. The "Scroll of Hor" (the Egyptian Book of Breathings) from where we get Facsimile 1 (and almost certainly [http://scriptures.lds.org/abr/fac_3 Facsimile 3]—which didn't survive) is incomplete.

Dr. Nibley writes:

:We are told that papyri were in beautiful condition when Joseph Smith got them, and that one of them when unrolled on the floor extended through two rooms of the Mansion House.{{ref|nibley2}}

Nothing like this has survived today. Dr. Gee estimates that the Scroll of Hor (likely the putative [supposed] source for the Book of Abraham) may have been ten feet long{{ref|gee2}} and that in all, Joseph may have had eight times as much papyri as what is currently extant.{{ref|gee3}} A number of scholars contend that the reason that the extant papyrus fragments don't have anything to do with the Book of Abraham is because we don't have that portion of the papyrus that served as the text from whence Joseph translated the Book of Abraham. At the very least, the critics ought to be cautious if only 13% of the ancient scrolls are currently known!

And while it's true that the extant portions of the JSP are from the Book of the Dead and the Book of Breathings and do not, according to Egyptologists, translate to anything like the LDS Book of Abraham, this doesn't necessarily mean that the translation didn't derive from Joseph's papyri.

There are other scenarios that are compatible with Joseph's claims. We know from other sources, for instance, that sometimes scrolls were attached together. To quote Gee:

:Some people assume that if the documents [JSP] are funerary they cannot contain anything else. Some Book of the Dead papyri, however, do contain other texts. For example, a fragmentary Eighteenth-Dynasty Book of the Dead in Cairo...contains account texts on the front side (recto) [with the Book of the Dead on the back side]. Papyrus Vandier also has a Book of the Dead on the verso (back side), but the recto contains the story of Meryre, who was sacrificed on an altar (an intriguing similarity to the Book of Abraham). The Book of the Dead of Psenmines...and Pawerem...both contain temple rituals. Both Papyrus Harkness and BM 10507 (demotic funerary papyri) contain several different texts. Just because the preserved sections of the Joseph Smith Papyri are funerary in nature does not mean that they could not have had other texts, either on the verso or on missing sections of the rolls.{{ref|gee4}}

It is therefore possible that the Book of Abraham manuscript was attached to the Book of Breathings. But why? Why would an important Semitic document be attached to a pagan (Egyptian) funerary text?

Kevin Barney posits that the Book of Abraham material was passed on through the generations from Abraham to Jews of the 2nd century <small>B.C.</small>—or the Ptolemaic period—just as Old Testament scriptures were passed on to later generations.Sometime in the Ptolemaic period, a hypothetical Jewish redactor (editor), whom Barney labels "J-red" attached the Book of Abraham to the Egyptian papyri. Why? Because of the useful symbolism contained on the Egyptian funerary text.

This claim is supported by at least three known ancient Jewish texts. Barney notes that many Biblical scholars believe that an ancient Egyptian book—the Instructions of Amenemope—may have been the source for parts of the biblical book of Proverbs.{{ref|barney1}}

The ancient "Testament of Abraham" has several similarities to the LDS Book of Abraham. The book also has strong similarities to an Egyptian papyrus related to the Book of the Dead. For example, notes Barney, it is widely recognized that a judgment scene described in the Testament of Abraham was

:influenced by an Egyptian psychostasy ("soul weighing") papyrus.... It may even be that the author [of the Testament of Abraham] was gazing on such a psychostasy papyrus when he penned his account. But while there is a clear relationship between the Egyptian psychostasy scene and the judgment scene of the Testament of Abraham, the scene has been transformed to accord with Semitic needs and sensibilities. Osiris [Egyptian god] has become Abel; the Egyptian gods have become angels. Our author looks at the Egyptian illustration, yet sees a situation peopled with Semitic characters.{{ref|barney2}}

Note the Osiris-Abel connection, to which we will return below.

The third example comes from the book of Luke's story of the rich man and Lazarus. In this tale, the beggar Lazarus ate the crumbs that fell from a rich man's table. When Lazarus died, angels carried him to Abraham's bosom. When the rich man died, he awoke in Hell but could see—far away—Lazarus in the bosom of Abraham. The rich man begged Abraham to send the dead Lazarus to his brothers so that they would repent and not befall the same terrible fate. (See [http://scriptures.lds.org/luke/16/19-31#19 Luke 16:19–31]).

Scholars have shown that this story is based on a popular Jewish tale, written in Hebrew, but ultimately based on an Egyptian story. In the original Egyptian legend, the names are different (as are some of the general details of the story) but the basic account and moral is the same. In the Egyptian version, however (the version upon which the Hebrew tradition depends), Osiris plays the part later adapted (by Jews) to Abraham.{{ref|osiris1}} It seems that the early Jews had no problem adapting the pagan god Osiris to important Judaic figures such as Abel or Abraham.

Not only do we see, in the Book of Luke, a Jewish adaptation of an Egyptian judgment scene, but we also find some interesting parallels to Facsimile 1 from the Book of Abraham. In this vignette, Joseph identified the figure lying on the lion couch as Abraham. Egyptologists, however, identify the figure as Osiris.{{ref|osiris2}} Based on an early Judaic adaptation of Facsimile 1, Joseph got it exactly right.

Instead of focusing on how Egyptians of the 2nd century <small>B.C.</small> or 2000 <small>B.C.</small> understood the motifs, Barney convincingly argues that Abraham did not draw the facsimiles (which date nearly two thousand years after Abraham lived) but that these Egyptian vignettes "were either adopted [copied wholesale as the Egyptians drew them] or adapted [altered to more accurately reflect the Semitic perspective] by an Egyptian-Jewish redactor as illustrations of the attempt on Abraham's life and Abraham's teaching astronomy to the Egyptians."{{ref|barney3}} Barney argues that we should focus our attention on understanding how Jews of the 2nd century <small>B.C.</small> understood the Egyptian graphics.

In Facsimile 1 (the lion couch scene), for instance, under the floor there is a crocodile. Under the crocodile are numerous vertical lines. Joseph interpreted these lines as representing the "pillars of heaven." Egyptologists, however, tell us that this is incorrect. These lines really signify the palace façade. The etched lines around the crocodile signify, according to Joseph, "Raukeeyang" or "the expanse or firmament over our heads," or the high "heavens." Egyptologists, however, tell us that the lines are simply waters in which the crocodile swims. So according to an Egyptian interpretation, Joseph got it all wrong.

What if we compare Joseph's interpretation to how 2nd century <small>B.C.</small> Jews might have understood the scene? Firstly, Joseph's "Raukeeyang" is very similar to the Hebrew word for "expanse."{{ref|barney4}} "In Hebrew cosmology," writes Barney, "the Hebrew 'firmament' was believed to be a solid dome, supported by pillars." Recall the vertical lines in the vignette. This, "in turn was closely associated with the celestial ocean, which it supported." And remember that in Facsimile 1 it appears that the pillars are under the water in which the crocodile swims.

:In the lower half of Facsimile 1, we have [the firmament]...(1) connected with the waters, as with the celestial ocean, (2) appearing to be supported by pillars, and (3) being solid and therefore capable of serving itself as a support, in this case for the lion couch. The bottom half of Facsimile 1 would have looked to J-red very much like a microcosm of the universe (in much the same way that the divine throne chariot of Ezekiel 1–2, which associates the four four-faced fiery living creatures with the [firmament]...above their heads on which God sits enthroned, is a microcosm of the universe).{{ref|barney5}}

If we accept a Jewish redactor adapting Egyptian motifs to a Hebrew understanding, we can easily appreciate the possibility that "J-red" attached the Book of Abraham manuscript to the Book of Breathings in order to graphically convey the doctrines portrayed in the manuscript. Barney gives this useful comparison to the Book of Mormon:

:The gold plates were untouched by human hands from the time Moroni deposited them in a stone box in the fifth century <small>A.D.</small> until Joseph's retrieval of the cache in 1827. Prior to that time, however, the records of the Book of Mormon peoples underwent an express redaction [abridgement or editing] process at the hands of Mormon and Moroni. Similarly, the papyrus source for the Book of Abraham sat untouched from the time it was deposited in the tomb during Greco-Roman age until Lebolo retrieved it [about 1820]. Before that time, though, it circulated among people and was subject to normal transmission processes. My hypothetical redactor, J-red, was in essentially the same position with respect to the Book of Abraham as Mormon was with respect to the Book of Mormon.{{ref|barney6}}

The Egyptians, like the Hebrews, wrote from right to left. And while Joseph didn't know Egyptian, he was (at this point in his life) studying Hebrew and he may have assumed that the Egyptians wrote in the same direction. At the right end of the scroll (the beginning of the scroll), we find Facsimile 1. Abraham referred the Facsimile ("the representation") at the beginning of "this record." To the Joseph, and other early Saints, this would have seemed to indicate that the "record" of Abraham was part of the early portion of the scroll and thus they began their backwards translation from this point. In reality, however, "this record" probably referred to the beginning of the combined scrolls (that begins with Facsimile 1) but not the beginning of the Abrahamic text (which would have been appended to the Book of Breathings scroll).{{ref|barney7}}

It must be remembered that Joseph could not read Egyptian. He did not "translate" in the normal sense—as evidenced by his after-the-fact effort to reverse engineer Egyptian via his divinely-given translation. He translated by the power of God. It is possible that Joseph, at times, translated the Book of Mormon while the plates were covered, or perhaps even while the plates were removed from the room.

While an actual Book of Abraham manuscript could have been appended to the Book of Breathings manuscript, it is significant to recognize that revelation was the method by which the text was translated. This realization allows for still other possibilities. If, for example, the appended Abrahamic scroll was damaged, Joseph would still have been able to "translate" the text. If the appended scroll was partially missing, the "translation" might not have suffered. It's also possible that Joseph, in the process of creating the KEP, looked at the Egyptian characters and—thinking that they were the Egyptian symbols composed by Abraham—proceeded to "translate" from these characters. In such a scenario the actual Book of Abraham translation could still be based on a real manuscript, but not on what Joseph thought was the manuscript. In any case, we need not reject Joseph's prophetic calling or ability to translate.

===Restoring gaps in the drawings===
[[Image:BOAfacsimile1.jpg|frame|200px|right|Photograph of Facsimile 1 from the recovered Joseph Smith Papyri]]Examination of the extant papyri fragments reveals that portions of Facsimile 1 (the only facsimile that survived) are damaged. For a number of years, scholars have debated whether the facsimile was damaged before or after Joseph acquired the papyri. It seems that the Book of Breathings scroll (containing Facsimile 1) was marred by a lacuna—a missing portion—that had torn off the scroll. The debate over the date of the lacuna directly relates to the images on Facsimile 1. This vignette—as shown in the LDS Book of Abraham—shows a figure (interpreted as Abraham) lying on a lion couch with arms raised as if attitude of pleading or prayer. The figure standing over Abraham is a bald man (presumably an Egyptian priest) with a knife in one hand—as if he was about to kill Abraham. Flying just above Abraham is a hawk (or falcon) with outstretched wings. The scroll's lacuna extends over an area which includes the Egyptian priest's head, the knife, and one of Abraham's supplicating arms.

Since Facsimile 1 appears to be a fairly typical scene from Egyptian funerary texts, the critics note that other similar Egyptian motifs depict the priest (an embalmer) with the head of Anubis (an Egyptian god) rather than a bald, human head. Other comparable Egyptian embalming scenes do not show the priest holding a knife, they do not show any man pleading or praying, and they generally show two hawks. The critics claim that Joseph Smith drew in the missing parts by adding (incorrectly) those things which we find in the LDS version of this Egyptian scene. What Joseph saw as fingers of Abraham's outstretched hands, for instance, were actually (according to the critics) the wing-tips of the missing second hawk.

Many LDS scholars believe that the scroll was damaged after Joseph translated the vignette and some evidence seems to support this view. One early Latter-day Saint who saw the papyri in 1841, for instance, described them as containing the scene of an altar with "'a man bound and laid thereon, and a Priest with a knife in his hand, standing at the foot, with a dove over the person bound on the Altar with several Idol gods standing around it.'"{{ref|appleby1}} Similarly, Reverend Henry Caswall, who visited Nauvoo in April 1842, had a chance to see some of the Egyptian papyri. Caswall, who was hostile to the Saints, described Facsimile 1 as having a "'man standing by him with a drawn knife.'"{{ref|caswall1}}

The critics, however, claim that evidence supports a belief that the scroll was already damaged prior to Joseph's involvement and that Joseph merely sketched in the parts missing in the lacuna. It's seems apparent, for example, that the lacuna descends several layers into the rolled scroll (the larger tear is at the first—or top—part, and the same outlined tear—only smaller—appears in the lower layers). Non-LDS Egyptologists do not think Joseph's "restoration" accurately reflects what was originally shown on the papyri, and in at least some instances, it seems that Joseph invented hieroglyphic characters to fill in for missing characters lost by the lacuna. This suggests that part of the scroll's tore/fell away when it was first unrolled and prior to Joseph's translation. For the sake of argument, let us grant the theory proposed by the critic—that the lacuna was present prior to Joseph making a translation and that Joseph (or some other early leader) "restored" the missing information.

Some considerations: there is at least some evidence that the LDS version has precedence in ancient Egyptian drawings. Some LDS researchers, for instance, have argued that the fingers/wing-tips look significantly more like fingers (according to Egyptian drawings) than hawk wing-tips. A number of scholars have noted that the Egyptians were very specific in how they drew wings and thumbs.{{ref|shirts1}}

It's also interesting to note that although embalming priests are typically drawn with Anubis heads in Book of Breathings motifs, other Egyptian graphics show that Egyptian priests are represented as bald and that Anubis heads were worn as masks to emulate the gods.{{ref|shirts2}} When compared to other Egyptian drawings, some of the Book of Abraham restorations are plausible.

Another consideration: We don't know that Joseph was the responsible party for sketching in the missing portions of Facsimile 1. It is possible that one of Joseph's contemporaries "restored" the missing parts, or it is possible that "J-red" or some other Jewish copyist "restored" the parts in order to more closely approximate the details conveyed by the Abrahamic text. It is certainly also possible that Joseph "restored" the missing parts either because they were in the original papyri—as edited by "J-red"—or because Joseph felt that such restorations more accurately reflected the Book of Abraham's intended use of the graphic as pertaining to the details discussed in the text.

Joseph's amendments to later editions of the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine & Covenants, and even the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible, are all instructive when we compare the graphical alterations in Facsimile 1. In each case, Joseph Smith—by way of revelation, inspiration, or prophetic analysis—"restored" or amended scripture to more closely approximate the additional insights he had gleaned by divine revelation.

Another possibility is that Joseph, Reuben Hedlock (the engraver), or someone else simply filled in the lacunae in the papyri the best he could for purposes of publication. Modern documentary editing standards would require that any holes or gaps in the papyri be represented as such, but the Book of Abraham was published long before the rise of such standards. Just as it was the practice of the day to edit out infelicities rather than to preserve them (as modern scholars do), so it would have been thought inaesthetic to publish incomplete or marred facsimiles. If this is the correct explanation, one need not suppose that the textual repair for purposes of publication was the result of revealed insight.

===Evidence for the Antiquity of Joseph's Book of Abraham===
There is evidence from antiquity—both in the Abrahamic tradition and in the Jewish recontextualization of Egyptian vignettes and dramas—which lend support to the claim that Joseph translated (albeit by unconventional means) the Book of Abraham from an authentic ancient source.

While Book of Abraham "translations" and "restorations" of the damaged vignettes do not seem to square with the translations of non-LDS Egyptologists, there are several instances when Joseph did get some of the details correct. This is no small thing considering that neither Joseph, nor any one in his day, could translate Egyptian.

====The Sons of Horus====
Facsimile 2 (shown between Chapters 3 and 4 of the Book of Abraham in the LDS Pearl of Great Price), is known as a hypocephalus ("under the head") and was a small disk-shaped object that was placed under the head of the deceased. The Egyptians "believed it would magically cause the head and body to be enveloped in flames or radiance, thus making the deceased divine."{{ref|rhodes1}} In this drawing (or vignette), stand four mummy-like figures known—to Egyptologists—as the Sons of Horus. Their images were also on the canopic jars (the jars that stored the internal organs of the deceased) that we see under the lion couch in Joseph Smith's Facsimile 1. Joseph revealed that these four figures represented "this earth in its four quarters." According to modern Egyptologists, Joseph Smith is correct. The Sons of Horus "were the gods of the four quarters of the earth and later came to be regarded as presiding over the four cardinal points."{{ref|rhodes2}}

====Abrahamic Traditions====
Years ago, Dr. Nibley pointed out that the critics neglect the ancient Near Eastern Abrahamic traditions that support the story found in the Book of Abraham.{{ref|nibley1}} Ancient Abrahamic lore and Jewish traditions preserved in ancient texts, show some surprising parallels to what we find in the text of the Book of Abraham. Some of these parallels imply that Joseph (who likely could not have had access to many of these traditions) actually restored authentic ancient Abrahamic traditions. Some of these parallels include early Jewish traditions about Abraham's life—details not found in the Bible.{{ref|abrtrad1}} Two such ancient documents that show some surprising parallels to our Book of Abraham are the ''Apocalypse of Abraham''{{ref|astpapcov1}} and the Testament of Abraham{{ref|testabr1}} (the Apocalypse of Abraham dates to about the same time as the Book of Abraham papyri).

Other interesting parallels include ancient names and astronomy. Ancient Egyptian names, for example, that would have been unknown to Joseph Smith, are accurately represented in the Book of Abraham both phonetically as well as in meaning.{{ref|phone1}} With regard to astronomy, we find that in Joseph Smith's day "heliocentricity" (as proposed by Copernicus and Newton) was the accepted astronomical view. Nineteenth-century people (including the most brilliant minds of the day) believed that everything revolved around the Sun—therefore the term "heliocentric" (Greek ''helios''=sun + centered). (In the twentieth-first century we generally accept an Einsteinian view of the cosmos.) The Book of Abraham, however, clearly delineates a ''geocentric'' view of the universe—or a belief that the Earth (Greek ''geo'') stood at the center of the universe, and all things moved around our planet.

According to ancient geocentric cosmologies and what we read in the Book of Abraham, the heavens (which is defined as the expanse above the earth—no celestial object is mentioned to exist below the earth) was composed of multiple layers or tiers—each tier higher than the previous. Therefore the Sun is in a higher tier than the moon, and the stars are in higher tiers still (compare [http://scriptures.lds.org/abr/3/5,9,17#5 Abraham 3:5, 9, 17]).{{ref|astpapcov2}} According to geocentric astronomy, celestial objects have longer time spans (or lengths of "reckoning") based upon their relative distance from the earth. "Thus, the length of reckoning of a planet is based on its revolution [time to orbit around the center, in this case the earth](and not rotation [time to spin on its axis, as the earth does every 24 hours])."{{ref|astpapcov3}} The higher the celestial object, the greater its length of reckoning (compare [http://scriptures.lds.org/abr/3/5#5 Abraham 3:5]). Likewise, in [http://scriptures.lds.org/abr/3/8-9#8 Abraham 3:8–9], we read that "there shall be another planet whose reckoning of time shall be longer still; And thus there shall be the reckoning of the time of one planet above another, until thou come nigh unto Kolob."

Ancient geocentric astronomers believed that the stars were "the outer-most celestial sphere, furthest from the earth and nearest to God."{{ref|astpapcov4}} We find in the Book of Abraham that the star Kolob was the star nearest "the throne of God" ([http://scriptures.lds.org/abr/3/9#9 Abraham 3:9]). In the ancient, yet recently discovered, Apocalypse of Abraham (which dates from about the same time period as the JSP), we find that God's throne is said to reside in the eighth firmament (the firmaments, being another term for the varying tiers in the heavens above the Earth).{{ref|astpapcov5}}

The Book of Abraham also reveals that those celestial objects that are highest above the earth, "govern" the objects below them (see [http://scriptures.lds.org/abr/3/3,9#3 Abraham 3:3, 9] and [http://scriptures.lds.org/abr/fac_2 Facsimile 2, fig. 5]). This sounds similar to the beliefs of those who accepted an ancient geocentric cosmology:

:Throughout the ancient world the governing role of celestial bodies was conceived in similar terms. God sits on his throne in the highest heaven giving commands, which are passed down by angels through the various regions of heaven, with each region governing or commanding the regions beneath it.''{{ref|astpapcov6}}

We find this governing order described in the Apocalypse of Abraham and other ancient sources. All of this makes sense only from an ancient geocentric perspective (such as that believed in Abraham's day) and makes no sense from a heliocentric perspective (which is what Joseph would have known in his day).

A different interesting parallel comes from [http://scriptures.lds.org/abr/fac_1 Facsimile 1] (Abraham on the lion couch). According to Egyptologists, this is a typical Egyptian embalming scene and has nothing to do with Abraham or sacrifice. In fact, the critics assure us, Abraham is not a topic of discussion in Egyptian papyri, and there is no connection with Abraham and the embalming lion couch.

Recent discoveries, however, suggests that the Biblical Abraham does appear in some Egyptian papyri that date to the same period as the JSP. In one instance (thus far discovered) Abraham's name appears to have a connection to an Egyptian lion couch scene.{{ref|gee8}}

The stories and worldviews we find in the translated text of our Book of Abraham coincide nicely with what we find from ancient Abrahamic lore. The critics must account for Joseph Smith's extensive knowledge of these areas, which he then integrated into a theologically rich whole.

==Conclusion==
When we critically examine the charges against the Book of Abraham in light of what we now know about ancient Jewish traditions and the adaptation of Egyptian iconography, we find that an ancient Book of Abraham is not only plausible, but believable.

==Endnotes==
#{{note|hc1}}{{HoC|vol=2|start=235, 236, 348|end=351}}
#{{note|hc2}}{{HoC1|vol=2|start=236}}
#{{note|marquardt1}}Michael H. Marquardt, "A Book Note — Hugh Nibley's ''Abraham in Egypt''" (2000).
#{{note|gee5}}{{GuideJSP1|start= 15}}
#{{note|gee6}}Gee, ''A Guide to the Joseph Smith Papyri,'' 23–24.
#{{note|gee7}}''Ibid''., 28.
#{{note|nibley3}}{{BYUS|author=Hugh W. Nibley|article=The Meaning of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers|vol=11|num=1|date=Summer 1971|start=350|end=399}}{{link|url=http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=transcripts&id=121}}
#{{note|gee1}}{{Ensign|author=John Gee|article=Research and Perspectives: Abraham in Ancient Egyptian Texts|date=July 1992|start=60|end=?}}; {{FR-7-1-5}}
#{{note|nibley2}}{{Dialogue1|author=Hugh W. Nibley|article=Phase One|vol=3|num=2|date=Summer 1968|start=101}}{{link|url=http://content.lib.utah.edu/cdm4/document.php?CISOROOT=/dialogue&CISOPTR=1659&REC=10}}
#{{note|gee2}}Gee, ''A Guide to the Joseph Smith Papyri,'' 12–13.
#{{note|gee3}}John Gee, "Facsimile 3," lecture given at the FARMS Book of Abraham Conference (16 October 1999), personal notes of conference talks by Michael Ash; see also, John Gee, "The Ancient Owners of the Joseph Smith Papyri" (Provo: FARMS, 1999), 1.
#{{note|gee4}}{{DiscipleWitness1|author=John Gee|article=Eyewitness, Hearsay, and Physical Evidence of the Joseph Smith Papyri|start=192}}
#{{note|barney1}}{{BarneyJ-red|start=115|end=116}}
#{{note|barney2}}''Ibid''., 117–118.
#{{note|osiris1}}Barney, "The Facsimiles," 119–21; Blake T. Ostler, "Abraham: An Egyptian Connection" (FARMS paper, 1981); Kerry Shirts, "Abraham, Father of the Faithful, Or Osiris, Pagan Egyptian God?"], ''Mormonism Researched'' (accessed 6 October 2005). {{link|url=http://www2.ida.net/graphics/shirtail/abraham.htm}}
#{{note|osiris2}}Charles M. Larson, ''By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus: A New Look at the Joseph Smith Papyri'' (Grand Rapids, MI: Institute for Religious Research, 1992), 102.
#{{note|barney3}}Barney, "The Facsimiles," 114.
#{{note|barney4}}''Ibid''., 123; see also Tvedtnes, "Authentic Ancient Names."
#{{note|barney5}}''Ibid''., 123.
#{{note|barney6}}''Ibid''., 126.
#{{note|barney7}}Barney, "The Facsimiles," 127.
#{{note|appleby1}}William I. Appleby Journal, 5 May 1841, ms. 1401 1, pp. 71–72, LDS Church Archives; as quoted in Gee, "Eyewitness, Hearsay, and Physical Evidence," 184.
#{{note|caswall1}}Henry Caswall, ''The City of the Mormons; or, Three Days at Nauvoo, in 1842'' (London: Rivington, 1842), 23; quoted in Gee, "Eyewitness, Hearsay, and Physical Evidence," 186.
#{{note|shirts1}}Kerry A. Shirts, "On Wings & Thumbs & Other Things"{{link|url=http://www2.ida.net/graphics/shirtail/charles.htm}}; Gee, ''A Guide to the Joseph Smith Papyri,'' 38.
#{{note|shirts2}}Kerry A. Shirts, "On Anubis, Masks, and Uniqueness of Facsimile #1 in the Book of Abraham."{{link|url=http://www2.ida.net/graphics/shirtail/rename.htm}}
#{{note|rhodes1}}Michael D. Rhodes, "The Joseph Smith Hypocephalus...Twenty Years Later." {{pdflink|url=http://home.comcast.net/~michael.rhodes/JosephSmithHypocephalus.pdf}}
#{{note|rhodes2}}''Ibid.''
#{{note|nibley1}}{{IE1|author=Hugh W. Nibley|article=The Unknown Abraham|date=January 1969|start=26}}
#{{note|abrtrad1}}See {{TraditionsAbraham0}}
#{{note|astpapcov1}}For some of the parallels see {{Nibley14|start=8|end=40}}; {{APC|author=John Gee, William J. Hamblin, and Daniel C. Peterson|article='And I Saw the Stars': The Book of Abraham and Ancient Geocentric Astronomy|start=1|end=16}} {{link1|url=http://farms.byu.edu/publications/bookschapter.php?bookid=40&chapid=161}}
#{{note|testabr1}}See Jeff Lindsay, "Could there have been a real Egyptian scroll that actually, literally discussed Abraham?" (accessed 23 September 2005){{link|url=http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_Abraham.shtml}}; {{FR-4-1-16}}; {{sunstone|author=Hugh Nibley|article=The Facsimiles of the Book of Abraham|vol=x|date=December 1979|start=49|end=51}}; Kerry Shirts, "The Book of the Dead and the Book of Abraham" {{link|url=http://www2.ida.net/graphics/shirtail/egyptian.htm}}; {{Nibley14_1|start=1}}
#{{note|phone1}}See John A. Tvedtnes, "Authentic Ancient Names and Words in the Book of Abraham and Related Kirtland Egyptian Papers," presentation at the 2005 FAIR Conference; Kerry Shirts, "On the Names of the Four Canopic Jars in Facsimile 1." {{link|url=http://www2.ida.net/graphics/shirtail/onthe.htm}}
#{{note|astpapcov2}}Gee, Hamblin, and Peterson, "'And I Saw the Stars'", 5.
#{{note|astpapcov3}}''Ibid''., 8.
#{{note|astpapcov4}}''Ibid''., 9.
#{{note|astpapcov5}}''Ibid''.
#{{note|astpapcov6}}''Ibid''., 10.
#{{note|gee8}}{{GuideJSP|start=12|end=13}}

==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===

{{BookofAbrahamWiki}}

===FAIR web site===

{{BookofAbrahamFAIR}}

===External links===
{{BookofAbrahamLinks}}

===Printed material===
{{BookofAbrahamPrint}}

Book of Abraham/Papyri/Long article

2007-08-01T01:37:52Z

SuzanneArmitage: /* Endnotes */

{{LongVersion|topic=Joseph Smith papyri|url=http://www.fairwiki.org/index.php/Book_of_Abraham_papyri|extra=}}

{{BofAPortal}}In July 1835, Joseph Smith purchased a collection of papyri and mummies that had been discovered in Egypt and brought to the United States. Joseph Smith stated that one of the rolls contained, "the writings of Abraham while he was in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham, purportedly written by his own hand, upon papyrus,"{{ref|hc1}} and he commenced a translation of the papyri.

The translated text and facsimiles of three drawings were published in the early 1840s in serial fashion in the LDS newspaper ''Times and Seasons''. The entire work was published in 1852 in England as part of ''The Pearl of Great Price'', which was later canonized as part of LDS scripture.

The original papyri were thought to have been completely destroyed in the Chicago fire of 1871. However, fragments of them, including Facsimile number 1, were discovered in 1967 in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York City, and given to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

==Criticism==
Critics of the Book of Abraham attack it from several directions. This article will address these major criticisms:
*The Joseph Smith papyri date to about the 2nd century, <small>B.C.</small> Latter-day Saints, however (including, perhaps, Joseph Smith), have claimed that the papyri were written by Abraham who lived about 2,000 years earlier.

*From what may be surmised from the "Kirtland Egyptian Papers" (see below) the surviving Egyptian papyri appear to be the source for the Book of Abraham. Egyptologists, however, agree that these papyri are part of a collection of Egyptian funerary documents known as the ''Book of Breathings'' and do not deal with Abraham.

*Part of the drawings (vignettes) on the papyri have been destroyed. While it appears that Joseph "restored" these missing parts, non-LDS Egyptologists do not recognize these restorations as accurate.

===Source(s) of the criticism=== 
*Edward H. Ashment, ''The Use of Egyptian Magical Papyri to Authenticate the Book of Abraham: A Critical Review,'' Salt Lake City: Resource Communications, 1993.
*Charles M. Larson, ''By His Own Hand upon Papyrus: A New Look at the Joseph Smith Papyri,'' 2nd ed., Grand Rapids, MI: Institute for Religious Research, 1992.
*Jerald and Sandra Tanner, "Solving the Mystery of the Joseph Smith Papyri," ''Salt Lake City Messenger'' 82 (September 1992): 1–12.

==Responses==
===The date of the Book of Abraham vs. the date of the papyrus===
When Joseph Smith obtained the papyri in 1835, he reportedly said that "one of the rolls contained the writings of Abraham...."{{ref|hc2}} According to Joseph's scribes, this scroll was "written" by Abraham's "own hand upon papyrus."{{ref|marquardt1}} It seems reasonable to conclude that Joseph believed that Abraham himself, with pen in hand, wrote the very words that he was translating. The problem is that most modern scholars (including LDS scholars) date the papyri to a few centuries before Christ, whereas Abraham lived about two millennia before Christ. Obviously, Abraham himself could not have penned the papyri.

This issue is very similar to that of Book of Mormon geography. It is very likely that Joseph Smith believed in a hemispheric Book of Mormon geography—it made sense to his understanding of the world around him. Such a misinformed belief makes him no less a prophet; it simply provides us with an example of how Joseph—like any other human—tried to understand new information by integrating it with his current knowledge. So, likewise, with the Abrahamic papyri: Joseph, by way of revelation, saw that the papyri contained scriptural teachings of Abraham. It would be natural, therefore, to assume that Abraham wrote the papyri. But, some will ask, how could the teachings of Abraham be present on a document written two thousand years after Abraham lived? As Gee notes, we find the same thing with Biblical manuscripts. There is a major difference, he explains, "between the date of a text [the information contained on the papyri] and the date of a manuscript [the papyri itself]."{{ref|gee5}}

:The date of a text is the date when the text was written by its author. A text can be copied into various manuscripts or translated into other languages, and these manuscripts or translations will have different, later dates than the date of the original text. When we refer to the date of a text, we refer to the date of the original text. For example, the text of the Gospel of Matthew was written in the first century <small>A.D.</small>, but the earliest manuscript that we have of Matthew was copied in the third century.{{ref|gee6}}

If, for example, one held out a modern LDS Bible and pointing to 1 Corinthians asked, "Who penned this book?" most people would respond with, "Paul." The copy of the scriptures, however, was printed within the last few decades, and the English wording is based on what King James scholars decided that the ancient biblical manuscripts said. Paul, himself, did not pen any modern printing of the scriptural book even if he did author the original text. How can we fault Joseph for basically stating the same thing?

Some LDS scholars propose that the original Book of Abraham "text" was written by Abraham and then "passed down through his descendants (the Jews), some of whom took a copy to Egypt where it was copied (after being translated) onto a later manuscript."{{ref|gee7}} Such a proposal makes a lot of sense since we recognize that this the typical provenance of most Biblical documents.

===The Kirtland Egyptian Papers===
''(Main article: [[Kirtland Egyptian Papers]])''

Among the early Book-of-Abraham-related-manuscripts that have survived from the days of Joseph Smith are a number of papers collectively referred to as the "Kirtland Egyptian Papers" (KEP). These pages were written while the Saints lived in Kirtland, Ohio, and were recorded in the general time frame that Joseph was translating the Book of Abraham. They are in the same handwriting of several of Joseph's scribes.

There are at least two evidences which demonstrate an obvious connection between some of the Kirtland Egyptian papers and the Book of Breathings scroll from the Joseph Smith Papyri (JSP).

Like the Hebrews, the Egyptians read right to left. The "Scroll of Hor"-- which is the Book of Breathings scroll in the JSP collection-- begins (at the right end) with Facsimile 1 (as recorded in the Book of Abraham) followed by Egyptian characters.

Some of the KEP are divided by a vertical line at the left side of the paper. About three fourths of the paper is to the right of each line. To the left of the line are Egyptian characters. These are the same characters that follow Facsimile 1 of the Book of Breathings(these would be to the left of the vignette). To the right of the vertical line (on the Kirtland papers) appear to be "translations" of the Egyptian character on the left.

Secondly, we read in the Book of Abraham:

:...that you may have a knowledge of this altar, I will refer you to the representation [Facsimile 1] at the commencement of this record." ([http://scriptures.lds.org/abr/1/12#12 Abraham 1:12]-- keeping in mind that the scroll would have been read from right to left to and Facsimile 1 is virtually the first item at the right end of the scroll.)

On the surface, these two evidences suggest that the Scroll of Hor is the source of the Book of Abraham.

The critics also claim that, since the Scroll of Hor is a fairly typical Book of Breathings scroll, we would know that the entire scroll would not be much longer than the extant portions of the papyrus fragments; therefore, what we have is virtually all there was of this particular papyrus.

A superficially plausible initial assumption is that the KEP represent Joseph's attempt to translate the hieroglyphics from those portions that are still extant. Critics attempt to trouble the Saints, however, with the fact that Egyptologists tell us that the "translations" do not accurately reflect the meanings of the hieroglyphics. In some cases, several paragraphs of English text (the English translation of the Book of Abraham) are written in what appears to be an English translation of these Egyptian characters (in some instances, one character seems to yield several sentences of English text). To the critics, this is proof that Joseph was a false prophet.

There is, however, a more likely scenario that is compatible with Joseph's prophetic claims. Many LDS scholars have claimed that the Kirtland Egyptian Papers are an example of a backwards translation. In other words, Joseph translated the Book of Abraham prior to the creation of the KEP and then he, and other early LDS brethren, tried to match the translated text to what they believed were the characters that were used to elicit the translation. In this scenario the KEP was not the product of revelation, but was rather an attempt to "study out" the translation, after-the-fact, in what might have been an experiment to create an Egyptian alphabet.{{ref|nibley3}} In essense, Joseph and his friends were trying to "reverse engineer" the translation of Egyptian script using the inspired translation he had already produced. The men at Kirtland were treating the Book of Abraham as a sort of Rosetta Stone from which they hoped to crack the code for Egyptian (which was largely untranslatable by scholars of the time.)

But why would it appear that Joseph thought these Egyptian characters translated into Abrahamic scripture when they clearly do not?

====A Jewish Redactor====

It should first be undestood that we do not have all the papyri that Joseph Smith had when he translated the Book of Abraham. Some of the papyri were burned in the Chicago fire and it's possible that other fragments were lost or destroyed elsewhere. Yale-trained Egyptologist, Dr. John Gee, believes that Joseph Smith originally had five papyrus scrolls (one of which was the hypocephalus).{{ref|gee1}} Of these five scrolls, only eleven fragments of two scrolls have survived. The "Scroll of Hor" (the Egyptian Book of Breathings) from where we get Facsimile 1 (and almost certainly [http://scriptures.lds.org/abr/fac_3 Facsimile 3]—which didn't survive) is incomplete.

Dr. Nibley writes:

:We are told that papyri were in beautiful condition when Joseph Smith got them, and that one of them when unrolled on the floor extended through two rooms of the Mansion House.{{ref|nibley2}}

Nothing like this has survived today. Dr. Gee estimates that the Scroll of Hor (likely the putative [supposed] source for the Book of Abraham) may have been ten feet long{{ref|gee2}} and that in all, Joseph may have had eight times as much papyri as what is currently extant.{{ref|gee3}} A number of scholars contend that the reason that the extant papyrus fragments don't have anything to do with the Book of Abraham is because we don't have that portion of the papyrus that served as the text from whence Joseph translated the Book of Abraham. At the very least, the critics ought to be cautious if only 13% of the ancient scrolls are currently known!

And while it's true that the extant portions of the JSP are from the Book of the Dead and the Book of Breathings and do not, according to Egyptologists, translate to anything like the LDS Book of Abraham, this doesn't necessarily mean that the translation didn't derive from Joseph's papyri.

There are other scenarios that are compatible with Joseph's claims. We know from other sources, for instance, that sometimes scrolls were attached together. To quote Gee:

:Some people assume that if the documents [JSP] are funerary they cannot contain anything else. Some Book of the Dead papyri, however, do contain other texts. For example, a fragmentary Eighteenth-Dynasty Book of the Dead in Cairo...contains account texts on the front side (recto) [with the Book of the Dead on the back side]. Papyrus Vandier also has a Book of the Dead on the verso (back side), but the recto contains the story of Meryre, who was sacrificed on an altar (an intriguing similarity to the Book of Abraham). The Book of the Dead of Psenmines...and Pawerem...both contain temple rituals. Both Papyrus Harkness and BM 10507 (demotic funerary papyri) contain several different texts. Just because the preserved sections of the Joseph Smith Papyri are funerary in nature does not mean that they could not have had other texts, either on the verso or on missing sections of the rolls.{{ref|gee4}}

It is therefore possible that the Book of Abraham manuscript was attached to the Book of Breathings. But why? Why would an important Semitic document be attached to a pagan (Egyptian) funerary text?

Kevin Barney posits that the Book of Abraham material was passed on through the generations from Abraham to Jews of the 2nd century <small>B.C.</small>—or the Ptolemaic period—just as Old Testament scriptures were passed on to later generations.Sometime in the Ptolemaic period, a hypothetical Jewish redactor (editor), whom Barney labels "J-red" attached the Book of Abraham to the Egyptian papyri. Why? Because of the useful symbolism contained on the Egyptian funerary text.

This claim is supported by at least three known ancient Jewish texts. Barney notes that many Biblical scholars believe that an ancient Egyptian book—the Instructions of Amenemope—may have been the source for parts of the biblical book of Proverbs.{{ref|barney1}}

The ancient "Testament of Abraham" has several similarities to the LDS Book of Abraham. The book also has strong similarities to an Egyptian papyrus related to the Book of the Dead. For example, notes Barney, it is widely recognized that a judgment scene described in the Testament of Abraham was

:influenced by an Egyptian psychostasy ("soul weighing") papyrus.... It may even be that the author [of the Testament of Abraham] was gazing on such a psychostasy papyrus when he penned his account. But while there is a clear relationship between the Egyptian psychostasy scene and the judgment scene of the Testament of Abraham, the scene has been transformed to accord with Semitic needs and sensibilities. Osiris [Egyptian god] has become Abel; the Egyptian gods have become angels. Our author looks at the Egyptian illustration, yet sees a situation peopled with Semitic characters.{{ref|barney2}}

Note the Osiris-Abel connection, to which we will return below.

The third example comes from the book of Luke's story of the rich man and Lazarus. In this tale, the beggar Lazarus ate the crumbs that fell from a rich man's table. When Lazarus died, angels carried him to Abraham's bosom. When the rich man died, he awoke in Hell but could see—far away—Lazarus in the bosom of Abraham. The rich man begged Abraham to send the dead Lazarus to his brothers so that they would repent and not befall the same terrible fate. (See [http://scriptures.lds.org/luke/16/19-31#19 Luke 16:19–31]).

Scholars have shown that this story is based on a popular Jewish tale, written in Hebrew, but ultimately based on an Egyptian story. In the original Egyptian legend, the names are different (as are some of the general details of the story) but the basic account and moral is the same. In the Egyptian version, however (the version upon which the Hebrew tradition depends), Osiris plays the part later adapted (by Jews) to Abraham.{{ref|osiris1}} It seems that the early Jews had no problem adapting the pagan god Osiris to important Judaic figures such as Abel or Abraham.

Not only do we see, in the Book of Luke, a Jewish adaptation of an Egyptian judgment scene, but we also find some interesting parallels to Facsimile 1 from the Book of Abraham. In this vignette, Joseph identified the figure lying on the lion couch as Abraham. Egyptologists, however, identify the figure as Osiris.{{ref|osiris2}} Based on an early Judaic adaptation of Facsimile 1, Joseph got it exactly right.

Instead of focusing on how Egyptians of the 2nd century <small>B.C.</small> or 2000 <small>B.C.</small> understood the motifs, Barney convincingly argues that Abraham did not draw the facsimiles (which date nearly two thousand years after Abraham lived) but that these Egyptian vignettes "were either adopted [copied wholesale as the Egyptians drew them] or adapted [altered to more accurately reflect the Semitic perspective] by an Egyptian-Jewish redactor as illustrations of the attempt on Abraham's life and Abraham's teaching astronomy to the Egyptians."{{ref|barney3}} Barney argues that we should focus our attention on understanding how Jews of the 2nd century <small>B.C.</small> understood the Egyptian graphics.

In Facsimile 1 (the lion couch scene), for instance, under the floor there is a crocodile. Under the crocodile are numerous vertical lines. Joseph interpreted these lines as representing the "pillars of heaven." Egyptologists, however, tell us that this is incorrect. These lines really signify the palace façade. The etched lines around the crocodile signify, according to Joseph, "Raukeeyang" or "the expanse or firmament over our heads," or the high "heavens." Egyptologists, however, tell us that the lines are simply waters in which the crocodile swims. So according to an Egyptian interpretation, Joseph got it all wrong.

What if we compare Joseph's interpretation to how 2nd century <small>B.C.</small> Jews might have understood the scene? Firstly, Joseph's "Raukeeyang" is very similar to the Hebrew word for "expanse."{{ref|barney4}} "In Hebrew cosmology," writes Barney, "the Hebrew 'firmament' was believed to be a solid dome, supported by pillars." Recall the vertical lines in the vignette. This, "in turn was closely associated with the celestial ocean, which it supported." And remember that in Facsimile 1 it appears that the pillars are under the water in which the crocodile swims.

:In the lower half of Facsimile 1, we have [the firmament]...(1) connected with the waters, as with the celestial ocean, (2) appearing to be supported by pillars, and (3) being solid and therefore capable of serving itself as a support, in this case for the lion couch. The bottom half of Facsimile 1 would have looked to J-red very much like a microcosm of the universe (in much the same way that the divine throne chariot of Ezekiel 1–2, which associates the four four-faced fiery living creatures with the [firmament]...above their heads on which God sits enthroned, is a microcosm of the universe).{{ref|barney5}}

If we accept a Jewish redactor adapting Egyptian motifs to a Hebrew understanding, we can easily appreciate the possibility that "J-red" attached the Book of Abraham manuscript to the Book of Breathings in order to graphically convey the doctrines portrayed in the manuscript. Barney gives this useful comparison to the Book of Mormon:

:The gold plates were untouched by human hands from the time Moroni deposited them in a stone box in the fifth century <small>A.D.</small> until Joseph's retrieval of the cache in 1827. Prior to that time, however, the records of the Book of Mormon peoples underwent an express redaction [abridgement or editing] process at the hands of Mormon and Moroni. Similarly, the papyrus source for the Book of Abraham sat untouched from the time it was deposited in the tomb during Greco-Roman age until Lebolo retrieved it [about 1820]. Before that time, though, it circulated among people and was subject to normal transmission processes. My hypothetical redactor, J-red, was in essentially the same position with respect to the Book of Abraham as Mormon was with respect to the Book of Mormon.{{ref|barney6}}

The Egyptians, like the Hebrews, wrote from right to left. And while Joseph didn't know Egyptian, he was (at this point in his life) studying Hebrew and he may have assumed that the Egyptians wrote in the same direction. At the right end of the scroll (the beginning of the scroll), we find Facsimile 1. Abraham referred the Facsimile ("the representation") at the beginning of "this record." To the Joseph, and other early Saints, this would have seemed to indicate that the "record" of Abraham was part of the early portion of the scroll and thus they began their backwards translation from this point. In reality, however, "this record" probably referred to the beginning of the combined scrolls (that begins with Facsimile 1) but not the beginning of the Abrahamic text (which would have been appended to the Book of Breathings scroll).{{ref|barney7}}

It must be remembered that Joseph could not read Egyptian. He did not "translate" in the normal sense—as evidenced by his after-the-fact effort to reverse engineer Egyptian via his divinely-given translation. He translated by the power of God. It is possible that Joseph, at times, translated the Book of Mormon while the plates were covered, or perhaps even while the plates were removed from the room.

While an actual Book of Abraham manuscript could have been appended to the Book of Breathings manuscript, it is significant to recognize that revelation was the method by which the text was translated. This realization allows for still other possibilities. If, for example, the appended Abrahamic scroll was damaged, Joseph would still have been able to "translate" the text. If the appended scroll was partially missing, the "translation" might not have suffered. It's also possible that Joseph, in the process of creating the KEP, looked at the Egyptian characters and—thinking that they were the Egyptian symbols composed by Abraham—proceeded to "translate" from these characters. In such a scenario the actual Book of Abraham translation could still be based on a real manuscript, but not on what Joseph thought was the manuscript. In any case, we need not reject Joseph's prophetic calling or ability to translate.

===Restoring gaps in the drawings===
[[Image:BOAfacsimile1.jpg|frame|200px|right|Photograph of Facsimile 1 from the recovered Joseph Smith Papyri]]Examination of the extant papyri fragments reveals that portions of Facsimile 1 (the only facsimile that survived) are damaged. For a number of years, scholars have debated whether the facsimile was damaged before or after Joseph acquired the papyri. It seems that the Book of Breathings scroll (containing Facsimile 1) was marred by a lacuna—a missing portion—that had torn off the scroll. The debate over the date of the lacuna directly relates to the images on Facsimile 1. This vignette—as shown in the LDS Book of Abraham—shows a figure (interpreted as Abraham) lying on a lion couch with arms raised as if attitude of pleading or prayer. The figure standing over Abraham is a bald man (presumably an Egyptian priest) with a knife in one hand—as if he was about to kill Abraham. Flying just above Abraham is a hawk (or falcon) with outstretched wings. The scroll's lacuna extends over an area which includes the Egyptian priest's head, the knife, and one of Abraham's supplicating arms.

Since Facsimile 1 appears to be a fairly typical scene from Egyptian funerary texts, the critics note that other similar Egyptian motifs depict the priest (an embalmer) with the head of Anubis (an Egyptian god) rather than a bald, human head. Other comparable Egyptian embalming scenes do not show the priest holding a knife, they do not show any man pleading or praying, and they generally show two hawks. The critics claim that Joseph Smith drew in the missing parts by adding (incorrectly) those things which we find in the LDS version of this Egyptian scene. What Joseph saw as fingers of Abraham's outstretched hands, for instance, were actually (according to the critics) the wing-tips of the missing second hawk.

Many LDS scholars believe that the scroll was damaged after Joseph translated the vignette and some evidence seems to support this view. One early Latter-day Saint who saw the papyri in 1841, for instance, described them as containing the scene of an altar with "'a man bound and laid thereon, and a Priest with a knife in his hand, standing at the foot, with a dove over the person bound on the Altar with several Idol gods standing around it.'"{{ref|appleby1}} Similarly, Reverend Henry Caswall, who visited Nauvoo in April 1842, had a chance to see some of the Egyptian papyri. Caswall, who was hostile to the Saints, described Facsimile 1 as having a "'man standing by him with a drawn knife.'"{{ref|caswall1}}

The critics, however, claim that evidence supports a belief that the scroll was already damaged prior to Joseph's involvement and that Joseph merely sketched in the parts missing in the lacuna. It's seems apparent, for example, that the lacuna descends several layers into the rolled scroll (the larger tear is at the first—or top—part, and the same outlined tear—only smaller—appears in the lower layers). Non-LDS Egyptologists do not think Joseph's "restoration" accurately reflects what was originally shown on the papyri, and in at least some instances, it seems that Joseph invented hieroglyphic characters to fill in for missing characters lost by the lacuna. This suggests that part of the scroll's tore/fell away when it was first unrolled and prior to Joseph's translation. For the sake of argument, let us grant the theory proposed by the critic—that the lacuna was present prior to Joseph making a translation and that Joseph (or some other early leader) "restored" the missing information.

Some considerations: there is at least some evidence that the LDS version has precedence in ancient Egyptian drawings. Some LDS researchers, for instance, have argued that the fingers/wing-tips look significantly more like fingers (according to Egyptian drawings) than hawk wing-tips. A number of scholars have noted that the Egyptians were very specific in how they drew wings and thumbs.{{ref|shirts1}}

It's also interesting to note that although embalming priests are typically drawn with Anubis heads in Book of Breathings motifs, other Egyptian graphics show that Egyptian priests are represented as bald and that Anubis heads were worn as masks to emulate the gods.{{ref|shirts2}} When compared to other Egyptian drawings, some of the Book of Abraham restorations are plausible.

Another consideration: We don't know that Joseph was the responsible party for sketching in the missing portions of Facsimile 1. It is possible that one of Joseph's contemporaries "restored" the missing parts, or it is possible that "J-red" or some other Jewish copyist "restored" the parts in order to more closely approximate the details conveyed by the Abrahamic text. It is certainly also possible that Joseph "restored" the missing parts either because they were in the original papyri—as edited by "J-red"—or because Joseph felt that such restorations more accurately reflected the Book of Abraham's intended use of the graphic as pertaining to the details discussed in the text.

Joseph's amendments to later editions of the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine & Covenants, and even the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible, are all instructive when we compare the graphical alterations in Facsimile 1. In each case, Joseph Smith—by way of revelation, inspiration, or prophetic analysis—"restored" or amended scripture to more closely approximate the additional insights he had gleaned by divine revelation.

Another possibility is that Joseph, Reuben Hedlock (the engraver), or someone else simply filled in the lacunae in the papyri the best he could for purposes of publication. Modern documentary editing standards would require that any holes or gaps in the papyri be represented as such, but the Book of Abraham was published long before the rise of such standards. Just as it was the practice of the day to edit out infelicities rather than to preserve them (as modern scholars do), so it would have been thought inaesthetic to publish incomplete or marred facsimiles. If this is the correct explanation, one need not suppose that the textual repair for purposes of publication was the result of revealed insight.

===Evidence for the Antiquity of Joseph's Book of Abraham===
There is evidence from antiquity—both in the Abrahamic tradition and in the Jewish recontextualization of Egyptian vignettes and dramas—which lend support to the claim that Joseph translated (albeit by unconventional means) the Book of Abraham from an authentic ancient source.

While Book of Abraham "translations" and "restorations" of the damaged vignettes do not seem to square with the translations of non-LDS Egyptologists, there are several instances when Joseph did get some of the details correct. This is no small thing considering that neither Joseph, nor any one in his day, could translate Egyptian.

====The Sons of Horus====
Facsimile 2 (shown between Chapters 3 and 4 of the Book of Abraham in the LDS Pearl of Great Price), is known as a hypocephalus ("under the head") and was a small disk-shaped object that was placed under the head of the deceased. The Egyptians "believed it would magically cause the head and body to be enveloped in flames or radiance, thus making the deceased divine."{{ref|rhodes1}} In this drawing (or vignette), stand four mummy-like figures known—to Egyptologists—as the Sons of Horus. Their images were also on the canopic jars (the jars that stored the internal organs of the deceased) that we see under the lion couch in Joseph Smith's Facsimile 1. Joseph revealed that these four figures represented "this earth in its four quarters." According to modern Egyptologists, Joseph Smith is correct. The Sons of Horus "were the gods of the four quarters of the earth and later came to be regarded as presiding over the four cardinal points."{{ref|rhodes2}}

====Abrahamic Traditions====
Years ago, Dr. Nibley pointed out that the critics neglect the ancient Near Eastern Abrahamic traditions that support the story found in the Book of Abraham.{{ref|nibley1}} Ancient Abrahamic lore and Jewish traditions preserved in ancient texts, show some surprising parallels to what we find in the text of the Book of Abraham. Some of these parallels imply that Joseph (who likely could not have had access to many of these traditions) actually restored authentic ancient Abrahamic traditions. Some of these parallels include early Jewish traditions about Abraham's life—details not found in the Bible.{{ref|abrtrad1}} Two such ancient documents that show some surprising parallels to our Book of Abraham are the ''Apocalypse of Abraham''{{ref|astpapcov1}} and the Testament of Abraham{{ref|testabr1}} (the Apocalypse of Abraham dates to about the same time as the Book of Abraham papyri).

Other interesting parallels include ancient names and astronomy. Ancient Egyptian names, for example, that would have been unknown to Joseph Smith, are accurately represented in the Book of Abraham both phonetically as well as in meaning.{{ref|phone1}} With regard to astronomy, we find that in Joseph Smith's day "heliocentricity" (as proposed by Copernicus and Newton) was the accepted astronomical view. Nineteenth-century people (including the most brilliant minds of the day) believed that everything revolved around the Sun—therefore the term "heliocentric" (Greek ''helios''=sun + centered). (In the twentieth-first century we generally accept an Einsteinian view of the cosmos.) The Book of Abraham, however, clearly delineates a ''geocentric'' view of the universe—or a belief that the Earth (Greek ''geo'') stood at the center of the universe, and all things moved around our planet.

According to ancient geocentric cosmologies and what we read in the Book of Abraham, the heavens (which is defined as the expanse above the earth—no celestial object is mentioned to exist below the earth) was composed of multiple layers or tiers—each tier higher than the previous. Therefore the Sun is in a higher tier than the moon, and the stars are in higher tiers still (compare [http://scriptures.lds.org/abr/3/5,9,17#5 Abraham 3:5, 9, 17]).{{ref|astpapcov2}} According to geocentric astronomy, celestial objects have longer time spans (or lengths of "reckoning") based upon their relative distance from the earth. "Thus, the length of reckoning of a planet is based on its revolution [time to orbit around the center, in this case the earth](and not rotation [time to spin on its axis, as the earth does every 24 hours])."{{ref|astpapcov3}} The higher the celestial object, the greater its length of reckoning (compare [http://scriptures.lds.org/abr/3/5#5 Abraham 3:5]). Likewise, in [http://scriptures.lds.org/abr/3/8-9#8 Abraham 3:8–9], we read that "there shall be another planet whose reckoning of time shall be longer still; And thus there shall be the reckoning of the time of one planet above another, until thou come nigh unto Kolob."

Ancient geocentric astronomers believed that the stars were "the outer-most celestial sphere, furthest from the earth and nearest to God."{{ref|astpapcov4}} We find in the Book of Abraham that the star Kolob was the star nearest "the throne of God" ([http://scriptures.lds.org/abr/3/9#9 Abraham 3:9]). In the ancient, yet recently discovered, Apocalypse of Abraham (which dates from about the same time period as the JSP), we find that God's throne is said to reside in the eighth firmament (the firmaments, being another term for the varying tiers in the heavens above the Earth).{{ref|astpapcov5}}

The Book of Abraham also reveals that those celestial objects that are highest above the earth, "govern" the objects below them (see [http://scriptures.lds.org/abr/3/3,9#3 Abraham 3:3, 9] and [http://scriptures.lds.org/abr/fac_2 Facsimile 2, fig. 5]). This sounds similar to the beliefs of those who accepted an ancient geocentric cosmology:

:Throughout the ancient world the governing role of celestial bodies was conceived in similar terms. God sits on his throne in the highest heaven giving commands, which are passed down by angels through the various regions of heaven, with each region governing or commanding the regions beneath it.''{{ref|astpapcov6}}

We find this governing order described in the Apocalypse of Abraham and other ancient sources. All of this makes sense only from an ancient geocentric perspective (such as that believed in Abraham's day) and makes no sense from a heliocentric perspective (which is what Joseph would have known in his day).

A different interesting parallel comes from [http://scriptures.lds.org/abr/fac_1 Facsimile 1] (Abraham on the lion couch). According to Egyptologists, this is a typical Egyptian embalming scene and has nothing to do with Abraham or sacrifice. In fact, the critics assure us, Abraham is not a topic of discussion in Egyptian papyri, and there is no connection with Abraham and the embalming lion couch.

Recent discoveries, however, suggests that the Biblical Abraham does appear in some Egyptian papyri that date to the same period as the JSP. In one instance (thus far discovered) Abraham's name appears to have a connection to an Egyptian lion couch scene.{{ref|gee8}}

The stories and worldviews we find in the translated text of our Book of Abraham coincide nicely with what we find from ancient Abrahamic lore. The critics must account for Joseph Smith's extensive knowledge of these areas, which he then integrated into a theologically rich whole.

==Conclusion==
When we critically examine the charges against the Book of Abraham in light of what we now know about ancient Jewish traditions and the adaptation of Egyptian iconography, we find that an ancient Book of Abraham is not only plausible, but believable.

==Endnotes==
#{{note|hc1}}{{HoC|vol=2|start=235, 236, 348|end=351}}
#{{note|hc2}}{{HoC1|vol=2|start=236}}
#{{note|marquardt1}}Michael H. Marquardt, "A Book Note — Hugh Nibley's ''Abraham in Egypt''" (2000).
#{{note|gee5}}{{GuideJSP1|start= 15}}
#{{note|gee6}}Gee, ''A Guide to the Joseph Smith Papyri,'' 23–24.
#{{note|gee7}}''Ibid''., 28.
#{{note|nibley3}}{{BYUS|author=Hugh W. Nibley|article=The Meaning of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers|vol=11|num=1|date=Summer 1971|start=350|end=399}}{{link|url=http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=transcripts&id=121}}
#{{note|gee1}}{{Ensign|author=John Gee|article=Research and Perspectives: Abraham in Ancient Egyptian Texts|date=July 1992|start=60|end=?}}; {{FR-7-1-5}}
#{{note|nibley2}}{{Dialogue1|author=Hugh W. Nibley|article=Phase One|vol=3|num=2|date=Summer 1968|start=101}}{{link|url=http://content.lib.utah.edu/cdm4/document.php?CISOROOT=/dialogue&CISOPTR=1659&REC=10}}
#{{note|gee2}}Gee, ''A Guide to the Joseph Smith Papyri,'' 12–13.
#{{note|gee3}}John Gee, "Facsimile 3," lecture given at the FARMS Book of Abraham Conference (16 October 1999), personal notes of conference talks by Michael Ash; see also, John Gee, "The Ancient Owners of the Joseph Smith Papyri" (Provo: FARMS, 1999), 1.
#{{note|gee4}}{{DiscipleWitness1|author=John Gee|article=Eyewitness, Hearsay, and Physical Evidence of the Joseph Smith Papyri|start=192}}
#{{note|barney1}}{{BarneyJ-red|start=115|end=116}}
#{{note|barney2}}''Ibid''., 117–118.
#{{note|osiris1}}Barney, "The Facsimiles," 119–21; Blake T. Ostler, "Abraham: An Egyptian Connection" (FARMS paper, 1981); Kerry Shirts, "Abraham, Father of the Faithful, Or Osiris, Pagan Egyptian God?"], ''Mormonism Researched'' (accessed 6 October 2005). {{link|url=http://www2.ida.net/graphics/shirtail/abraham.htm}}
#{{note|osiris2}}Charles M. Larson, ''By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus: A New Look at the Joseph Smith Papyri'' (Grand Rapids, MI: Institute for Religious Research, 1992), 102.
#{{note|barney3}}Barney, "The Facsimiles," 114.
#{{note|barney4}}''Ibid''., 123; see also Tvedtnes, "Authentic Ancient Names."
#{{note|barney5}}''Ibid''., 123.
#{{note|barney6}}''Ibid''., 126.
#{{note|barney7}}Barney, "The Facsimiles," 127.
#{{note|appleby1}}William I. Appleby Journal, 5 May 1841, ms. 1401 1, pp. 71–72, LDS Church Archives; as quoted in Gee, "Eyewitness, Hearsay, and Physical Evidence," 184.
#{{note|caswall1}}Henry Caswall, ''The City of the Mormons; or, Three Days at Nauvoo, in 1842'' (London: Rivington, 1842), 23; quoted in Gee, "Eyewitness, Hearsay, and Physical Evidence," 186.
#{{note|shirts1}}Kerry A. Shirts, "On Wings & Thumbs & Other Things"{{link|url=http://www2.ida.net/graphics/shirtail/charles.htm}}; Gee, ''A Guide to the Joseph Smith Papyri,'' 38.
#{{note|shirts2}}Kerry A. Shirts, "On Anubis, Masks, and Uniqueness of Facsimile #1 in the Book of Abraham."{{link|url=http://www2.ida.net/graphics/shirtail/rename.htm}}
#{{note|rhodes1}}Michael D. Rhodes, "The Joseph Smith Hypocephalus...Twenty Years Later." {{pdflink|url=http://home.comcast.net/~michael.rhodes/JosephSmithHypocephalus.pdf}}
#{{note|rhodes2}}''Ibid.''
#{{note|nibley1}}{{IE1|author=Hugh W. Nibley|article=The Unknown Abraham|date=January 1969|start=26}}
#{{note|abrtrad1}}See {{TraditionsAbraham0}}
#{{note|astpapcov1}}For some of the parallels see {{Nibley14|start=8|end=40}}; {{APC|author=John Gee, William J. Hamblin, and Daniel C. Peterson|article='And I Saw the Stars': The Book of Abraham and Ancient Geocentric Astronomy|start=1|end=16}} {{link1|url=http://farms.byu.edu/publications/bookschapter.php?bookid=40&chapid=161}}
#{{note|testabr1}}See Jeff Lindsay, "Could there have been a real Egyptian scroll that actually, literally discussed Abraham?" (accessed 23 September 2005){{link|url=http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_Abraham.shtml}}; {{FR-4-1-16}}; {{sunstone|author=Hugh Nibley|article=The Facsimiles of the Book of Abraham|4=x|date=December 1979|start=49|end=51}}; Kerry Shirts, "The Book of the Dead and the Book of Abraham" {{link|url=http://www2.ida.net/graphics/shirtail/egyptian.htm}}; {{Nibley14_1|start=1}}
#{{note|phone1}}See John A. Tvedtnes, "Authentic Ancient Names and Words in the Book of Abraham and Related Kirtland Egyptian Papers," presentation at the 2005 FAIR Conference; Kerry Shirts, "On the Names of the Four Canopic Jars in Facsimile 1." {{link|url=http://www2.ida.net/graphics/shirtail/onthe.htm}}
#{{note|astpapcov2}}Gee, Hamblin, and Peterson, "'And I Saw the Stars'", 5.
#{{note|astpapcov3}}''Ibid''., 8.
#{{note|astpapcov4}}''Ibid''., 9.
#{{note|astpapcov5}}''Ibid''.
#{{note|astpapcov6}}''Ibid''., 10.
#{{note|gee8}}{{GuideJSP|start=12|end=13}}

==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===

{{BookofAbrahamWiki}}

===FAIR web site===

{{BookofAbrahamFAIR}}

===External links===
{{BookofAbrahamLinks}}

===Printed material===
{{BookofAbrahamPrint}}

Book of Abraham/Papyri/Long article

2007-08-01T01:32:28Z

SuzanneArmitage: /* Endnotes */

{{LongVersion|topic=Joseph Smith papyri|url=http://www.fairwiki.org/index.php/Book_of_Abraham_papyri|extra=}}

{{BofAPortal}}In July 1835, Joseph Smith purchased a collection of papyri and mummies that had been discovered in Egypt and brought to the United States. Joseph Smith stated that one of the rolls contained, "the writings of Abraham while he was in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham, purportedly written by his own hand, upon papyrus,"{{ref|hc1}} and he commenced a translation of the papyri.

The translated text and facsimiles of three drawings were published in the early 1840s in serial fashion in the LDS newspaper ''Times and Seasons''. The entire work was published in 1852 in England as part of ''The Pearl of Great Price'', which was later canonized as part of LDS scripture.

The original papyri were thought to have been completely destroyed in the Chicago fire of 1871. However, fragments of them, including Facsimile number 1, were discovered in 1967 in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York City, and given to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

==Criticism==
Critics of the Book of Abraham attack it from several directions. This article will address these major criticisms:
*The Joseph Smith papyri date to about the 2nd century, <small>B.C.</small> Latter-day Saints, however (including, perhaps, Joseph Smith), have claimed that the papyri were written by Abraham who lived about 2,000 years earlier.

*From what may be surmised from the "Kirtland Egyptian Papers" (see below) the surviving Egyptian papyri appear to be the source for the Book of Abraham. Egyptologists, however, agree that these papyri are part of a collection of Egyptian funerary documents known as the ''Book of Breathings'' and do not deal with Abraham.

*Part of the drawings (vignettes) on the papyri have been destroyed. While it appears that Joseph "restored" these missing parts, non-LDS Egyptologists do not recognize these restorations as accurate.

===Source(s) of the criticism=== 
*Edward H. Ashment, ''The Use of Egyptian Magical Papyri to Authenticate the Book of Abraham: A Critical Review,'' Salt Lake City: Resource Communications, 1993.
*Charles M. Larson, ''By His Own Hand upon Papyrus: A New Look at the Joseph Smith Papyri,'' 2nd ed., Grand Rapids, MI: Institute for Religious Research, 1992.
*Jerald and Sandra Tanner, "Solving the Mystery of the Joseph Smith Papyri," ''Salt Lake City Messenger'' 82 (September 1992): 1–12.

==Responses==
===The date of the Book of Abraham vs. the date of the papyrus===
When Joseph Smith obtained the papyri in 1835, he reportedly said that "one of the rolls contained the writings of Abraham...."{{ref|hc2}} According to Joseph's scribes, this scroll was "written" by Abraham's "own hand upon papyrus."{{ref|marquardt1}} It seems reasonable to conclude that Joseph believed that Abraham himself, with pen in hand, wrote the very words that he was translating. The problem is that most modern scholars (including LDS scholars) date the papyri to a few centuries before Christ, whereas Abraham lived about two millennia before Christ. Obviously, Abraham himself could not have penned the papyri.

This issue is very similar to that of Book of Mormon geography. It is very likely that Joseph Smith believed in a hemispheric Book of Mormon geography—it made sense to his understanding of the world around him. Such a misinformed belief makes him no less a prophet; it simply provides us with an example of how Joseph—like any other human—tried to understand new information by integrating it with his current knowledge. So, likewise, with the Abrahamic papyri: Joseph, by way of revelation, saw that the papyri contained scriptural teachings of Abraham. It would be natural, therefore, to assume that Abraham wrote the papyri. But, some will ask, how could the teachings of Abraham be present on a document written two thousand years after Abraham lived? As Gee notes, we find the same thing with Biblical manuscripts. There is a major difference, he explains, "between the date of a text [the information contained on the papyri] and the date of a manuscript [the papyri itself]."{{ref|gee5}}

:The date of a text is the date when the text was written by its author. A text can be copied into various manuscripts or translated into other languages, and these manuscripts or translations will have different, later dates than the date of the original text. When we refer to the date of a text, we refer to the date of the original text. For example, the text of the Gospel of Matthew was written in the first century <small>A.D.</small>, but the earliest manuscript that we have of Matthew was copied in the third century.{{ref|gee6}}

If, for example, one held out a modern LDS Bible and pointing to 1 Corinthians asked, "Who penned this book?" most people would respond with, "Paul." The copy of the scriptures, however, was printed within the last few decades, and the English wording is based on what King James scholars decided that the ancient biblical manuscripts said. Paul, himself, did not pen any modern printing of the scriptural book even if he did author the original text. How can we fault Joseph for basically stating the same thing?

Some LDS scholars propose that the original Book of Abraham "text" was written by Abraham and then "passed down through his descendants (the Jews), some of whom took a copy to Egypt where it was copied (after being translated) onto a later manuscript."{{ref|gee7}} Such a proposal makes a lot of sense since we recognize that this the typical provenance of most Biblical documents.

===The Kirtland Egyptian Papers===
''(Main article: [[Kirtland Egyptian Papers]])''

Among the early Book-of-Abraham-related-manuscripts that have survived from the days of Joseph Smith are a number of papers collectively referred to as the "Kirtland Egyptian Papers" (KEP). These pages were written while the Saints lived in Kirtland, Ohio, and were recorded in the general time frame that Joseph was translating the Book of Abraham. They are in the same handwriting of several of Joseph's scribes.

There are at least two evidences which demonstrate an obvious connection between some of the Kirtland Egyptian papers and the Book of Breathings scroll from the Joseph Smith Papyri (JSP).

Like the Hebrews, the Egyptians read right to left. The "Scroll of Hor"-- which is the Book of Breathings scroll in the JSP collection-- begins (at the right end) with Facsimile 1 (as recorded in the Book of Abraham) followed by Egyptian characters.

Some of the KEP are divided by a vertical line at the left side of the paper. About three fourths of the paper is to the right of each line. To the left of the line are Egyptian characters. These are the same characters that follow Facsimile 1 of the Book of Breathings(these would be to the left of the vignette). To the right of the vertical line (on the Kirtland papers) appear to be "translations" of the Egyptian character on the left.

Secondly, we read in the Book of Abraham:

:...that you may have a knowledge of this altar, I will refer you to the representation [Facsimile 1] at the commencement of this record." ([http://scriptures.lds.org/abr/1/12#12 Abraham 1:12]-- keeping in mind that the scroll would have been read from right to left to and Facsimile 1 is virtually the first item at the right end of the scroll.)

On the surface, these two evidences suggest that the Scroll of Hor is the source of the Book of Abraham.

The critics also claim that, since the Scroll of Hor is a fairly typical Book of Breathings scroll, we would know that the entire scroll would not be much longer than the extant portions of the papyrus fragments; therefore, what we have is virtually all there was of this particular papyrus.

A superficially plausible initial assumption is that the KEP represent Joseph's attempt to translate the hieroglyphics from those portions that are still extant. Critics attempt to trouble the Saints, however, with the fact that Egyptologists tell us that the "translations" do not accurately reflect the meanings of the hieroglyphics. In some cases, several paragraphs of English text (the English translation of the Book of Abraham) are written in what appears to be an English translation of these Egyptian characters (in some instances, one character seems to yield several sentences of English text). To the critics, this is proof that Joseph was a false prophet.

There is, however, a more likely scenario that is compatible with Joseph's prophetic claims. Many LDS scholars have claimed that the Kirtland Egyptian Papers are an example of a backwards translation. In other words, Joseph translated the Book of Abraham prior to the creation of the KEP and then he, and other early LDS brethren, tried to match the translated text to what they believed were the characters that were used to elicit the translation. In this scenario the KEP was not the product of revelation, but was rather an attempt to "study out" the translation, after-the-fact, in what might have been an experiment to create an Egyptian alphabet.{{ref|nibley3}} In essense, Joseph and his friends were trying to "reverse engineer" the translation of Egyptian script using the inspired translation he had already produced. The men at Kirtland were treating the Book of Abraham as a sort of Rosetta Stone from which they hoped to crack the code for Egyptian (which was largely untranslatable by scholars of the time.)

But why would it appear that Joseph thought these Egyptian characters translated into Abrahamic scripture when they clearly do not?

====A Jewish Redactor====

It should first be undestood that we do not have all the papyri that Joseph Smith had when he translated the Book of Abraham. Some of the papyri were burned in the Chicago fire and it's possible that other fragments were lost or destroyed elsewhere. Yale-trained Egyptologist, Dr. John Gee, believes that Joseph Smith originally had five papyrus scrolls (one of which was the hypocephalus).{{ref|gee1}} Of these five scrolls, only eleven fragments of two scrolls have survived. The "Scroll of Hor" (the Egyptian Book of Breathings) from where we get Facsimile 1 (and almost certainly [http://scriptures.lds.org/abr/fac_3 Facsimile 3]—which didn't survive) is incomplete.

Dr. Nibley writes:

:We are told that papyri were in beautiful condition when Joseph Smith got them, and that one of them when unrolled on the floor extended through two rooms of the Mansion House.{{ref|nibley2}}

Nothing like this has survived today. Dr. Gee estimates that the Scroll of Hor (likely the putative [supposed] source for the Book of Abraham) may have been ten feet long{{ref|gee2}} and that in all, Joseph may have had eight times as much papyri as what is currently extant.{{ref|gee3}} A number of scholars contend that the reason that the extant papyrus fragments don't have anything to do with the Book of Abraham is because we don't have that portion of the papyrus that served as the text from whence Joseph translated the Book of Abraham. At the very least, the critics ought to be cautious if only 13% of the ancient scrolls are currently known!

And while it's true that the extant portions of the JSP are from the Book of the Dead and the Book of Breathings and do not, according to Egyptologists, translate to anything like the LDS Book of Abraham, this doesn't necessarily mean that the translation didn't derive from Joseph's papyri.

There are other scenarios that are compatible with Joseph's claims. We know from other sources, for instance, that sometimes scrolls were attached together. To quote Gee:

:Some people assume that if the documents [JSP] are funerary they cannot contain anything else. Some Book of the Dead papyri, however, do contain other texts. For example, a fragmentary Eighteenth-Dynasty Book of the Dead in Cairo...contains account texts on the front side (recto) [with the Book of the Dead on the back side]. Papyrus Vandier also has a Book of the Dead on the verso (back side), but the recto contains the story of Meryre, who was sacrificed on an altar (an intriguing similarity to the Book of Abraham). The Book of the Dead of Psenmines...and Pawerem...both contain temple rituals. Both Papyrus Harkness and BM 10507 (demotic funerary papyri) contain several different texts. Just because the preserved sections of the Joseph Smith Papyri are funerary in nature does not mean that they could not have had other texts, either on the verso or on missing sections of the rolls.{{ref|gee4}}

It is therefore possible that the Book of Abraham manuscript was attached to the Book of Breathings. But why? Why would an important Semitic document be attached to a pagan (Egyptian) funerary text?

Kevin Barney posits that the Book of Abraham material was passed on through the generations from Abraham to Jews of the 2nd century <small>B.C.</small>—or the Ptolemaic period—just as Old Testament scriptures were passed on to later generations.Sometime in the Ptolemaic period, a hypothetical Jewish redactor (editor), whom Barney labels "J-red" attached the Book of Abraham to the Egyptian papyri. Why? Because of the useful symbolism contained on the Egyptian funerary text.

This claim is supported by at least three known ancient Jewish texts. Barney notes that many Biblical scholars believe that an ancient Egyptian book—the Instructions of Amenemope—may have been the source for parts of the biblical book of Proverbs.{{ref|barney1}}

The ancient "Testament of Abraham" has several similarities to the LDS Book of Abraham. The book also has strong similarities to an Egyptian papyrus related to the Book of the Dead. For example, notes Barney, it is widely recognized that a judgment scene described in the Testament of Abraham was

:influenced by an Egyptian psychostasy ("soul weighing") papyrus.... It may even be that the author [of the Testament of Abraham] was gazing on such a psychostasy papyrus when he penned his account. But while there is a clear relationship between the Egyptian psychostasy scene and the judgment scene of the Testament of Abraham, the scene has been transformed to accord with Semitic needs and sensibilities. Osiris [Egyptian god] has become Abel; the Egyptian gods have become angels. Our author looks at the Egyptian illustration, yet sees a situation peopled with Semitic characters.{{ref|barney2}}

Note the Osiris-Abel connection, to which we will return below.

The third example comes from the book of Luke's story of the rich man and Lazarus. In this tale, the beggar Lazarus ate the crumbs that fell from a rich man's table. When Lazarus died, angels carried him to Abraham's bosom. When the rich man died, he awoke in Hell but could see—far away—Lazarus in the bosom of Abraham. The rich man begged Abraham to send the dead Lazarus to his brothers so that they would repent and not befall the same terrible fate. (See [http://scriptures.lds.org/luke/16/19-31#19 Luke 16:19–31]).

Scholars have shown that this story is based on a popular Jewish tale, written in Hebrew, but ultimately based on an Egyptian story. In the original Egyptian legend, the names are different (as are some of the general details of the story) but the basic account and moral is the same. In the Egyptian version, however (the version upon which the Hebrew tradition depends), Osiris plays the part later adapted (by Jews) to Abraham.{{ref|osiris1}} It seems that the early Jews had no problem adapting the pagan god Osiris to important Judaic figures such as Abel or Abraham.

Not only do we see, in the Book of Luke, a Jewish adaptation of an Egyptian judgment scene, but we also find some interesting parallels to Facsimile 1 from the Book of Abraham. In this vignette, Joseph identified the figure lying on the lion couch as Abraham. Egyptologists, however, identify the figure as Osiris.{{ref|osiris2}} Based on an early Judaic adaptation of Facsimile 1, Joseph got it exactly right.

Instead of focusing on how Egyptians of the 2nd century <small>B.C.</small> or 2000 <small>B.C.</small> understood the motifs, Barney convincingly argues that Abraham did not draw the facsimiles (which date nearly two thousand years after Abraham lived) but that these Egyptian vignettes "were either adopted [copied wholesale as the Egyptians drew them] or adapted [altered to more accurately reflect the Semitic perspective] by an Egyptian-Jewish redactor as illustrations of the attempt on Abraham's life and Abraham's teaching astronomy to the Egyptians."{{ref|barney3}} Barney argues that we should focus our attention on understanding how Jews of the 2nd century <small>B.C.</small> understood the Egyptian graphics.

In Facsimile 1 (the lion couch scene), for instance, under the floor there is a crocodile. Under the crocodile are numerous vertical lines. Joseph interpreted these lines as representing the "pillars of heaven." Egyptologists, however, tell us that this is incorrect. These lines really signify the palace façade. The etched lines around the crocodile signify, according to Joseph, "Raukeeyang" or "the expanse or firmament over our heads," or the high "heavens." Egyptologists, however, tell us that the lines are simply waters in which the crocodile swims. So according to an Egyptian interpretation, Joseph got it all wrong.

What if we compare Joseph's interpretation to how 2nd century <small>B.C.</small> Jews might have understood the scene? Firstly, Joseph's "Raukeeyang" is very similar to the Hebrew word for "expanse."{{ref|barney4}} "In Hebrew cosmology," writes Barney, "the Hebrew 'firmament' was believed to be a solid dome, supported by pillars." Recall the vertical lines in the vignette. This, "in turn was closely associated with the celestial ocean, which it supported." And remember that in Facsimile 1 it appears that the pillars are under the water in which the crocodile swims.

:In the lower half of Facsimile 1, we have [the firmament]...(1) connected with the waters, as with the celestial ocean, (2) appearing to be supported by pillars, and (3) being solid and therefore capable of serving itself as a support, in this case for the lion couch. The bottom half of Facsimile 1 would have looked to J-red very much like a microcosm of the universe (in much the same way that the divine throne chariot of Ezekiel 1–2, which associates the four four-faced fiery living creatures with the [firmament]...above their heads on which God sits enthroned, is a microcosm of the universe).{{ref|barney5}}

If we accept a Jewish redactor adapting Egyptian motifs to a Hebrew understanding, we can easily appreciate the possibility that "J-red" attached the Book of Abraham manuscript to the Book of Breathings in order to graphically convey the doctrines portrayed in the manuscript. Barney gives this useful comparison to the Book of Mormon:

:The gold plates were untouched by human hands from the time Moroni deposited them in a stone box in the fifth century <small>A.D.</small> until Joseph's retrieval of the cache in 1827. Prior to that time, however, the records of the Book of Mormon peoples underwent an express redaction [abridgement or editing] process at the hands of Mormon and Moroni. Similarly, the papyrus source for the Book of Abraham sat untouched from the time it was deposited in the tomb during Greco-Roman age until Lebolo retrieved it [about 1820]. Before that time, though, it circulated among people and was subject to normal transmission processes. My hypothetical redactor, J-red, was in essentially the same position with respect to the Book of Abraham as Mormon was with respect to the Book of Mormon.{{ref|barney6}}

The Egyptians, like the Hebrews, wrote from right to left. And while Joseph didn't know Egyptian, he was (at this point in his life) studying Hebrew and he may have assumed that the Egyptians wrote in the same direction. At the right end of the scroll (the beginning of the scroll), we find Facsimile 1. Abraham referred the Facsimile ("the representation") at the beginning of "this record." To the Joseph, and other early Saints, this would have seemed to indicate that the "record" of Abraham was part of the early portion of the scroll and thus they began their backwards translation from this point. In reality, however, "this record" probably referred to the beginning of the combined scrolls (that begins with Facsimile 1) but not the beginning of the Abrahamic text (which would have been appended to the Book of Breathings scroll).{{ref|barney7}}

It must be remembered that Joseph could not read Egyptian. He did not "translate" in the normal sense—as evidenced by his after-the-fact effort to reverse engineer Egyptian via his divinely-given translation. He translated by the power of God. It is possible that Joseph, at times, translated the Book of Mormon while the plates were covered, or perhaps even while the plates were removed from the room.

While an actual Book of Abraham manuscript could have been appended to the Book of Breathings manuscript, it is significant to recognize that revelation was the method by which the text was translated. This realization allows for still other possibilities. If, for example, the appended Abrahamic scroll was damaged, Joseph would still have been able to "translate" the text. If the appended scroll was partially missing, the "translation" might not have suffered. It's also possible that Joseph, in the process of creating the KEP, looked at the Egyptian characters and—thinking that they were the Egyptian symbols composed by Abraham—proceeded to "translate" from these characters. In such a scenario the actual Book of Abraham translation could still be based on a real manuscript, but not on what Joseph thought was the manuscript. In any case, we need not reject Joseph's prophetic calling or ability to translate.

===Restoring gaps in the drawings===
[[Image:BOAfacsimile1.jpg|frame|200px|right|Photograph of Facsimile 1 from the recovered Joseph Smith Papyri]]Examination of the extant papyri fragments reveals that portions of Facsimile 1 (the only facsimile that survived) are damaged. For a number of years, scholars have debated whether the facsimile was damaged before or after Joseph acquired the papyri. It seems that the Book of Breathings scroll (containing Facsimile 1) was marred by a lacuna—a missing portion—that had torn off the scroll. The debate over the date of the lacuna directly relates to the images on Facsimile 1. This vignette—as shown in the LDS Book of Abraham—shows a figure (interpreted as Abraham) lying on a lion couch with arms raised as if attitude of pleading or prayer. The figure standing over Abraham is a bald man (presumably an Egyptian priest) with a knife in one hand—as if he was about to kill Abraham. Flying just above Abraham is a hawk (or falcon) with outstretched wings. The scroll's lacuna extends over an area which includes the Egyptian priest's head, the knife, and one of Abraham's supplicating arms.

Since Facsimile 1 appears to be a fairly typical scene from Egyptian funerary texts, the critics note that other similar Egyptian motifs depict the priest (an embalmer) with the head of Anubis (an Egyptian god) rather than a bald, human head. Other comparable Egyptian embalming scenes do not show the priest holding a knife, they do not show any man pleading or praying, and they generally show two hawks. The critics claim that Joseph Smith drew in the missing parts by adding (incorrectly) those things which we find in the LDS version of this Egyptian scene. What Joseph saw as fingers of Abraham's outstretched hands, for instance, were actually (according to the critics) the wing-tips of the missing second hawk.

Many LDS scholars believe that the scroll was damaged after Joseph translated the vignette and some evidence seems to support this view. One early Latter-day Saint who saw the papyri in 1841, for instance, described them as containing the scene of an altar with "'a man bound and laid thereon, and a Priest with a knife in his hand, standing at the foot, with a dove over the person bound on the Altar with several Idol gods standing around it.'"{{ref|appleby1}} Similarly, Reverend Henry Caswall, who visited Nauvoo in April 1842, had a chance to see some of the Egyptian papyri. Caswall, who was hostile to the Saints, described Facsimile 1 as having a "'man standing by him with a drawn knife.'"{{ref|caswall1}}

The critics, however, claim that evidence supports a belief that the scroll was already damaged prior to Joseph's involvement and that Joseph merely sketched in the parts missing in the lacuna. It's seems apparent, for example, that the lacuna descends several layers into the rolled scroll (the larger tear is at the first—or top—part, and the same outlined tear—only smaller—appears in the lower layers). Non-LDS Egyptologists do not think Joseph's "restoration" accurately reflects what was originally shown on the papyri, and in at least some instances, it seems that Joseph invented hieroglyphic characters to fill in for missing characters lost by the lacuna. This suggests that part of the scroll's tore/fell away when it was first unrolled and prior to Joseph's translation. For the sake of argument, let us grant the theory proposed by the critic—that the lacuna was present prior to Joseph making a translation and that Joseph (or some other early leader) "restored" the missing information.

Some considerations: there is at least some evidence that the LDS version has precedence in ancient Egyptian drawings. Some LDS researchers, for instance, have argued that the fingers/wing-tips look significantly more like fingers (according to Egyptian drawings) than hawk wing-tips. A number of scholars have noted that the Egyptians were very specific in how they drew wings and thumbs.{{ref|shirts1}}

It's also interesting to note that although embalming priests are typically drawn with Anubis heads in Book of Breathings motifs, other Egyptian graphics show that Egyptian priests are represented as bald and that Anubis heads were worn as masks to emulate the gods.{{ref|shirts2}} When compared to other Egyptian drawings, some of the Book of Abraham restorations are plausible.

Another consideration: We don't know that Joseph was the responsible party for sketching in the missing portions of Facsimile 1. It is possible that one of Joseph's contemporaries "restored" the missing parts, or it is possible that "J-red" or some other Jewish copyist "restored" the parts in order to more closely approximate the details conveyed by the Abrahamic text. It is certainly also possible that Joseph "restored" the missing parts either because they were in the original papyri—as edited by "J-red"—or because Joseph felt that such restorations more accurately reflected the Book of Abraham's intended use of the graphic as pertaining to the details discussed in the text.

Joseph's amendments to later editions of the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine & Covenants, and even the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible, are all instructive when we compare the graphical alterations in Facsimile 1. In each case, Joseph Smith—by way of revelation, inspiration, or prophetic analysis—"restored" or amended scripture to more closely approximate the additional insights he had gleaned by divine revelation.

Another possibility is that Joseph, Reuben Hedlock (the engraver), or someone else simply filled in the lacunae in the papyri the best he could for purposes of publication. Modern documentary editing standards would require that any holes or gaps in the papyri be represented as such, but the Book of Abraham was published long before the rise of such standards. Just as it was the practice of the day to edit out infelicities rather than to preserve them (as modern scholars do), so it would have been thought inaesthetic to publish incomplete or marred facsimiles. If this is the correct explanation, one need not suppose that the textual repair for purposes of publication was the result of revealed insight.

===Evidence for the Antiquity of Joseph's Book of Abraham===
There is evidence from antiquity—both in the Abrahamic tradition and in the Jewish recontextualization of Egyptian vignettes and dramas—which lend support to the claim that Joseph translated (albeit by unconventional means) the Book of Abraham from an authentic ancient source.

While Book of Abraham "translations" and "restorations" of the damaged vignettes do not seem to square with the translations of non-LDS Egyptologists, there are several instances when Joseph did get some of the details correct. This is no small thing considering that neither Joseph, nor any one in his day, could translate Egyptian.

====The Sons of Horus====
Facsimile 2 (shown between Chapters 3 and 4 of the Book of Abraham in the LDS Pearl of Great Price), is known as a hypocephalus ("under the head") and was a small disk-shaped object that was placed under the head of the deceased. The Egyptians "believed it would magically cause the head and body to be enveloped in flames or radiance, thus making the deceased divine."{{ref|rhodes1}} In this drawing (or vignette), stand four mummy-like figures known—to Egyptologists—as the Sons of Horus. Their images were also on the canopic jars (the jars that stored the internal organs of the deceased) that we see under the lion couch in Joseph Smith's Facsimile 1. Joseph revealed that these four figures represented "this earth in its four quarters." According to modern Egyptologists, Joseph Smith is correct. The Sons of Horus "were the gods of the four quarters of the earth and later came to be regarded as presiding over the four cardinal points."{{ref|rhodes2}}

====Abrahamic Traditions====
Years ago, Dr. Nibley pointed out that the critics neglect the ancient Near Eastern Abrahamic traditions that support the story found in the Book of Abraham.{{ref|nibley1}} Ancient Abrahamic lore and Jewish traditions preserved in ancient texts, show some surprising parallels to what we find in the text of the Book of Abraham. Some of these parallels imply that Joseph (who likely could not have had access to many of these traditions) actually restored authentic ancient Abrahamic traditions. Some of these parallels include early Jewish traditions about Abraham's life—details not found in the Bible.{{ref|abrtrad1}} Two such ancient documents that show some surprising parallels to our Book of Abraham are the ''Apocalypse of Abraham''{{ref|astpapcov1}} and the Testament of Abraham{{ref|testabr1}} (the Apocalypse of Abraham dates to about the same time as the Book of Abraham papyri).

Other interesting parallels include ancient names and astronomy. Ancient Egyptian names, for example, that would have been unknown to Joseph Smith, are accurately represented in the Book of Abraham both phonetically as well as in meaning.{{ref|phone1}} With regard to astronomy, we find that in Joseph Smith's day "heliocentricity" (as proposed by Copernicus and Newton) was the accepted astronomical view. Nineteenth-century people (including the most brilliant minds of the day) believed that everything revolved around the Sun—therefore the term "heliocentric" (Greek ''helios''=sun + centered). (In the twentieth-first century we generally accept an Einsteinian view of the cosmos.) The Book of Abraham, however, clearly delineates a ''geocentric'' view of the universe—or a belief that the Earth (Greek ''geo'') stood at the center of the universe, and all things moved around our planet.

According to ancient geocentric cosmologies and what we read in the Book of Abraham, the heavens (which is defined as the expanse above the earth—no celestial object is mentioned to exist below the earth) was composed of multiple layers or tiers—each tier higher than the previous. Therefore the Sun is in a higher tier than the moon, and the stars are in higher tiers still (compare [http://scriptures.lds.org/abr/3/5,9,17#5 Abraham 3:5, 9, 17]).{{ref|astpapcov2}} According to geocentric astronomy, celestial objects have longer time spans (or lengths of "reckoning") based upon their relative distance from the earth. "Thus, the length of reckoning of a planet is based on its revolution [time to orbit around the center, in this case the earth](and not rotation [time to spin on its axis, as the earth does every 24 hours])."{{ref|astpapcov3}} The higher the celestial object, the greater its length of reckoning (compare [http://scriptures.lds.org/abr/3/5#5 Abraham 3:5]). Likewise, in [http://scriptures.lds.org/abr/3/8-9#8 Abraham 3:8–9], we read that "there shall be another planet whose reckoning of time shall be longer still; And thus there shall be the reckoning of the time of one planet above another, until thou come nigh unto Kolob."

Ancient geocentric astronomers believed that the stars were "the outer-most celestial sphere, furthest from the earth and nearest to God."{{ref|astpapcov4}} We find in the Book of Abraham that the star Kolob was the star nearest "the throne of God" ([http://scriptures.lds.org/abr/3/9#9 Abraham 3:9]). In the ancient, yet recently discovered, Apocalypse of Abraham (which dates from about the same time period as the JSP), we find that God's throne is said to reside in the eighth firmament (the firmaments, being another term for the varying tiers in the heavens above the Earth).{{ref|astpapcov5}}

The Book of Abraham also reveals that those celestial objects that are highest above the earth, "govern" the objects below them (see [http://scriptures.lds.org/abr/3/3,9#3 Abraham 3:3, 9] and [http://scriptures.lds.org/abr/fac_2 Facsimile 2, fig. 5]). This sounds similar to the beliefs of those who accepted an ancient geocentric cosmology:

:Throughout the ancient world the governing role of celestial bodies was conceived in similar terms. God sits on his throne in the highest heaven giving commands, which are passed down by angels through the various regions of heaven, with each region governing or commanding the regions beneath it.''{{ref|astpapcov6}}

We find this governing order described in the Apocalypse of Abraham and other ancient sources. All of this makes sense only from an ancient geocentric perspective (such as that believed in Abraham's day) and makes no sense from a heliocentric perspective (which is what Joseph would have known in his day).

A different interesting parallel comes from [http://scriptures.lds.org/abr/fac_1 Facsimile 1] (Abraham on the lion couch). According to Egyptologists, this is a typical Egyptian embalming scene and has nothing to do with Abraham or sacrifice. In fact, the critics assure us, Abraham is not a topic of discussion in Egyptian papyri, and there is no connection with Abraham and the embalming lion couch.

Recent discoveries, however, suggests that the Biblical Abraham does appear in some Egyptian papyri that date to the same period as the JSP. In one instance (thus far discovered) Abraham's name appears to have a connection to an Egyptian lion couch scene.{{ref|gee8}}

The stories and worldviews we find in the translated text of our Book of Abraham coincide nicely with what we find from ancient Abrahamic lore. The critics must account for Joseph Smith's extensive knowledge of these areas, which he then integrated into a theologically rich whole.

==Conclusion==
When we critically examine the charges against the Book of Abraham in light of what we now know about ancient Jewish traditions and the adaptation of Egyptian iconography, we find that an ancient Book of Abraham is not only plausible, but believable.

==Endnotes==
#{{note|hc1}}{{HoC|vol=2|start=235, 236, 348|end=351}}
#{{note|hc2}}{{HoC1|vol=2|start=236}}
#{{note|marquardt1}}Michael H. Marquardt, "A Book Note — Hugh Nibley's ''Abraham in Egypt''" (2000).
#{{note|gee5}}{{GuideJSP1|start= 15}}
#{{note|gee6}}Gee, ''A Guide to the Joseph Smith Papyri,'' 23–24.
#{{note|gee7}}''Ibid''., 28.
#{{note|nibley3}}{{BYUS|author=Hugh W. Nibley|article=The Meaning of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers|vol=11|num=1|date=Summer 1971|start=350|end=399}}{{link|url=http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=transcripts&id=121}}
#{{note|gee1}}{{Ensign|author=John Gee|article=Research and Perspectives: Abraham in Ancient Egyptian Texts|date=July 1992|start=60|end=?}}; {{FR-7-1-5}}
#{{note|nibley2}}{{Dialogue1|author=Hugh W. Nibley|article=Phase One|vol=3|num=2|date=Summer 1968|start=101}}{{link|url=http://content.lib.utah.edu/cdm4/document.php?CISOROOT=/dialogue&CISOPTR=1659&REC=10}}
#{{note|gee2}}Gee, ''A Guide to the Joseph Smith Papyri,'' 12–13.
#{{note|gee3}}John Gee, "Facsimile 3," lecture given at the FARMS Book of Abraham Conference (16 October 1999), personal notes of conference talks by Michael Ash; see also, John Gee, "The Ancient Owners of the Joseph Smith Papyri" (Provo: FARMS, 1999), 1.
#{{note|gee4}}{{DiscipleWitness1|author=John Gee|article=Eyewitness, Hearsay, and Physical Evidence of the Joseph Smith Papyri|start=192}}
#{{note|barney1}}{{BarneyJ-red|start=115|end=116}}
#{{note|barney2}}''Ibid''., 117–118.
#{{note|osiris1}}Barney, "The Facsimiles," 119–21; Blake T. Ostler, "Abraham: An Egyptian Connection" (FARMS paper, 1981); Kerry Shirts, "Abraham, Father of the Faithful, Or Osiris, Pagan Egyptian God?"], ''Mormonism Researched'' (accessed 6 October 2005). {{link|url=http://www2.ida.net/graphics/shirtail/abraham.htm}}
#{{note|osiris2}}Charles M. Larson, ''By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus: A New Look at the Joseph Smith Papyri'' (Grand Rapids, MI: Institute for Religious Research, 1992), 102.
#{{note|barney3}}Barney, "The Facsimiles," 114.
#{{note|barney4}}''Ibid''., 123; see also Tvedtnes, "Authentic Ancient Names."
#{{note|barney5}}''Ibid''., 123.
#{{note|barney6}}''Ibid''., 126.
#{{note|barney7}}Barney, "The Facsimiles," 127.
#{{note|appleby1}}William I. Appleby Journal, 5 May 1841, ms. 1401 1, pp. 71–72, LDS Church Archives; as quoted in Gee, "Eyewitness, Hearsay, and Physical Evidence," 184.
#{{note|caswall1}}Henry Caswall, ''The City of the Mormons; or, Three Days at Nauvoo, in 1842'' (London: Rivington, 1842), 23; quoted in Gee, "Eyewitness, Hearsay, and Physical Evidence," 186.
#{{note|shirts1}}Kerry A. Shirts, "On Wings & Thumbs & Other Things"{{link|url=http://www2.ida.net/graphics/shirtail/charles.htm}}; Gee, ''A Guide to the Joseph Smith Papyri,'' 38.
#{{note|shirts2}}Kerry A. Shirts, "On Anubis, Masks, and Uniqueness of Facsimile #1 in the Book of Abraham."{{link|url=http://www2.ida.net/graphics/shirtail/rename.htm}}
#{{note|rhodes1}}Michael D. Rhodes, "The Joseph Smith Hypocephalus...Twenty Years Later." {{pdflink|url=http://home.comcast.net/~michael.rhodes/JosephSmithHypocephalus.pdf}}
#{{note|rhodes2}}''Ibid.''
#{{note|nibley1}}{{IE1|author=Hugh W. Nibley|article=The Unknown Abraham|date=January 1969|start=26}}
#{{note|abrtrad1}}See {{TraditionsAbraham0}}
#{{note|astpapcov1}}For some of the parallels see {{Nibley14|start=8|end=40}}; {{APC|author=John Gee, William J. Hamblin, and Daniel C. Peterson|article='And I Saw the Stars': The Book of Abraham and Ancient Geocentric Astronomy|start=1|end=16}} {{link1|url=http://farms.byu.edu/publications/bookschapter.php?bookid=40&chapid=161}}
#{{note|testabr1}}See Jeff Lindsay, "Could there have been a real Egyptian scroll that actually, literally discussed Abraham?" (accessed 23 September 2005){{link|url=http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_Abraham.shtml}}; {{FR-4-1-16}}; {{sunstone|author=Hugh Nibley|article=The Facsimiles of the Book of Abraham|vol= 4|date=December 1979|start=49|end=51}}; Kerry Shirts, "The Book of the Dead and the Book of Abraham" {{link|url=http://www2.ida.net/graphics/shirtail/egyptian.htm}}; {{Nibley14_1|start=1}}
#{{note|phone1}}See John A. Tvedtnes, "Authentic Ancient Names and Words in the Book of Abraham and Related Kirtland Egyptian Papers," presentation at the 2005 FAIR Conference; Kerry Shirts, "On the Names of the Four Canopic Jars in Facsimile 1." {{link|url=http://www2.ida.net/graphics/shirtail/onthe.htm}}
#{{note|astpapcov2}}Gee, Hamblin, and Peterson, "'And I Saw the Stars'", 5.
#{{note|astpapcov3}}''Ibid''., 8.
#{{note|astpapcov4}}''Ibid''., 9.
#{{note|astpapcov5}}''Ibid''.
#{{note|astpapcov6}}''Ibid''., 10.
#{{note|gee8}}{{GuideJSP|start=12|end=13}}

==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===

{{BookofAbrahamWiki}}

===FAIR web site===

{{BookofAbrahamFAIR}}

===External links===
{{BookofAbrahamLinks}}

===Printed material===
{{BookofAbrahamPrint}}

Book of Abraham/Papyri/Long article

2007-08-01T01:31:05Z

SuzanneArmitage: /* Endnotes */

{{LongVersion|topic=Joseph Smith papyri|url=http://www.fairwiki.org/index.php/Book_of_Abraham_papyri|extra=}}

{{BofAPortal}}In July 1835, Joseph Smith purchased a collection of papyri and mummies that had been discovered in Egypt and brought to the United States. Joseph Smith stated that one of the rolls contained, "the writings of Abraham while he was in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham, purportedly written by his own hand, upon papyrus,"{{ref|hc1}} and he commenced a translation of the papyri.

The translated text and facsimiles of three drawings were published in the early 1840s in serial fashion in the LDS newspaper ''Times and Seasons''. The entire work was published in 1852 in England as part of ''The Pearl of Great Price'', which was later canonized as part of LDS scripture.

The original papyri were thought to have been completely destroyed in the Chicago fire of 1871. However, fragments of them, including Facsimile number 1, were discovered in 1967 in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York City, and given to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

==Criticism==
Critics of the Book of Abraham attack it from several directions. This article will address these major criticisms:
*The Joseph Smith papyri date to about the 2nd century, <small>B.C.</small> Latter-day Saints, however (including, perhaps, Joseph Smith), have claimed that the papyri were written by Abraham who lived about 2,000 years earlier.

*From what may be surmised from the "Kirtland Egyptian Papers" (see below) the surviving Egyptian papyri appear to be the source for the Book of Abraham. Egyptologists, however, agree that these papyri are part of a collection of Egyptian funerary documents known as the ''Book of Breathings'' and do not deal with Abraham.

*Part of the drawings (vignettes) on the papyri have been destroyed. While it appears that Joseph "restored" these missing parts, non-LDS Egyptologists do not recognize these restorations as accurate.

===Source(s) of the criticism=== 
*Edward H. Ashment, ''The Use of Egyptian Magical Papyri to Authenticate the Book of Abraham: A Critical Review,'' Salt Lake City: Resource Communications, 1993.
*Charles M. Larson, ''By His Own Hand upon Papyrus: A New Look at the Joseph Smith Papyri,'' 2nd ed., Grand Rapids, MI: Institute for Religious Research, 1992.
*Jerald and Sandra Tanner, "Solving the Mystery of the Joseph Smith Papyri," ''Salt Lake City Messenger'' 82 (September 1992): 1–12.

==Responses==
===The date of the Book of Abraham vs. the date of the papyrus===
When Joseph Smith obtained the papyri in 1835, he reportedly said that "one of the rolls contained the writings of Abraham...."{{ref|hc2}} According to Joseph's scribes, this scroll was "written" by Abraham's "own hand upon papyrus."{{ref|marquardt1}} It seems reasonable to conclude that Joseph believed that Abraham himself, with pen in hand, wrote the very words that he was translating. The problem is that most modern scholars (including LDS scholars) date the papyri to a few centuries before Christ, whereas Abraham lived about two millennia before Christ. Obviously, Abraham himself could not have penned the papyri.

This issue is very similar to that of Book of Mormon geography. It is very likely that Joseph Smith believed in a hemispheric Book of Mormon geography—it made sense to his understanding of the world around him. Such a misinformed belief makes him no less a prophet; it simply provides us with an example of how Joseph—like any other human—tried to understand new information by integrating it with his current knowledge. So, likewise, with the Abrahamic papyri: Joseph, by way of revelation, saw that the papyri contained scriptural teachings of Abraham. It would be natural, therefore, to assume that Abraham wrote the papyri. But, some will ask, how could the teachings of Abraham be present on a document written two thousand years after Abraham lived? As Gee notes, we find the same thing with Biblical manuscripts. There is a major difference, he explains, "between the date of a text [the information contained on the papyri] and the date of a manuscript [the papyri itself]."{{ref|gee5}}

:The date of a text is the date when the text was written by its author. A text can be copied into various manuscripts or translated into other languages, and these manuscripts or translations will have different, later dates than the date of the original text. When we refer to the date of a text, we refer to the date of the original text. For example, the text of the Gospel of Matthew was written in the first century <small>A.D.</small>, but the earliest manuscript that we have of Matthew was copied in the third century.{{ref|gee6}}

If, for example, one held out a modern LDS Bible and pointing to 1 Corinthians asked, "Who penned this book?" most people would respond with, "Paul." The copy of the scriptures, however, was printed within the last few decades, and the English wording is based on what King James scholars decided that the ancient biblical manuscripts said. Paul, himself, did not pen any modern printing of the scriptural book even if he did author the original text. How can we fault Joseph for basically stating the same thing?

Some LDS scholars propose that the original Book of Abraham "text" was written by Abraham and then "passed down through his descendants (the Jews), some of whom took a copy to Egypt where it was copied (after being translated) onto a later manuscript."{{ref|gee7}} Such a proposal makes a lot of sense since we recognize that this the typical provenance of most Biblical documents.

===The Kirtland Egyptian Papers===
''(Main article: [[Kirtland Egyptian Papers]])''

Among the early Book-of-Abraham-related-manuscripts that have survived from the days of Joseph Smith are a number of papers collectively referred to as the "Kirtland Egyptian Papers" (KEP). These pages were written while the Saints lived in Kirtland, Ohio, and were recorded in the general time frame that Joseph was translating the Book of Abraham. They are in the same handwriting of several of Joseph's scribes.

There are at least two evidences which demonstrate an obvious connection between some of the Kirtland Egyptian papers and the Book of Breathings scroll from the Joseph Smith Papyri (JSP).

Like the Hebrews, the Egyptians read right to left. The "Scroll of Hor"-- which is the Book of Breathings scroll in the JSP collection-- begins (at the right end) with Facsimile 1 (as recorded in the Book of Abraham) followed by Egyptian characters.

Some of the KEP are divided by a vertical line at the left side of the paper. About three fourths of the paper is to the right of each line. To the left of the line are Egyptian characters. These are the same characters that follow Facsimile 1 of the Book of Breathings(these would be to the left of the vignette). To the right of the vertical line (on the Kirtland papers) appear to be "translations" of the Egyptian character on the left.

Secondly, we read in the Book of Abraham:

:...that you may have a knowledge of this altar, I will refer you to the representation [Facsimile 1] at the commencement of this record." ([http://scriptures.lds.org/abr/1/12#12 Abraham 1:12]-- keeping in mind that the scroll would have been read from right to left to and Facsimile 1 is virtually the first item at the right end of the scroll.)

On the surface, these two evidences suggest that the Scroll of Hor is the source of the Book of Abraham.

The critics also claim that, since the Scroll of Hor is a fairly typical Book of Breathings scroll, we would know that the entire scroll would not be much longer than the extant portions of the papyrus fragments; therefore, what we have is virtually all there was of this particular papyrus.

A superficially plausible initial assumption is that the KEP represent Joseph's attempt to translate the hieroglyphics from those portions that are still extant. Critics attempt to trouble the Saints, however, with the fact that Egyptologists tell us that the "translations" do not accurately reflect the meanings of the hieroglyphics. In some cases, several paragraphs of English text (the English translation of the Book of Abraham) are written in what appears to be an English translation of these Egyptian characters (in some instances, one character seems to yield several sentences of English text). To the critics, this is proof that Joseph was a false prophet.

There is, however, a more likely scenario that is compatible with Joseph's prophetic claims. Many LDS scholars have claimed that the Kirtland Egyptian Papers are an example of a backwards translation. In other words, Joseph translated the Book of Abraham prior to the creation of the KEP and then he, and other early LDS brethren, tried to match the translated text to what they believed were the characters that were used to elicit the translation. In this scenario the KEP was not the product of revelation, but was rather an attempt to "study out" the translation, after-the-fact, in what might have been an experiment to create an Egyptian alphabet.{{ref|nibley3}} In essense, Joseph and his friends were trying to "reverse engineer" the translation of Egyptian script using the inspired translation he had already produced. The men at Kirtland were treating the Book of Abraham as a sort of Rosetta Stone from which they hoped to crack the code for Egyptian (which was largely untranslatable by scholars of the time.)

But why would it appear that Joseph thought these Egyptian characters translated into Abrahamic scripture when they clearly do not?

====A Jewish Redactor====

It should first be undestood that we do not have all the papyri that Joseph Smith had when he translated the Book of Abraham. Some of the papyri were burned in the Chicago fire and it's possible that other fragments were lost or destroyed elsewhere. Yale-trained Egyptologist, Dr. John Gee, believes that Joseph Smith originally had five papyrus scrolls (one of which was the hypocephalus).{{ref|gee1}} Of these five scrolls, only eleven fragments of two scrolls have survived. The "Scroll of Hor" (the Egyptian Book of Breathings) from where we get Facsimile 1 (and almost certainly [http://scriptures.lds.org/abr/fac_3 Facsimile 3]—which didn't survive) is incomplete.

Dr. Nibley writes:

:We are told that papyri were in beautiful condition when Joseph Smith got them, and that one of them when unrolled on the floor extended through two rooms of the Mansion House.{{ref|nibley2}}

Nothing like this has survived today. Dr. Gee estimates that the Scroll of Hor (likely the putative [supposed] source for the Book of Abraham) may have been ten feet long{{ref|gee2}} and that in all, Joseph may have had eight times as much papyri as what is currently extant.{{ref|gee3}} A number of scholars contend that the reason that the extant papyrus fragments don't have anything to do with the Book of Abraham is because we don't have that portion of the papyrus that served as the text from whence Joseph translated the Book of Abraham. At the very least, the critics ought to be cautious if only 13% of the ancient scrolls are currently known!

And while it's true that the extant portions of the JSP are from the Book of the Dead and the Book of Breathings and do not, according to Egyptologists, translate to anything like the LDS Book of Abraham, this doesn't necessarily mean that the translation didn't derive from Joseph's papyri.

There are other scenarios that are compatible with Joseph's claims. We know from other sources, for instance, that sometimes scrolls were attached together. To quote Gee:

:Some people assume that if the documents [JSP] are funerary they cannot contain anything else. Some Book of the Dead papyri, however, do contain other texts. For example, a fragmentary Eighteenth-Dynasty Book of the Dead in Cairo...contains account texts on the front side (recto) [with the Book of the Dead on the back side]. Papyrus Vandier also has a Book of the Dead on the verso (back side), but the recto contains the story of Meryre, who was sacrificed on an altar (an intriguing similarity to the Book of Abraham). The Book of the Dead of Psenmines...and Pawerem...both contain temple rituals. Both Papyrus Harkness and BM 10507 (demotic funerary papyri) contain several different texts. Just because the preserved sections of the Joseph Smith Papyri are funerary in nature does not mean that they could not have had other texts, either on the verso or on missing sections of the rolls.{{ref|gee4}}

It is therefore possible that the Book of Abraham manuscript was attached to the Book of Breathings. But why? Why would an important Semitic document be attached to a pagan (Egyptian) funerary text?

Kevin Barney posits that the Book of Abraham material was passed on through the generations from Abraham to Jews of the 2nd century <small>B.C.</small>—or the Ptolemaic period—just as Old Testament scriptures were passed on to later generations.Sometime in the Ptolemaic period, a hypothetical Jewish redactor (editor), whom Barney labels "J-red" attached the Book of Abraham to the Egyptian papyri. Why? Because of the useful symbolism contained on the Egyptian funerary text.

This claim is supported by at least three known ancient Jewish texts. Barney notes that many Biblical scholars believe that an ancient Egyptian book—the Instructions of Amenemope—may have been the source for parts of the biblical book of Proverbs.{{ref|barney1}}

The ancient "Testament of Abraham" has several similarities to the LDS Book of Abraham. The book also has strong similarities to an Egyptian papyrus related to the Book of the Dead. For example, notes Barney, it is widely recognized that a judgment scene described in the Testament of Abraham was

:influenced by an Egyptian psychostasy ("soul weighing") papyrus.... It may even be that the author [of the Testament of Abraham] was gazing on such a psychostasy papyrus when he penned his account. But while there is a clear relationship between the Egyptian psychostasy scene and the judgment scene of the Testament of Abraham, the scene has been transformed to accord with Semitic needs and sensibilities. Osiris [Egyptian god] has become Abel; the Egyptian gods have become angels. Our author looks at the Egyptian illustration, yet sees a situation peopled with Semitic characters.{{ref|barney2}}

Note the Osiris-Abel connection, to which we will return below.

The third example comes from the book of Luke's story of the rich man and Lazarus. In this tale, the beggar Lazarus ate the crumbs that fell from a rich man's table. When Lazarus died, angels carried him to Abraham's bosom. When the rich man died, he awoke in Hell but could see—far away—Lazarus in the bosom of Abraham. The rich man begged Abraham to send the dead Lazarus to his brothers so that they would repent and not befall the same terrible fate. (See [http://scriptures.lds.org/luke/16/19-31#19 Luke 16:19–31]).

Scholars have shown that this story is based on a popular Jewish tale, written in Hebrew, but ultimately based on an Egyptian story. In the original Egyptian legend, the names are different (as are some of the general details of the story) but the basic account and moral is the same. In the Egyptian version, however (the version upon which the Hebrew tradition depends), Osiris plays the part later adapted (by Jews) to Abraham.{{ref|osiris1}} It seems that the early Jews had no problem adapting the pagan god Osiris to important Judaic figures such as Abel or Abraham.

Not only do we see, in the Book of Luke, a Jewish adaptation of an Egyptian judgment scene, but we also find some interesting parallels to Facsimile 1 from the Book of Abraham. In this vignette, Joseph identified the figure lying on the lion couch as Abraham. Egyptologists, however, identify the figure as Osiris.{{ref|osiris2}} Based on an early Judaic adaptation of Facsimile 1, Joseph got it exactly right.

Instead of focusing on how Egyptians of the 2nd century <small>B.C.</small> or 2000 <small>B.C.</small> understood the motifs, Barney convincingly argues that Abraham did not draw the facsimiles (which date nearly two thousand years after Abraham lived) but that these Egyptian vignettes "were either adopted [copied wholesale as the Egyptians drew them] or adapted [altered to more accurately reflect the Semitic perspective] by an Egyptian-Jewish redactor as illustrations of the attempt on Abraham's life and Abraham's teaching astronomy to the Egyptians."{{ref|barney3}} Barney argues that we should focus our attention on understanding how Jews of the 2nd century <small>B.C.</small> understood the Egyptian graphics.

In Facsimile 1 (the lion couch scene), for instance, under the floor there is a crocodile. Under the crocodile are numerous vertical lines. Joseph interpreted these lines as representing the "pillars of heaven." Egyptologists, however, tell us that this is incorrect. These lines really signify the palace façade. The etched lines around the crocodile signify, according to Joseph, "Raukeeyang" or "the expanse or firmament over our heads," or the high "heavens." Egyptologists, however, tell us that the lines are simply waters in which the crocodile swims. So according to an Egyptian interpretation, Joseph got it all wrong.

What if we compare Joseph's interpretation to how 2nd century <small>B.C.</small> Jews might have understood the scene? Firstly, Joseph's "Raukeeyang" is very similar to the Hebrew word for "expanse."{{ref|barney4}} "In Hebrew cosmology," writes Barney, "the Hebrew 'firmament' was believed to be a solid dome, supported by pillars." Recall the vertical lines in the vignette. This, "in turn was closely associated with the celestial ocean, which it supported." And remember that in Facsimile 1 it appears that the pillars are under the water in which the crocodile swims.

:In the lower half of Facsimile 1, we have [the firmament]...(1) connected with the waters, as with the celestial ocean, (2) appearing to be supported by pillars, and (3) being solid and therefore capable of serving itself as a support, in this case for the lion couch. The bottom half of Facsimile 1 would have looked to J-red very much like a microcosm of the universe (in much the same way that the divine throne chariot of Ezekiel 1–2, which associates the four four-faced fiery living creatures with the [firmament]...above their heads on which God sits enthroned, is a microcosm of the universe).{{ref|barney5}}

If we accept a Jewish redactor adapting Egyptian motifs to a Hebrew understanding, we can easily appreciate the possibility that "J-red" attached the Book of Abraham manuscript to the Book of Breathings in order to graphically convey the doctrines portrayed in the manuscript. Barney gives this useful comparison to the Book of Mormon:

:The gold plates were untouched by human hands from the time Moroni deposited them in a stone box in the fifth century <small>A.D.</small> until Joseph's retrieval of the cache in 1827. Prior to that time, however, the records of the Book of Mormon peoples underwent an express redaction [abridgement or editing] process at the hands of Mormon and Moroni. Similarly, the papyrus source for the Book of Abraham sat untouched from the time it was deposited in the tomb during Greco-Roman age until Lebolo retrieved it [about 1820]. Before that time, though, it circulated among people and was subject to normal transmission processes. My hypothetical redactor, J-red, was in essentially the same position with respect to the Book of Abraham as Mormon was with respect to the Book of Mormon.{{ref|barney6}}

The Egyptians, like the Hebrews, wrote from right to left. And while Joseph didn't know Egyptian, he was (at this point in his life) studying Hebrew and he may have assumed that the Egyptians wrote in the same direction. At the right end of the scroll (the beginning of the scroll), we find Facsimile 1. Abraham referred the Facsimile ("the representation") at the beginning of "this record." To the Joseph, and other early Saints, this would have seemed to indicate that the "record" of Abraham was part of the early portion of the scroll and thus they began their backwards translation from this point. In reality, however, "this record" probably referred to the beginning of the combined scrolls (that begins with Facsimile 1) but not the beginning of the Abrahamic text (which would have been appended to the Book of Breathings scroll).{{ref|barney7}}

It must be remembered that Joseph could not read Egyptian. He did not "translate" in the normal sense—as evidenced by his after-the-fact effort to reverse engineer Egyptian via his divinely-given translation. He translated by the power of God. It is possible that Joseph, at times, translated the Book of Mormon while the plates were covered, or perhaps even while the plates were removed from the room.

While an actual Book of Abraham manuscript could have been appended to the Book of Breathings manuscript, it is significant to recognize that revelation was the method by which the text was translated. This realization allows for still other possibilities. If, for example, the appended Abrahamic scroll was damaged, Joseph would still have been able to "translate" the text. If the appended scroll was partially missing, the "translation" might not have suffered. It's also possible that Joseph, in the process of creating the KEP, looked at the Egyptian characters and—thinking that they were the Egyptian symbols composed by Abraham—proceeded to "translate" from these characters. In such a scenario the actual Book of Abraham translation could still be based on a real manuscript, but not on what Joseph thought was the manuscript. In any case, we need not reject Joseph's prophetic calling or ability to translate.

===Restoring gaps in the drawings===
[[Image:BOAfacsimile1.jpg|frame|200px|right|Photograph of Facsimile 1 from the recovered Joseph Smith Papyri]]Examination of the extant papyri fragments reveals that portions of Facsimile 1 (the only facsimile that survived) are damaged. For a number of years, scholars have debated whether the facsimile was damaged before or after Joseph acquired the papyri. It seems that the Book of Breathings scroll (containing Facsimile 1) was marred by a lacuna—a missing portion—that had torn off the scroll. The debate over the date of the lacuna directly relates to the images on Facsimile 1. This vignette—as shown in the LDS Book of Abraham—shows a figure (interpreted as Abraham) lying on a lion couch with arms raised as if attitude of pleading or prayer. The figure standing over Abraham is a bald man (presumably an Egyptian priest) with a knife in one hand—as if he was about to kill Abraham. Flying just above Abraham is a hawk (or falcon) with outstretched wings. The scroll's lacuna extends over an area which includes the Egyptian priest's head, the knife, and one of Abraham's supplicating arms.

Since Facsimile 1 appears to be a fairly typical scene from Egyptian funerary texts, the critics note that other similar Egyptian motifs depict the priest (an embalmer) with the head of Anubis (an Egyptian god) rather than a bald, human head. Other comparable Egyptian embalming scenes do not show the priest holding a knife, they do not show any man pleading or praying, and they generally show two hawks. The critics claim that Joseph Smith drew in the missing parts by adding (incorrectly) those things which we find in the LDS version of this Egyptian scene. What Joseph saw as fingers of Abraham's outstretched hands, for instance, were actually (according to the critics) the wing-tips of the missing second hawk.

Many LDS scholars believe that the scroll was damaged after Joseph translated the vignette and some evidence seems to support this view. One early Latter-day Saint who saw the papyri in 1841, for instance, described them as containing the scene of an altar with "'a man bound and laid thereon, and a Priest with a knife in his hand, standing at the foot, with a dove over the person bound on the Altar with several Idol gods standing around it.'"{{ref|appleby1}} Similarly, Reverend Henry Caswall, who visited Nauvoo in April 1842, had a chance to see some of the Egyptian papyri. Caswall, who was hostile to the Saints, described Facsimile 1 as having a "'man standing by him with a drawn knife.'"{{ref|caswall1}}

The critics, however, claim that evidence supports a belief that the scroll was already damaged prior to Joseph's involvement and that Joseph merely sketched in the parts missing in the lacuna. It's seems apparent, for example, that the lacuna descends several layers into the rolled scroll (the larger tear is at the first—or top—part, and the same outlined tear—only smaller—appears in the lower layers). Non-LDS Egyptologists do not think Joseph's "restoration" accurately reflects what was originally shown on the papyri, and in at least some instances, it seems that Joseph invented hieroglyphic characters to fill in for missing characters lost by the lacuna. This suggests that part of the scroll's tore/fell away when it was first unrolled and prior to Joseph's translation. For the sake of argument, let us grant the theory proposed by the critic—that the lacuna was present prior to Joseph making a translation and that Joseph (or some other early leader) "restored" the missing information.

Some considerations: there is at least some evidence that the LDS version has precedence in ancient Egyptian drawings. Some LDS researchers, for instance, have argued that the fingers/wing-tips look significantly more like fingers (according to Egyptian drawings) than hawk wing-tips. A number of scholars have noted that the Egyptians were very specific in how they drew wings and thumbs.{{ref|shirts1}}

It's also interesting to note that although embalming priests are typically drawn with Anubis heads in Book of Breathings motifs, other Egyptian graphics show that Egyptian priests are represented as bald and that Anubis heads were worn as masks to emulate the gods.{{ref|shirts2}} When compared to other Egyptian drawings, some of the Book of Abraham restorations are plausible.

Another consideration: We don't know that Joseph was the responsible party for sketching in the missing portions of Facsimile 1. It is possible that one of Joseph's contemporaries "restored" the missing parts, or it is possible that "J-red" or some other Jewish copyist "restored" the parts in order to more closely approximate the details conveyed by the Abrahamic text. It is certainly also possible that Joseph "restored" the missing parts either because they were in the original papyri—as edited by "J-red"—or because Joseph felt that such restorations more accurately reflected the Book of Abraham's intended use of the graphic as pertaining to the details discussed in the text.

Joseph's amendments to later editions of the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine & Covenants, and even the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible, are all instructive when we compare the graphical alterations in Facsimile 1. In each case, Joseph Smith—by way of revelation, inspiration, or prophetic analysis—"restored" or amended scripture to more closely approximate the additional insights he had gleaned by divine revelation.

Another possibility is that Joseph, Reuben Hedlock (the engraver), or someone else simply filled in the lacunae in the papyri the best he could for purposes of publication. Modern documentary editing standards would require that any holes or gaps in the papyri be represented as such, but the Book of Abraham was published long before the rise of such standards. Just as it was the practice of the day to edit out infelicities rather than to preserve them (as modern scholars do), so it would have been thought inaesthetic to publish incomplete or marred facsimiles. If this is the correct explanation, one need not suppose that the textual repair for purposes of publication was the result of revealed insight.

===Evidence for the Antiquity of Joseph's Book of Abraham===
There is evidence from antiquity—both in the Abrahamic tradition and in the Jewish recontextualization of Egyptian vignettes and dramas—which lend support to the claim that Joseph translated (albeit by unconventional means) the Book of Abraham from an authentic ancient source.

While Book of Abraham "translations" and "restorations" of the damaged vignettes do not seem to square with the translations of non-LDS Egyptologists, there are several instances when Joseph did get some of the details correct. This is no small thing considering that neither Joseph, nor any one in his day, could translate Egyptian.

====The Sons of Horus====
Facsimile 2 (shown between Chapters 3 and 4 of the Book of Abraham in the LDS Pearl of Great Price), is known as a hypocephalus ("under the head") and was a small disk-shaped object that was placed under the head of the deceased. The Egyptians "believed it would magically cause the head and body to be enveloped in flames or radiance, thus making the deceased divine."{{ref|rhodes1}} In this drawing (or vignette), stand four mummy-like figures known—to Egyptologists—as the Sons of Horus. Their images were also on the canopic jars (the jars that stored the internal organs of the deceased) that we see under the lion couch in Joseph Smith's Facsimile 1. Joseph revealed that these four figures represented "this earth in its four quarters." According to modern Egyptologists, Joseph Smith is correct. The Sons of Horus "were the gods of the four quarters of the earth and later came to be regarded as presiding over the four cardinal points."{{ref|rhodes2}}

====Abrahamic Traditions====
Years ago, Dr. Nibley pointed out that the critics neglect the ancient Near Eastern Abrahamic traditions that support the story found in the Book of Abraham.{{ref|nibley1}} Ancient Abrahamic lore and Jewish traditions preserved in ancient texts, show some surprising parallels to what we find in the text of the Book of Abraham. Some of these parallels imply that Joseph (who likely could not have had access to many of these traditions) actually restored authentic ancient Abrahamic traditions. Some of these parallels include early Jewish traditions about Abraham's life—details not found in the Bible.{{ref|abrtrad1}} Two such ancient documents that show some surprising parallels to our Book of Abraham are the ''Apocalypse of Abraham''{{ref|astpapcov1}} and the Testament of Abraham{{ref|testabr1}} (the Apocalypse of Abraham dates to about the same time as the Book of Abraham papyri).

Other interesting parallels include ancient names and astronomy. Ancient Egyptian names, for example, that would have been unknown to Joseph Smith, are accurately represented in the Book of Abraham both phonetically as well as in meaning.{{ref|phone1}} With regard to astronomy, we find that in Joseph Smith's day "heliocentricity" (as proposed by Copernicus and Newton) was the accepted astronomical view. Nineteenth-century people (including the most brilliant minds of the day) believed that everything revolved around the Sun—therefore the term "heliocentric" (Greek ''helios''=sun + centered). (In the twentieth-first century we generally accept an Einsteinian view of the cosmos.) The Book of Abraham, however, clearly delineates a ''geocentric'' view of the universe—or a belief that the Earth (Greek ''geo'') stood at the center of the universe, and all things moved around our planet.

According to ancient geocentric cosmologies and what we read in the Book of Abraham, the heavens (which is defined as the expanse above the earth—no celestial object is mentioned to exist below the earth) was composed of multiple layers or tiers—each tier higher than the previous. Therefore the Sun is in a higher tier than the moon, and the stars are in higher tiers still (compare [http://scriptures.lds.org/abr/3/5,9,17#5 Abraham 3:5, 9, 17]).{{ref|astpapcov2}} According to geocentric astronomy, celestial objects have longer time spans (or lengths of "reckoning") based upon their relative distance from the earth. "Thus, the length of reckoning of a planet is based on its revolution [time to orbit around the center, in this case the earth](and not rotation [time to spin on its axis, as the earth does every 24 hours])."{{ref|astpapcov3}} The higher the celestial object, the greater its length of reckoning (compare [http://scriptures.lds.org/abr/3/5#5 Abraham 3:5]). Likewise, in [http://scriptures.lds.org/abr/3/8-9#8 Abraham 3:8–9], we read that "there shall be another planet whose reckoning of time shall be longer still; And thus there shall be the reckoning of the time of one planet above another, until thou come nigh unto Kolob."

Ancient geocentric astronomers believed that the stars were "the outer-most celestial sphere, furthest from the earth and nearest to God."{{ref|astpapcov4}} We find in the Book of Abraham that the star Kolob was the star nearest "the throne of God" ([http://scriptures.lds.org/abr/3/9#9 Abraham 3:9]). In the ancient, yet recently discovered, Apocalypse of Abraham (which dates from about the same time period as the JSP), we find that God's throne is said to reside in the eighth firmament (the firmaments, being another term for the varying tiers in the heavens above the Earth).{{ref|astpapcov5}}

The Book of Abraham also reveals that those celestial objects that are highest above the earth, "govern" the objects below them (see [http://scriptures.lds.org/abr/3/3,9#3 Abraham 3:3, 9] and [http://scriptures.lds.org/abr/fac_2 Facsimile 2, fig. 5]). This sounds similar to the beliefs of those who accepted an ancient geocentric cosmology:

:Throughout the ancient world the governing role of celestial bodies was conceived in similar terms. God sits on his throne in the highest heaven giving commands, which are passed down by angels through the various regions of heaven, with each region governing or commanding the regions beneath it.''{{ref|astpapcov6}}

We find this governing order described in the Apocalypse of Abraham and other ancient sources. All of this makes sense only from an ancient geocentric perspective (such as that believed in Abraham's day) and makes no sense from a heliocentric perspective (which is what Joseph would have known in his day).

A different interesting parallel comes from [http://scriptures.lds.org/abr/fac_1 Facsimile 1] (Abraham on the lion couch). According to Egyptologists, this is a typical Egyptian embalming scene and has nothing to do with Abraham or sacrifice. In fact, the critics assure us, Abraham is not a topic of discussion in Egyptian papyri, and there is no connection with Abraham and the embalming lion couch.

Recent discoveries, however, suggests that the Biblical Abraham does appear in some Egyptian papyri that date to the same period as the JSP. In one instance (thus far discovered) Abraham's name appears to have a connection to an Egyptian lion couch scene.{{ref|gee8}}

The stories and worldviews we find in the translated text of our Book of Abraham coincide nicely with what we find from ancient Abrahamic lore. The critics must account for Joseph Smith's extensive knowledge of these areas, which he then integrated into a theologically rich whole.

==Conclusion==
When we critically examine the charges against the Book of Abraham in light of what we now know about ancient Jewish traditions and the adaptation of Egyptian iconography, we find that an ancient Book of Abraham is not only plausible, but believable.

==Endnotes==
#{{note|hc1}}{{HoC|vol=2|start=235, 236, 348|end=351}}
#{{note|hc2}}{{HoC1|vol=2|start=236}}
#{{note|marquardt1}}Michael H. Marquardt, "A Book Note — Hugh Nibley's ''Abraham in Egypt''" (2000).
#{{note|gee5}}{{GuideJSP1|start= 15}}
#{{note|gee6}}Gee, ''A Guide to the Joseph Smith Papyri,'' 23–24.
#{{note|gee7}}''Ibid''., 28.
#{{note|nibley3}}{{BYUS|author=Hugh W. Nibley|article=The Meaning of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers|vol=11|num=1|date=Summer 1971|start=350|end=399}}{{link|url=http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=transcripts&id=121}}
#{{note|gee1}}{{Ensign|author=John Gee|article=Research and Perspectives: Abraham in Ancient Egyptian Texts|date=July 1992|start=60|end=?}}; {{FR-7-1-5}}
#{{note|nibley2}}{{Dialogue1|author=Hugh W. Nibley|article=Phase One|vol=3|num=2|date=Summer 1968|start=101}}{{link|url=http://content.lib.utah.edu/cdm4/document.php?CISOROOT=/dialogue&CISOPTR=1659&REC=10}}
#{{note|gee2}}Gee, ''A Guide to the Joseph Smith Papyri,'' 12–13.
#{{note|gee3}}John Gee, "Facsimile 3," lecture given at the FARMS Book of Abraham Conference (16 October 1999), personal notes of conference talks by Michael Ash; see also, John Gee, "The Ancient Owners of the Joseph Smith Papyri" (Provo: FARMS, 1999), 1.
#{{note|gee4}}{{DiscipleWitness1|author=John Gee|article=Eyewitness, Hearsay, and Physical Evidence of the Joseph Smith Papyri|start=192}}
#{{note|barney1}}{{BarneyJ-red|start=115|end=116}}
#{{note|barney2}}''Ibid''., 117–118.
#{{note|osiris1}}Barney, "The Facsimiles," 119–21; Blake T. Ostler, "Abraham: An Egyptian Connection" (FARMS paper, 1981); Kerry Shirts, "Abraham, Father of the Faithful, Or Osiris, Pagan Egyptian God?"], ''Mormonism Researched'' (accessed 6 October 2005). {{link|url=http://www2.ida.net/graphics/shirtail/abraham.htm}}
#{{note|osiris2}}Charles M. Larson, ''By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus: A New Look at the Joseph Smith Papyri'' (Grand Rapids, MI: Institute for Religious Research, 1992), 102.
#{{note|barney3}}Barney, "The Facsimiles," 114.
#{{note|barney4}}''Ibid''., 123; see also Tvedtnes, "Authentic Ancient Names."
#{{note|barney5}}''Ibid''., 123.
#{{note|barney6}}''Ibid''., 126.
#{{note|barney7}}Barney, "The Facsimiles," 127.
#{{note|appleby1}}William I. Appleby Journal, 5 May 1841, ms. 1401 1, pp. 71–72, LDS Church Archives; as quoted in Gee, "Eyewitness, Hearsay, and Physical Evidence," 184.
#{{note|caswall1}}Henry Caswall, ''The City of the Mormons; or, Three Days at Nauvoo, in 1842'' (London: Rivington, 1842), 23; quoted in Gee, "Eyewitness, Hearsay, and Physical Evidence," 186.
#{{note|shirts1}}Kerry A. Shirts, "On Wings & Thumbs & Other Things"{{link|url=http://www2.ida.net/graphics/shirtail/charles.htm}}; Gee, ''A Guide to the Joseph Smith Papyri,'' 38.
#{{note|shirts2}}Kerry A. Shirts, "On Anubis, Masks, and Uniqueness of Facsimile #1 in the Book of Abraham."{{link|url=http://www2.ida.net/graphics/shirtail/rename.htm}}
#{{note|rhodes1}}Michael D. Rhodes, "The Joseph Smith Hypocephalus...Twenty Years Later." {{pdflink|url=http://home.comcast.net/~michael.rhodes/JosephSmithHypocephalus.pdf}}
#{{note|rhodes2}}''Ibid.''
#{{note|nibley1}}{{IE1|author=Hugh W. Nibley|article=The Unknown Abraham|date=January 1969|start=26}}
#{{note|abrtrad1}}See {{TraditionsAbraham0}}
#{{note|astpapcov1}}For some of the parallels see {{Nibley14|start=8|end=40}}; {{APC|author=John Gee, William J. Hamblin, and Daniel C. Peterson|article='And I Saw the Stars': The Book of Abraham and Ancient Geocentric Astronomy|start=1|end=16}} {{link1|url=http://farms.byu.edu/publications/bookschapter.php?bookid=40&chapid=161}}
#{{note|testabr1}}See Jeff Lindsay, "Could there have been a real Egyptian scroll that actually, literally discussed Abraham?" (accessed 23 September 2005){{link|url=http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_Abraham.shtml}}; {{FR-4-1-16}}; {{sunstone|author=Hugh Nibley|article=The Facsimiles of the Book of Abraham|vol=4|date=December 1979|start=49|end=51}}; Kerry Shirts, "The Book of the Dead and the Book of Abraham" {{link|url=http://www2.ida.net/graphics/shirtail/egyptian.htm}}; {{Nibley14_1|start=1}}
#{{note|phone1}}See John A. Tvedtnes, "Authentic Ancient Names and Words in the Book of Abraham and Related Kirtland Egyptian Papers," presentation at the 2005 FAIR Conference; Kerry Shirts, "On the Names of the Four Canopic Jars in Facsimile 1." {{link|url=http://www2.ida.net/graphics/shirtail/onthe.htm}}
#{{note|astpapcov2}}Gee, Hamblin, and Peterson, "'And I Saw the Stars'", 5.
#{{note|astpapcov3}}''Ibid''., 8.
#{{note|astpapcov4}}''Ibid''., 9.
#{{note|astpapcov5}}''Ibid''.
#{{note|astpapcov6}}''Ibid''., 10.
#{{note|gee8}}{{GuideJSP|start=12|end=13}}

==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===

{{BookofAbrahamWiki}}

===FAIR web site===

{{BookofAbrahamFAIR}}

===External links===
{{BookofAbrahamLinks}}

===Printed material===
{{BookofAbrahamPrint}}

Template:BarneyJ-red

2007-08-01T01:19:36Z

SuzanneArmitage: fixed typo

Kevin L. Barney, “The Facsimiles and Semitic Adaptation of Existing Sources,” in John Gee and Brian M. Hauglid (editors), ''Astronomy, Papyrus, and Covenant'' (Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University, 2006), {{{start}}}–{{{end}}}. ISBN 0934893764. {{link|url=http://farms.byu.edu/publications/bookschapter.php?bookid=40&chapid=168}}

Template:Book:Gee Hauglid:Astronomy Papyrus and Covenant

2007-08-01T01:19:01Z

SuzanneArmitage: fixed typo

{{{author}}}, “{{{article}}},” in John Gee and Brian M. Hauglid (editors), ''Astronomy, Papyrus, and Covenant'' (Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University, 2006), {{{start}}}–{{{end}}}. ISBN 0934893764. {{link|url=http://farms.byu.edu/publications/booksmain.php}}

Criticism of Mormonism/Video/Search for the Truth DVD/Witnessing to Mormons

2007-03-31T03:05:22Z

SuzanneArmitage:

{{DVDHeadingBox|Witnessing to Mormons}}

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

! <h1 style="margin:25px 0px 0px 0px;font-size:200%;font-weight:normal;text-align:center;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Attacks on Joseph Smith</h1>

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Joseph Smith was a liar, again and again he lied. Joseph Smith said that there were cities all over America that held many, many people in South and Central America. Not one city has ever been found. Not one crumb, not one remain, and yet in the Bible multitudes of cities have been found just as the Bible said." - Floyd McElveen</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Despite the assertion to the contrary, cities existed throughout South and Central America during the Book of Mormon timeframe and these cities were in fact filled with people. Whether or not Book of Mormon people lived in a particular city is debatable and has been addressed [[Search_for_the_Truth_DVD:Archaeology|here]].

Joseph Smith's conception of what pre-Columbian America was like was unusual for his era. When he discovered an 1842 book describing Central American ruins, he was surprised and pleased to have someone from the secular world confirm the Book of Mormon's portrait of pre-Columbian life. When the Book of Mormon was published, Amerindians were perceived as being generally without high culture, writing, cities, and other trappings of advanced civilization.

'''To read more:'''
*{{JBMS-14-2-8}}
*[[Archaeology and the Bible|Book of Mormon and Biblical archaeology]]
*{{Ensign|author=Daniel C. Peterson|article=Mounting Evidence for the Book of Mormon|vol=30|num=1|date=January 2000|start=18|end=24}}{{link|url=http://www.lds.org/portal/site/LDSOrg/menuitem.b12f9d18fae655bb69095bd3e44916a0/?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=741f6a4430c0c010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1}}

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Joseph Smith was a complete deceiver. He deceived people into believing that he had a revelation from God when he did not. The Book of Abraham has been proven false and Joseph Smith along with it. The DNA evidence showed he was false about what he said that the Lamanites and then the Indians descended from Israel—from the Jews. It was proven that they did not. He lied about that. He was a liar from the very beginning." - Floyd McElveen
</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|
These issues have all been addressed in the sections referenced below.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Search_for_the_Truth_DVD:Prophecy_and_Revelation|Prophecy and revelation]]
* [[Search_for_the_Truth_DVD:First Vision|First Vision]]
* [[Search_for_the_Truth_DVD:Book of Abraham|Book of Abraham]]
* [[Search_for_the_Truth_DVD:DNA|DNA]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Now I just ask you a simple question, do you want to trust Joseph Smith who is a fraud, a womanizer, many wives, a false prophet, the Book of Mormon? There's nothing to support it, all the evidence says to the contrary. Or would you trust Jesus Christ who is the Savior, who is God, who became a man? ...Now where do you want to rest your hope for eternity? In Joseph Smith or in Jesus Christ and His word?" - Dave Hunt (Author and Founder, Berean Ministries)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Once again this is a false dilemma and begs the question of Joseph's prophetic authority. Was Joseph Smith an imperfect mortal? Certainly. Was Paul an imperfect mortal? Of course. Do we trust Paul's record of his encounter with the divine? Is there evidence to support Paul's theophany? Do we trust Paul instead of Christ?

The charges which Mr. Hunt hopes will stick if he just repeats them often enough have all been answered earlier.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Search_for_the_Truth_DVD:Prophecy_and_Revelation|Prophecy and revelation]]
* [[Search_for_the_Truth_DVD:First Vision|First Vision]]
* [[Search_for_the_Truth_DVD:Book of Abraham|Book of Abraham]]
* [[Search_for_the_Truth_DVD:DNA|DNA]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Why would you trust Joseph Smith over the Bible?" - Sandra Tanner (President, Utah Lighthouse Ministry)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

This is a false dilemma and begs the question. If Joseph Smith is a prophet of God, then we can trust him and the Bible.

Latter-day Saints do not choose between the two, any more than they choose between Peter and Paul, or Matthew and Mark.

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "What is the criteria for testing a prophet? Let's look at that and I would hope the person would then be able to see Joseph Smith doesn't deserve the honor and recognition that they've always given to him. He doesn't measure up against what God said in the Bible." - Sandra Tanner (President, Utah Lighthouse Ministry)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

No examples are given here, so one cannot assess the claim that Joseph does not match "what God said in the Bible."

It is easy to guess, though, that the critics have a self-serving interpretation of what makes a prophet, and the Latter-day Saints have a different interpretation.

As Joseph Smith noted, settling such questions by an appeal to the Bible is futile. The Holy Bible can provide guidance and insight, but we must check our conclusions with God. Only revelation can guide us into correct conclusions and then confirm them.

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "I would greatly encourage any Mormon or any person who is thinking about Mormonism to examine objectively the life of Joseph Smith, the reliability and the teachings of the Book of Mormon over against the Jesus of the New Testament and the reliability of the Bible and its truthfulness." - Dr. Phil Roberts (President, Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Latter-day Saints also encourage Mormons and investigators to examine, as objectively as possible, the life of Joseph Smith. This requires accurate information, not sensationalized distortions. And, it requires a willingness to seek God's opinion during the process.

'''To read more:'''
* "Joseph Smith: Prophet of God" {{link|url=http://www.josephsmith.net/}}
* Matthew Brown, "Historical or Hysterical—Anti-Mormons and Documentary Sources" {{fairlink|url=http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/2004_Anti-Mormons_and_Documentary_Sources.html}}

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "It's a question of what the truth is. It's a question of what the evidence is. It's a question of, did a man come along 1800 years into the history of Christianity and totally revise what Christianity says and what the Bible says? And that's what we believe Joseph Smith did." - Dr. Phil Roberts (President, Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Joseph did not claim to revise Christianity, or alter what the Bible says. He claimed to restore Christianity to its original state. LDS doctrine does not alter Biblical doctrines, but it does offer a different interpretation of the Biblical data.

Dr. Roberts' Baptist denomination is hardly younger than Joseph Smith's denomination, with historical roots in the 17th century at the earliest. Are we to instead believe that someone could reform Christianity without prophetic authority? Either Christianity persisted, uncontaminated, from the days of the apostles, or it was corrupted. If it became corrupted, by what authority did Dr. Roberts' denomination correct it? And, how can a neutral observer know if that authority is legitimate?

If Christian doctrines were altered since Jesus and the apostles taught them, should they not be revised (or, more properly, restored) to their previous state?

'''To read more:'''

*{{tg|url=http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai014.html|topic=Apostasy and restoration}}
*Roger Keller, "The Apostasy" {{fairlink|url=http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/conf/2004KelR.html}}
{{ApostasyLinks}}
*{{Restoringancientchurch0}}
|-

! <h1 style="margin:25px 0px 0px 0px;font-size:200%;font-weight:normal;text-align:center;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claims of Biblical Inerrancy</h1>

|-

! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Do you want to know truth about who God is and how to know Him and how to be with Him forever? Then listen to this book, which is free of error because God can't lie. He makes no mistakes." - Dr. John Whitcomb</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Latter-day Saints accept the Bible as the Word of God. We, like other Christians, believe that studying the Bible will draw us closer to the divine. We also agree that God doesn't lie or make mistakes. Can a book, however, that was written by imperfect mortals, in imperfect languages, copied by imperfect copyists, translated by imperfect translators, and interpreted by imperfect readers be "free of error"? The Bible itself does not claim to be error-free, and studies of the Bible and the inherent ambiguity which exists in all languages demonstrates that no writing is truly free of error.

Furthermore, even if one could have a perfect scripture, one would still have to interpret it. Even the most well-intentioned people (as most Christians have been) do not agree on the proper interpretation of many Biblical passages.

As one non-Mormon scholar noted:

:''Christians have argued, often passionately, over every conceivable point of Christian doctrine from the filioque to the immaculate conception. There is scarcely an issue of worship, theology, ethics, and politics over which some Christians have not disagreed among themselves.''
::<small>—David Steinmetz, "Christian Unity: A Sermon by David Steinmetz," ''News and Notes'' 5/6 (April 1990)</small>

This constant disagreement between Christians demonstrates that interpretation of the Bible is not straightforward, and leads honest men and women to many different places.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Biblical inerrancy]]
* {{tg|topic=Biblical inerrancy|url=http://fairlds.org/apol/ai103.html}}
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Virtually every verse I quote in scripture is [given to my congregation] because you need to go home and check me out. You need to see what the Bible has to say not what John says, not what Joseph says, not what anybody says but God. What does God say about these issues? You need to check these things out. It is your soul—your eternal soul—that is on the line and there is no reset button at the judgment. There is no finger pointing: 'But he misled me.' You have an obligation for the sake of your soul as well as to be able to share the truth with your family, people you love, to check out what God's word has to say on these issues and not what somebody else had to say and the answers are found only in the word of God which is the Bible." - Jon McCartney (Pastor, First Baptist Church of Tooele, Utah)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Sincere seekers of truth should verify the claims made by others. FAIR has prepared these resources so that no one need rely on the word of those who distort the teachings, beliefs, and history of the Church of Jesus Christ.

Teachings should be compared with the Bible, but this is not the final step. How can we know if our interpretation of the Bible is the correct one? There are thousands of Christian sects, each with their own interpretation of certain scriptures.

The only way in which we can be assured of following God's will is to have God Himself tell us. He has promised that He will. The DVD producers hope that you will not do this, and spend a great deal of time [[Search_for_the_Truth_DVD:Burning_in_the_Bosom|here]] trying to convince you that revelation from God cannot be relied upon.

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "And the Bible is supported by hundreds, even thousands of prophecies, proofs, evidence, history, archaeology—we can prove it." - Dave Hunt (Author and Founder, Berean Ministries)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

While Latter-day Saints would agree that there is evidence—both secular and spiritual—to support the Bible as a mostly accurate narrative and as the Word of God, it is false to imply that the Bible has been proven to be the Word of God by secular means. It is likewise inaccurate to claim that we can "prove" the Bible by archaeology and history. Many biblical scholars and archaeologists believe that numerous Bible stories are myths or fabrications. Some question various parts of its history or doubt the reality of miracles and the resurrection. Archaeology and history certainly can not prove that Jesus is the Son of God, or that He atoned for our sins.

Only a witness from the Spirit of God can prove spiritual things:

:Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
:But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. ({{s|1|Corinthians|2|13-14}})

'''To read more:'''
* [[Biblical inerrancy]]
* [[Open_canon_vs._closed_canon]]
* {{tg|topic=Biblical inerrancy|url=http://fairlds.org/apol/ai103.html}}

|-
! <h1 style="margin:25px 0px 0px 0px;font-size:200%;font-weight:normal;text-align:center;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Saved by Faith Alone?</h1>

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "My faith that I will be spending eternity in heaven with Jesus Christ is dependent upon understanding who He is and what He's done. The shed blood of Jesus Christ, His life was sacrificed upon the cross, His blood was shed, He died, He is resurrected—He lives today. And if I would believe in Him and who He is and what He's done and acknowledge who I am and what I've done and ask for forgiveness then I can spend eternity with him." - Roger Oakland (President, Understand the Times)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Latter-day Saints believe all of these things.

The only additional belief is that Latter-day Saints insist that because they love Jesus and believe what He tells them, they should strive to obey the commandments He gives them. Critics try to portray this as a rejection of Christ's grace—it is not. It is an expression of our gratitude for it.

Distorted ideas about the Latter-day Saints' views on salvation have already been addressed [[Search_for_the_Truth_DVD:Eternal_Life|here]].
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "All you have to do is believe in Christ and be saved and confess it and then that's it." - Tim Howard (Former Mormon) </h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Mr. Howard is entitled to his opinion. Of course, hundreds of millions of other Christians—such as the Roman Catholics, the Orthodox, the early Christians, and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints—have the same Bible scriptures, and come to a different conclusion.

This demonstrates that Biblical interpretation is the key issue. Even those who agree that the Bible is the Word of God cannot agree on what it means.

'''To read more:'''

* Does the Church [[Neglect grace|neglect]] the doctrine of grace?
* [[Salvation by faith alone]]
* [[Born_again_translation|Born again]]
* "Are We Saved by Grace Alone?" {{fairlink|url=http://www.fairlds.org/Bible/Are_We_Saved_by_Grace_Alone.html}}

|-
! <h1 style="margin:25px 0px 0px 0px;font-size:200%;font-weight:normal;text-align:center;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Distorting the LDS View of Salvation</h1>

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "It don't have to be I've got to join this Church and then on top of that I've got to pay my tithing to get a Temple recommend and then I've got to have a Temple recommend to get into the Temple and then I've got to go to the Temple so that I can live with God so that I can become a God so that I can go have a planet to not be with God. It just don't make sense." - Tim Howard (Former Mormon)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Mr. Howard's distortion of the early Christian and Latter-day Saint doctrine of theosis makes it clear that he does not understand it.

Latter-day Saints do not view such matters as joining Christ's church, worshipping Christ in the temple, or making financial donations to the cause of Christ to be things they have "got to" do.

Rather, they are things which they do joyfully because:
* they express their love for Christ and His marvelous atonement
* they wish to imitate Christ and act as much like Him as possible
* the Lord gives His Spirit in even greater abundance when they obey Christ's teachings
* serving the Lord and others gives them joy.

They do not do these things hoping that Christ will forgive them. They do them because they have been forgiven.

'''To read more:'''

*{{Ensign1|author=Dallin H. Oaks|article=Have You Been Saved?|date=May 1998|start=55}} {{link|url=http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/1998.htm/ensign%20may%201998.htm/have%20you%20been%20saved.htm}}
* [[Deification_of_man|''Theosis''/human deification]]

|-

! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "There is a tremendous amount of respect that I have for them and their dedication and how hard they are seeking and the burden that they are willing to carry in their impossible attempt to live up to their impossible gospel demands." - Joel Kramer (Director, Living Hope Ministries)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Latter-day Saints do not consider the demands which a merciful Christ puts upon them to be impossible, or even onerous. As Jesus taught, "My yoke is easy, and my burden is light" ({{s||Matthew|11|30}}).

Distorted ideas about the Latter-day Saints' views on salvation have already been addressed [[Search_for_the_Truth_DVD:Eternal_Life|here]].

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "And so my heart is that any Mormon who would be hearing this would be going back to the scriptures, challenging the words of Joseph Smith, comparing them to the words of Jesus—the one who died for you, the one who loves you. The one who is praying for you right now, interceding, he ever lives to make intercession for you right now."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

These are all doctrines believed and taught by the Latter-day Saints:
* Christ died for us ({{s||Jacob|1|8}}, {{s||Mosiah|3|7}}, {{s||Helaman|14|20}})
* Christ loves us ({{s|3|Nephi|17|5-22}}, {{s||Moroni|7|48}})
* Christ prays for us to the Father ({{s|3|Nephi|17|15-22}}, {{s|3|Nephi|18|23-25}}).
* Christ makes intercession for us ({{s|2|Nephi|2|9-10}}, {{s||Mosiah|14|12}}, {{s||Mosiah|15|5}}, {{s||DC|45|3-5}}.)

More attempts to dismiss LDS ideas about salvation through Jesus Christ—which are strikingly similar to the views advocated by the DVD—can be seen [[Search_for_the_Truth_DVD:Eternal_Life|here]].

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "And I'm sure that if you do that if you truly seek Him out in the Bible I'm sure that Jesus would begin to speak to you and you would know the truth." - Scott Gallantin (Pastor, Calvary Chapel)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

How does Pastor Gallantin know that Jesus does not speak to the Latter-day Saints as they read the Bible? (According to a Christian research group, a Latter-day Saint is statistically more likely to read the Bible during the week than Catholics or Protestants.) {{link|url=http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdate&BarnaUpdateID=103}}

Unless Pastor Gallantin is getting revelation from God (i.e., not from the Bible) he cannot know what God does or does not tell the Latter-day Saints.

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "When Jesus says if the Son set you free you should be free indeed He really means it. The thing that broke forth on me was that the Bible really is the real thing there's no fantasy to it. It reveals reality to us." - Randy Gavin (Former Salt Lake Stake Mission President)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Latter-day Saints likewise believe that the Bible is the real thing, with no fantasy to it as it reveals reality to us. They also believe that they have been made free by Jesus Christ.

|-

! <h1 style="margin:25px 0px 0px 0px;font-size:200%;font-weight:normal;text-align:center;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claims about Family</h1>

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "I was born and raised a Mormon for 37 years.... Everything took a back seat to the Church including, as I look back, my family." - Randy Gavin (Former Salt Lake Stake Mission President)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

If Mr. Gavin put his family in the back seat to Church duties, the Church is not to blame for that. In fact, Mr. Gavin violated the clear teachings of the Church by not putting family before Church duties.

Interested readers may wish to review the Church's teachings on family below.

For those who might be unfamiliar with the LDS church and it's lay ministry, a stake mission president was a part-time position held by assignment, for a period of time, in every LDS stake. The person in this position helped coordinate member-missionary efforts within the stake boundaries. A stake is an ecclesiastical unit of roughly ten congregations. Thus, in Salt Lake City alone there were dozens of stakes and hundreds of stake mission presidents. The position of stake mission president was done away with in approximately 2001, and missionary work focused within wards instead of stakes.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Church over family|Church over family?]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "You know, I thought to myself I'm teaching these kids, let alone my own kids, this song about a prophet that I don't even believe is true." - Karen Howard (Former Mormon)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

This is a bizarre objection. Ms. Howard was teaching her children something she didn't believe? No parent ought to teach children things that they don't believe are true. However, that Ms. Howard did so is no fault of the Church's. The Church constantly emphasizes the necessity of knowing for oneself if one is following the path approved by God.

Ms. Howard's belief or disbelief says nothing about the truth or falsehood of any belief. It merely says that in her case she was relying on poor grounds for her actions.

|-

! <h1 style="margin:25px 0px 0px 0px;font-size:200%;font-weight:normal;text-align:center;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Denying Testimony and the Witness of the Spirit</h1>

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "What I've discovered is when you counter Mormon theology with biblical fact and you back them up into a corner they most always go back to, 'Well I've experienced a testimony.'" - Roger Oakland (President, Understand the Times)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The reader is invited to consider whether any reply to any of the so-called facts presented by the ''Search for the Truth'' DVD have been answered with "Well, we at FAIR have a testimony."

Members of FAIR do have testimonies, but there are legitimate Biblical and historical answers to all the questions posed by the critics. No member can answer every objection from a hostile critic, especially one who is so convinced that their interpretation of the Bible is the only way in which an honest, Christian, God-fearing person could understand the text. But, an individual's inability to answer to the satisfaction of self-appointed "Christian" judges says nothing about the merits of any position.

Above all else, the DVD producers want you to rely on them and their interpretations of scripture, history, and doctrine. They spend a lot of effort [[Search_for_the_Truth_DVD:Burning_in_the_Bosom|here]] trying to convince you that getting answers directly from God is unreliable.
|-

! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "...when you ask them, 'Well what do you mean by “the testimony?” Is that the burning in the bosom?' They say, 'Yes, of course, and you too could have the experience of the burning in the bosom all you need to do is ask God if what Joseph Smith said is true.' Now isn't this amazing? To stake your eternal life based on some kind of a feeling, a subjective feeling? Where would you find that in the scriptures? Absolutely nowhere." - Roger Oakland (President, Understand the Times)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Note that the DVD intro text says: ''We pray that it will touch the hearts of all who watch through the grace and truth of Christ Jesus.''

The DVD spends much effort [[Search_for_the_Truth_DVD:Burning_in_the_Bosom|here]] trying to convince the Latter-day Saints not to trust their feelings. Why, then, do they hope their feelings are touched?

Could it be that they realize that the Holy Ghost does work (in part) through the sentiments of the heart?

At any rate, basing one's eternal life on direct revelation from God is a thoroughly Biblical doctrine, as discussed at length [[Search_for_the_Truth_DVD:Burning_in_the_Bosom|here]].

|-
! <h1 style="margin:25px 0px 0px 0px;font-size:200%;font-weight:normal;text-align:center;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Lying</h1>

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "I remember sitting on the edge of my bed and weeping as the recognition that I had been lied to crept in upon me." - Randy Gavin (Former Salt Lake Stake Mission President)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

If Mr. Gavin believed he was lied to, then he can doubtless understand how offensive it is for the Latter-day Saints when their doctrine and their history is repeatedly lied about over the course of a ninety minute DVD.

What is harder to understand is why Mr. Gavin would participate in a venture which lies about the beliefs of others.

One can only hope that he still does not understand LDS doctrine and practice, as he evidently did not prior to leaving the Church.

|-

! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "My heart, to see that people could know the truth because Jesus said if you know the truth the truth will set you free." - Scott Gallantin (Pastor, Calvary Chapel)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

If the truth is all that is necessary to set us free (and Latter-day Saints believe that it is), why has Pastor Gallantin chosen to lend his name to a DVD that blatantly (and demonstrably) misrepresents the faith of the Latter-day Saints?

Why does he not refuse to associate with those who bear false witness?

Why does he not present all the facts?

Why does he help those who will not?

|-

|}


{{DVDRightColumn}}
|}
{{DoYouHaveQuestions}}

Criticism of Mormonism/Video/Search for the Truth DVD/Eternal Life

2007-03-31T02:44:15Z

SuzanneArmitage:

{{DVDHeadingBox|Eternal Life}}

{| style="border-spacing:8px;margin:0px -8px"
| class="MainPageBG" style="width:85%;border:1px solid #cedff2;background-color:#f5faff;vertical-align:top"|
{| width="100%" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top;background-color:#f5faff"
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "With the concept of God being so drastically different between the Bible and Joseph Smith's teachings one must wonder how Joseph Smith could claim that the Book of Mormon was another Testament of Jesus Christ." - Patrick Powell (Host)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The claim that the Bible and Joseph Smith disagree is false, as shown [[Search for the Truth DVD:Who Is God%3F|here]]. Joseph Smith disagrees with the non-biblical creeds and resulting ''interpretations'' of the Bible favored by Mr. Powell.

The Book of Mormon is another testament of Christ because it clearly teaches redemption through a personal covenant relationship with God, through the Lord Jesus Christ.

In addition, the self proclaimed purpose of the Book of Mormon is to establish the truthfulness of the Bible by substantiating it's teachings ({{s|1|Nephi|13|39-40}}). In this sense, it becomes a second witness of Christ by supporting the teachings of Christ and his pivotal role in the salvation of mankind, as found in the Bible.

'''To read more:'''
*[[Plain and Precious Book of Mormon doctrines#Doctrines relating to the Savior and his mission|Book of Mormon doctrines about Christ and His mission]]
*[[Plain_and_Precious_Book_of_Mormon_doctrines#Faith.2C_Repentance.2C_Baptism.2C_the_gift_of_the_Holy_Ghost_and_Enduring_to_the_End|Book of Mormon doctrines on:]]
**Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ
**Repentance
**Baptism of water
**Baptism of fire (the Holy Ghost)
**Enduring to the end
*[[Plain and Precious Book of Mormon doctrines#Prayer|Book of Mormon doctrine on prayer]]
*[[Plain and Precious Book of Mormon doctrines#The purpose of life|Book of Mormon doctrine on the purpose of life]]
*[[Plain and Precious Book of Mormon doctrines#What the devil doesn.27t want us to know|Book of Mormon doctrine on how to fight Satan]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "You just don't pay lip service to Jesus; you enter into Him. You become a part of Him. You absorb. You identify completely with His suffering on the cross; His resurrection from the dead; His claims to be the Son of God and therefore qualified to pay the price we could never pay; and once we believe in Him in that deep sense of commitment which can be instantaneous—in fact it has to be—at that moment we have eternal life." - Dr. John Whitcomb (theology professor, Old Testament scholar)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Despite the video's implication, Latter-day Saints wholeheartedly teach this doctrine. The Book of Mormon, which the critics claim cannot be a testament of Jesus Christ, contains an account of a group of people who are transformed by faith in Christ:

:And they had viewed themselves in their own carnal state, even less than the dust of the earth. And they all cried aloud with one voice, saying: O have mercy, and apply the atoning blood of Christ that we may receive forgiveness of our sins, and our hearts may be purified; for we believe in Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who created heaven and earth, and all things; who shall come down among the children of men.
:And it came to pass that after they had spoken these words the Spirit of the Lord came upon them, and they were filled with joy, having received a remission of their sins, and having peace of conscience, because of the exceeding faith which they had in Jesus Christ who should come, according to the words which king Benjamin had spoken unto them. ({{s||Mosiah|4|2-3}})

The Book of Mormon also teaches:

:Yea, come unto Christ, and be perfected in him, and deny yourselves of all ungodliness; and if ye shall deny yourselves of all ungodliness, and love God with all your might, mind and strength, then is his grace sufficient for you, that by his grace ye may be perfect in Christ; and if by the grace of God ye are perfect in Christ, ye can in nowise deny the power of God.
:And again, if ye by the grace of God are perfect in Christ, and deny not his power, then are ye sanctified in Christ by the grace of God, through the shedding of the blood of Christ, which is in the covenant of the Father unto the remission of your sins, that ye become holy, without spot. ({{s||Moroni|10|32-33}})

Latter-day Saints do not wish to simply pay "lip service" to Jesus, as Dr. Whitcomb says. Therefore, they seek to obey when Jesus commands them to do something. To say we believe while not trying to obey (however imperfectly) would indeed be to give lip service. As Jesus Himself taught, "If ye love me, keep my commandments" ({{s||John|14|15}}).

And, after presenting His Sermon on the Mount, Jesus admonishes us:

:Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:
:And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock.
:And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand:
:And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it. ({{s||Matthew|7|24-27}}).

Is Jesus lying, or does He expect us to obey to the extent we are able?

'''To read more'''
*[[Born again translation|Being "born again": early Christian perspectives]]
* "Are We Saved by Grace Alone?" {{fairlink|url=http://www.fairlds.org/Bible/Are_We_Saved_by_Grace_Alone.html}}
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "In Christianity eternal life is a gift. It's the most radical understanding of how one goes to heaven, is resurrected, has eternal life, in the religious realm—by grace or saved through faith—it is the gift of God. Why is it a gift? Because Jesus Christ did something that we couldn't do for ourselves. He died on the cross satisfying God's sense of justice against sin; paid the price for our sins; was raised eternally through the resurrection with a glorified body. When we put our faith and trust in Him your pain of sins and believing in Him we receive salvation as a gift." - Dr. Phil Roberts (President, Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Latter-day Saints also preach this same doctrine. The Book of Mormon teaches:

*We can't do it ourselves:
:And men are instructed sufficiently that they know good from evil. And the law is given unto men. And by the law no flesh is justified; or, by the law men are cut off. Yea, by the temporal law they were cut off; and also, by the spiritual law they perish from that which is good, and become miserable forever. ({{s|2|Nephi|2|5}})

*We are saved by grace because of Christ's sacrifice for our sins:

:Wherefore, redemption cometh in and through the Holy Messiah; for he is full of grace and truth.
:Behold, he offereth himself a sacrifice for sin, to answer the ends of the law, unto all those who have a broken heart and a contrite spirit; and unto none else can the ends of the law be answered. ({{s|2|Nephi|2|6-7}})

*Christ died on the cross to satisfy the demands of justice:

:Yea, even so he [the Messiah, Christ] shall be led, crucified, and slain, the flesh becoming subject even unto death, the will of the Son being swallowed up in the will of the Father.
:And thus God breaketh the bands of death, having gained the victory over death; giving the Son power to make intercession for the children of men—
:Having ascended into heaven, having the bowels of mercy; being filled with compassion towards the children of men; standing betwixt them and justice; having broken the bands of death, taken upon himself their iniquity and their transgressions, having redeemed them, and satisfied the demands of justice. ({{s||Mosiah|15|7-9}})

*Eternal life and salvation is a "gift from God":

:...lay up for yourselves a treasure in heaven, yea, which is eternal, and which fadeth not away; yea, that ye may have that precious gift of eternal life, which we have reason to suppose hath been given to our fathers. ({{s||Helaman|5|8}})

*Christ was raised from the dead with a glorified body:

:Behold, they will crucify him; and after he is laid in a sepulchre for the space of three days he shall rise from the dead, with healing in his wings; and all those who shall believe on his name shall be saved in the kingdom of God. ({{s|2|Nephi|25|13}})

It should be clear that these critics do not understand LDS doctrine, or are trying to make it appear as if the Latter-day Saints do not believe these fundamental Christian concepts.

The speakers distort or are ignorant of LDS scripture and the faith of the Latter-day Saints. They act as if such doctrines would be novel to us, but in fact they are the core doctrines of our faith.

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: After mentioning the LDS doctrine of the three degrees of glory, the video adds: "In Romans 6:23 it talks about although "wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life." - Jon McCartney (Pastor, First Baptist Church of Tooele, Utah)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Once again, the Latter-day Saints share this doctrine. The Bible and Book of Mormon teach it:

:For behold, there is a wo pronounced upon him who listeth to obey that [evil] spirit; for if he listeth to obey him, and remaineth and dieth in his sins, the same drinketh damnation to his own soul; for he receiveth for his wages an everlasting punishment, having transgressed the law of God contrary to his own knowledge. ({{s||Mosiah|2|33}})

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "It is only by trusting Him that we come to be able to enjoy the glory of heaven. ‘I am the way, the truth and life and no one, not one person, comes to the Father but through me.'" - Jon McCartney (Pastor, First Baptist Church of Tooele, Utah) </h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The Latter-day Saints believe this scripture, and quote it frequently. And, this doctrine is again taught in the Book of Mormon, which the DVD insists isn't a "Christian" testament:

*Christ is the only way to salvation:

:And moreover, I say unto you, that there shall be no other name given nor any other way nor means whereby salvation can come unto the children of men, only in and through the name of Christ, the Lord Omnipotent. ({{s||Mosiah|3|17}})

:And if it so be that [men] repent and come unto the Father in the name of Jesus, they shall be received into the kingdom of God. ({{s||Ether|5|5}})

*Trust in God necessary for salvation:

: I would that ye should remember, that as much as ye shall put your trust in God even so much ye shall be delivered out of your trials, and your troubles, and your afflictions, and ye shall be lifted up at the last day. ({{s||Alma|38|5}})

Latter-day Saints would ask, however, if they are to ''trust'' Jesus, why they should not trust Him enough to do what He says?

This is discussed further in the next claim.

|-

! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "According to the Bible, repenting of our sins and faith in Jesus Christ is the only way to gain eternal life. In John, Jesus was asked 'What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?' Jesus answered and said to them, 'This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent.' (John 6:28,29)"</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Latter-day Saints proclaim that faith in Christ and repentance are absolutely essential for Christ's atonement to be effective in our lives.

But, they also insist that beliving in Jesus includes believing what He says, and obeying Him because we love Him.

"According to the Bible," Jesus also says:

*"He that believeth ''and is baptized'' shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned."{{s||Mark|16|16}} {{ea}}
*"Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven."({{s||Matthew|7|21}})
*"But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved." ({{s||Matthew|24|13}})
*"And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, ''to give every man according as his work'' shall be."({{s||Revelation|22|12}}) {{ea}}
*"Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.... Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.... Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels.... Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.... And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal. ({{s||Matthew|25|31-46}}) {{ea}}

The Bible also says:
*And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. ({{s|1|John|2|3-4}})
*But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves. ({{s||James|1|22}})
*What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.... ({{s||Romans|6|15}})
*...if we sin willfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins.... ({{s||Hebrews|10|26}})
*For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous. ({{s|1|John|5|3}})
*Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. ({{s||Galatians|6|7}})
*...all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, And shall come forth; ''they that have done good'', unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation. ({{s||John|5|28-29}}) {{ea}}
*For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them. ({{s||Ephesians|2|10}})
*This is a faithful saying, and these things I will that thou affirm constantly, that they which have believed in God might be careful to maintain good works. These things are good and profitable unto men. ({{s||Titus|3|8}})
*That ye might walk worthy of the Lord unto all pleasing, being fruitful in every good work, and increasing in the knowledge of God;({{s||Colossians|1|10}})
*Nothing saves us without Christ. But, "He that saith, I know [Christ], and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him." ({{s|1|John|2|3-4}})

'''To read more:'''
*[[Neglect grace|Does the Church neglect the doctrine of grace?]]
|-

! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "In the Bible it is clear that our salvation rests in the hands of Jesus Christ alone. Why? Because from the beginning God's word tells us that the penalty for all sin is death—both physical death and spiritual separation from God." "For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord." (Romans 6:23) (on screen)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Yet again, these doctrines are all embraced by the Latter-day Saints. The Book of Mormon teaches:

*All mankind suffers spiritual and physical death

:for all mankind, by the fall of Adam being cut off from the presence of the Lord, are considered as dead, both as to things temporal [i.e., physical] and to things spiritual. ({{s||Helaman|14|16}})

*All sin and are condemned

:And by the law no flesh is justified; or, by the law men are cut off. Yea, by the temporal law they were cut off; and also, by the spiritual law they perish from that which is good, and become miserable forever. ({{s|2|Nephi|2|5}})

*No one can say anything of themselves

:And now I ask, can ye say aught of yourselves? I answer you, Nay. Ye cannot say that ye are even as much as the dust of the earth; yet ye were created of the dust of the earth.... ({{s||Mosiah|2|25}})

*Christ alone can save us
:Wherefore, beloved brethren, be reconciled unto him through the atonement of Christ, his Only Begotten Son, and ye may obtain a resurrection, according to the power of the resurrection which is in Christ, and be presented as the first-fruits of Christ unto God, having faith, and obtained a good hope of glory in him.... ({{s||Jacob|4|11}})

The DVD producers are either ignorant or deceitful about LDS beliefs concerning Christ and His atonement.

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: To pay [the] penalty [for sin] a person must:<br>

:[1] Be sinless<br>
:[2] Be infinite to pay the infinite penalty for mankind's sin<br>
:[3] Die as a substitute by shedding of blood to pay sin's penalty<br>
:[4] Rise from the dead to defeat sin and death<br>
</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

It is almost as if the DVD producers are quoting the Book of Mormon.

Yet again, all these doctrines are taught and believed by the Latter-day Saints.

'''[1] Sinless'''
*I would that ye should understand that God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people. ({{s||Mosiah|15|1}})
*Wherefore, redemption cometh in and through the Holy Messiah; for he is full of grace and truth. ({{s|2|Nephi|2|6}})

'''[2] Be infinite to pay an infinite penalty'''
*...therefore there can be nothing which is short of an infinite atonement which will suffice for the sins of the world. ({{s||Alma|34|12}})
*...there should be a great and last sacrifice; yea, not a sacrifice of man...for it shall not be a human sacrifice; but it must be an infinite and eternal sacrifice. Now there is not any man that can sacrifice his own blood which will atone for the sins of another. ({{s||Alma|34|10-11}})

'''[3] Die as a substitute by shedding of blood'''
*Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, who wrought out this perfect atonement through the shedding of his own blood. ({{s||DC|76|69}})
*[This] great and last sacrifice will be the Son of God, yea, infinite and eternal. And thus he shall bring salvation to all those who shall believe on his name; this being the intent of this last sacrifice, to bring about the bowels of mercy, which overpowereth justice, and bringeth about means unto men that they may have faith unto repentance. And thus mercy can satisfy the demands of justice, and encircles them in the arms of safety, while he that exercises no faith unto repentance is exposed to the whole law of the demands of justice; therefore only unto him that has faith unto repentance is brought about the great and eternal plan of redemption. ({{s||Alma|34|14-16}})
*And he will take upon him death, that he may loose the bands of death which bind his people({{s||Alma|7|12}})

'''[4] Rise from the dead to defeat sin and death'''
*Behold, they will crucify him; and after he is laid in a sepulchre for the space of three days he shall rise from the dead, with healing in his wings; and all those who shall believe on his name shall be saved in the kingdom of God. Wherefore, my soul delighteth to prophesy concerning him, for I have seen his day, and my heart doth magnify his holy name. ({{s|2|Nephi|25|13}})
*death and hell must deliver up their dead, and hell must deliver up its captive spirits, and the grave must deliver up its captive bodies, and the bodies and the spirits of men will be restored one to the other; and it is by the power of the resurrection of the Holy One of Israel. ({{s|2|Nephi|9|12}})

These are basic, fundamental doctrines accepted without reservation by all faithful Latter-day Saints.

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "No other person could do what Jesus did; therefore only faith in Jesus' death on the cross and resurrection can save a sinner."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

This is precisely what the Book of Mormon teaches:

*Wherefore, how great the importance to make these things known unto the inhabitants of the earth, that they may know that there is no flesh that can dwell in the presence of God, save it be through the merits, and mercy, and grace of the Holy Messiah, who layeth down his life according to the flesh, and taketh it again by the power of the Spirit, that he may bring to pass the resurrection of the dead, being the first that should rise. ({{s|2|Nephi|2|8}})
*remember, after ye are reconciled unto God, that it is only in and through the grace of God that ye are saved. ({{s|2|Nephi|10|24}})
*there is no other way or means whereby man can be saved, only in and through Christ. Behold, he is the life and the light of the world. Behold, he is the word of truth and righteousness. ({{s||Alma|38|9}})
*ought ye not to tremble and repent of your sins, and remember that only in and through Christ ye can be saved?({{s||Mosiah|16|13}})

Speakers who know so little of the fundamental doctrines of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints should not be trusted to inform others about the Church.

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Can we know that we have eternal life? Scripture states, "These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life, and that you may continue to believe in the name of the Son of God." (1 John 5:13)
</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Once again, a Latter-day Saint can only give a hearty "Amen!" By now, it should be no surprise that the Book of Mormon teaches these doctrines:

*he [Christ] shall rise from the dead, with healing in his wings; and all those who shall believe on his name shall be saved in the kingdom of God. ({{s|2|Nephi|25|13}})
*...as many as will not harden their hearts shall be saved in the kingdom of God. ({{s||Jacob|6|4}})

The Book of Mormon teaches all these doctrines which the critics insist are so important. Why, then, are they so hostile toward the faith of the Latter-day Saints? Could it be that they do not understand that which they attack?

|-

! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "In order to gain access into the celestial heaven Joseph Smith's revelation requires keeping the Ten Commandments as well as all the commandments found throughout the three sacred Mormon books; be baptized into the Mormon Church; tithe; get married in the Temple; obey the Word of Wisdom; be baptized for the dead; magnify the Church callings; and the list goes on."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The LDS position is here distorted very badly.

The atonement of Christ, operative in our individual lives, is required for each of us to enter the "celestial heaven" (as demonstrated extensively above). Yet, Christ sets the terms whereby the atonement may be received. LDS believe that all mankind will be saved in a kingdom of glory because of the universal atonement of the Savior. "For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive" ({{s|1|Corinthians|15|21-22}}). This is without action on our part, but as a result of a loving Savior's atoning sacrifice and God the Father's plan of salvation.

We see, at last, the complaint which the critics have against the Latter-day Saints. The critics insist that no action of mankind's, aside from fervent, correct belief in Christ and the action of personally accepting Christ as their savior, is required for salvation.

Yet, Latter-day Saints believe that the atonement of Christ brings salvation without action on our part, without even the requirements that other faiths add to the process. But, they find it hypocritical and nonsensical to talk about a fervent faith that does not lead to fervent efforts to do one's best to honor Christ's commandments, seek His will, obey His words, and imitate His sinless life. If we love, honor, and trust someone, why would we not try to be like them to the extent possible? How we apply these lessons has a great deal to do with how the atonement will be applied in our lives beyond the life in a heaven that comes to all men.

Of course we will not succeed perfectly in this undertaking—but, the sincerity of our faith compels us to offer our best efforts—not because we think they will save us (they will not) but because we love Christ, and desire to obey Him. As Jesus asked rhetorically, "And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?" ({{s||Luke|6|46}})

The Latter-day Saints desire to make Jesus not just Lord of their lips, but Lord of their lives.
|-





! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">The critics insist that ''their'' view of salvation's requirements is the only biblically legitimate one.</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The critics act as if ''their'' conception of salvation is the only possible one, and the only possible Biblical interpretation. But, this is clearly false, since many Christians have held other views.

One Evangelical Christian author wrote of his sudden discovery that his previous beliefs about salvation were very different from those held by the early Christians:

:''If there's any single doctrine that we would expect to find the faithful associates of the apostles teaching, it's the doctrine of salvation by faith alone. After all, that is ''the'' cornerstone doctrine of the Reformation. In fact, we frequently say that persons who don't hold to this doctrine aren't really Christians.'' [It's almost as if Mr. Bercot has seen the DVD!]
:{{parabreak}}
:''Our problem is that Augustine, Luther, and other Western theologians have convinced us that there's an irreconcilable conflict between salvation based on grace and salvation conditioned on works or obedience. They have used a fallacious form of argumentation known as the "false dilemma," by asserting that there are only two possibilities regarding salvation: it's either (1) a gift from God or (2) it's something we earn by our works.''

:''The early Christians ''[and the Latter-day Saints!]'' would have replied that a gift is no less a gift simply because it's conditioned on obedience.... The early Christians believed that salvation is a gift from God but that God gives His gift to whomever He chooses. And ''He chooses to give it to those who love and obey him''.''
::<small>—{{Heretics|start=57, 61|end=62}} {{eo}}</small>

The Latter-day Saints are pleased to be in the company of the earliest Christians. And, the LDS cannot be excluded as Christians because they have not embraced the ''modified'' doctrines adopted later, and now taught by ''Search for the Truth''.

'''To read more:'''
*[[Early Christian views on salvation]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "There is no religion in the world that believes this except the religion of the Bible because every religion in the world says we just have to do something to contribute, we have to earn our way, we have to somehow please God with ourselves and our attitudes in our words and deeds. Impossible." - Dr. John Whitcomb (theology professor, Old Testament scholar)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Once again, the video presumes that ''their'' view of the Bible is the only legitimate one.

The early Christians were certainly both Christians and believers in the Biblical texts. Evangelical author David Bercot responded to the charge that the Early Christians didn't properly "understand" the Bible the way 20th century Christians do by pointing out that Clement of Alexandria quoted the New Testament 2,400 times and Tertullian 7,000 times. Bercot concludes:

:''So please don't accuse the early Christians ''[and, we would add, LDS Christians]'' of not reading their Bibles. These Christians were well aware of what Paul had written concerning salvation and grace. After all, Paul personally taught men like Clement of Rome. However, the early Christians didn't put Paul's letters to the Romans and the Galatians on a pedestal above the teachings of Jesus and the other apostles. They read Paul's words about grace in conjunction with such other scriptures as''...{{s||Matthew|7|21}}...{{s||Matthew|24|13}}...{{s||John|5|28-29}}...{{s||Revelation|22|12}}...{{s|1|Timothy|4|16}}...
::<small>—{{Heretics|start=63|end=64}}</small>

Bercot then addresses a matter which happens to be the video's next claim....

|-

! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "In fact, the Bible refutes the ordinances in Joseph Smith's Articles of Faith by stating, 'For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast.' ([http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Corinthians%2011:16-19;&version=49; Ephesians 2:8,9 NASB])"</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Bercot continues:

:''So, the real issue isn't a matter of ''believing'' the Scriptures, but one of ''interpreting'' the scriptures. The Bible says that "by yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast" ({{s||Ephesians|2|8-9}}). And yet the Bible also says, "You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only" ({{s||James|2|24}}). Our [i.e. evangelical] doctrine of salvation accepts that first statement but essentially nullifies the second. The early Christian doctrine of salvation gives equal weight to both."''
::<small>—{{Heretics|start=63|end=64}} {{eo}}</small>

The Latter-day Saints likewise honor ''all'' facets of salvation taught in scripture, not just some of them.

The Bible does not "refute" the idea of ordinances for salvation. When the apostles preached to a crowd, and the people were pricked in their hearts, they cried out, "Men and brethren, what shall we do?" ({{s||Acts|2|37}}).

Peter did ''not'' reply: "simply have faith in Jesus, and don't worry about any ordinances." He said:

:Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. ({{s||Acts|2|38}})

Peter's answer is exactly what the fourth Article of Faith calls for after faith in Jesus Christ: repentance, baptism, and the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Why is Joseph Smith condemned for following Peter's teachings?

'''To read more:'''
*[[Early Christian views on salvation]]
*[[Born again translation|Born of water: essential baptism in early Christianity]]

|-

! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Joseph Smith said, 'I have more to boast of than ever any man had. I am the only man that has ever been able to keep a whole church together since the days of Adam.... Neither Paul, John, Peter, nor Jesus ever did it. I boast that no man ever did such work as I. The followers of Jesus ran away from Him; but the Latter-day Saints never ran away from me yet.'" (<i>History of the Church,</i> vol. 6, pg. 408, 409)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

To contrast against the immediately preceding statement about "lest anyone should boast," the producers of the video include a purported statement of Joseph Smith's, wherein he does indeed boast. There is no explicit reason given for including this contrasting statement, other than to perhaps imply that Joseph was some sort of egomaniacal leader or someone who was stepping outside the bounds of propriety, and therefore not to be trusted. There are a couple of problems with such a comparison, however.

'''Joseph not the author'''

First, this statement is written as if Joseph was the author of it, but he was not. Scribes assembled this account from a "synposis" following Joseph's death. Trying to get insight into Joseph's character and intent from a statement put into his mouth after he was dead is poor history.

'''Quoted out of context'''

Second, the quote is taken out of context. In the original context, Joseph was facing intense persecution by many people, including some he had previously considered to be his friends. This statement was supposedly made about a month before he was killed. He made it after reading 2 Corinithians, chaper 11 to the congregation. Note the following statement by Paul, in this scripture:

:Again I say, let no one think me foolish; but if you do, receive me even as foolish, that I also may boast a little. That which I am speaking, I am not speaking in as the Lord would, but as in foolishness, in this confidence of boasting. Since many boast according to the flesh, I will boast also. For you, being so wise, bear the foolish gladly. (2 Corinthians 11:16-19, NASB)

Paul then launches into a literary tirade where he claims many things to make himself look the fool, to contrast himself with those who the Corinthians were listening to for their words of salvation, instead of to him. His words were meant to compare and contrast what the Saints at Corinth were doing against what he was offering.

Do the producers of the video dismiss the words of Paul and deny his calling as an Apostle because he used such a literary approach that included boasting? No, they do not. Yet, they dismiss Joseph Smith when it is clear by his own statements, in context, that he engaged in the exact same literary approach. Consider the words of Joseph right after reading this chapter of Paul's to the congregation:

:''My object is to let you know that I am right here on the spot where I intend to stay. I, like Paul, have been in perils, and oftener than anyone in this generation. As Paul boasted, I have suffered more than Paul did, I should be like a fish out of water, if I were out of persecutions. Perhaps my brethren think it requires all this to keep me humble. The Lord has constituted me curiously that I glory in persecution. I am not nearly so humble as if I were not persecuted. If oppression will make a wise man mad, much more a fool. If they want a beardless boy to whip all the world, I will get on the top of a mountain and crow like a rooster: I shall always beat them. When facts are proved, truth and innocence will prevail at last. My enemies are no philosophers: they think that when they have my spoke under, they will keep me down; but for the fools, I will hold on and fly over them.''
:;<small>—{{HoC1|vol=6|start=408}}</small>

After giving the above explanation, Joseph ''then'' makes the statements that the video accounts to him, in the same way that Paul made outrageous "boasts" to contrast his position with the position of those who the Corinthians were starting to listen to. Paul starts the next chapter of 2 Corinthians with the statement "boasting is necessary, though it is not profitable." So, it would appear that Paul recognizes the necessity of boasting at times (though it may do little good, being unprofitable), yet the producers of the video do not allow Joseph to follow Paul's advice and, of necessity, boast at times.

Perhaps the producers are unaware of Paul's advice? Or perhaps they apply a double standard where Paul is allowed such literary and rhetorical license, but Joseph is not? Again, the producers never reveal their intent in including Joseph's Paul-like statements in their video.

'''To read more:'''
*[[Did Joseph Smith 'boast' of keeping the Church intact]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Joseph Smith's Doctrine & Covenants teaches that Joseph himself holds the keys to the kingdom of heaven (on screen) 'Verily I say unto you, the keys of this kingdom shall never be taken from you, while thou art in the world, neither in the world to come.... '({{s||DC|90|3}}) (on screen ends) and if Joseph Smith holds the keys to heaven then how can Jesus claim, 'All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth'? ({{s||Matthew|28|18}})"</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Jesus told Peter, the chief apostle:

:And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. ({{s||Matthew|16|19}})

Peter was told that he would hold the "keys of the kingdom of heaven." The power of these keys was to continue into the hereafter, since Peter's actions on earth would have validity in the world to come.

Jesus does not seem to think that giving Peter keys in the 16th chapter of Matthew affects His ability to hold "all authority" in the 28th chapter. Should we believe His understanding, or the critics?

If the president of a company gives responsibility for some part of his corporation, this does not mean that the president has lost authority—he has merely given an underling power to make some decisions on his behalf. Without the president, the underling has no power.

Are the critics offended that Peter was given keys?

'''To read more:'''
*[[Joseph Smith's status in LDS belief]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "God's word tells us that 'there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus.... ' ({{s|1|Timothy|2|5}}) In stark contrast, Brigham Young stated, '...that no man or woman in this dispensation will ever enter into the celestial kingdom of God without the consent of Joseph Smith.' (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 7 p 289)"</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Latter-day Saints embrace the doctrine taught in 1 Timothy. The Book of Mormon says likewise that

:...[men] are free to choose liberty and eternal life, through the great Mediator of all men, or to choose captivity and death.... ({{s|2|Nephi|2|27}})

'''Ignoring the Bible'''

At the Last Supper, Jesus himself taught His apostles:

:Ye [the apostles] are they which have continued with me in my temptations. And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me; that ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. ({{s||Luke|22|28-30}}; see also {{s||Matthew|19|28}}.)

Since the Latter-day Saints accept the witness that Joseph was called as an apostle and prophet (see [http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/21/1#1 D&C 21:1]) with the same authority as that given to Peter, James, John, and others, they do not think it strange that he will likewise play a role in judgment.

The witness of a prophet will always be brought against those who did not accept his witness of Christ (see {{s||Matthew|10|40}}; {{s||John|5|45-47}}). Could first century Christians accept Christ while rejecting the witness of Peter or Paul?

'''Another incomplete quote'''

Not content to ignore a clear Biblical teaching, the DVD producers also failed to include the entirety of Brigham Young's quotation. Following the portion cited, Brigham said:

:''...I will now tell you something that ought to comfort every man and woman on the face of the earth. Joseph Smith, junior, will again be on this earth dictating plans and calling forth his brethren to be baptized for the very characters who wish this was not so, in order to bring them into a kingdom to enjoy...he will never cease his operations, under the directions of the Son of God, until the last ones of the children of men are saved that can be, from Adam till now.... It is his mission to see that all the children of men in this last dispensation are saved, that can be, through the redemption.''
::<small>—{{JoD7_1|author=Brigham Young|title=Intelligence, etc.|date=9 October 1859|start=289|end=289}}</small>>

Clearly, Joseph's role is to function under the "direction...of the Son of God," and the primary goal is the salvation of all who will accept any degree of Christ and Joseph's witness of Him. Joseph's role is not to condemn, but to do everything possible to encourage all to come unto Christ and be saved.

Joseph's participation in the judgment (at the command and sufferance of Jesus) is no more or less than the role assigned to the Lord's apostles at the Last Supper.

No mortal's role in the judgment supercedes the role given to Jesus, as the Book of Mormon bears witness:

:...the keeper of the gate is the Holy One of Israel; and he employeth no servant there; and there is none other way save it be by the gate; for he cannot be deceived, for the Lord God is his name. ({{s|2|Nephi|9|41}}.)

Those who condemn Joseph on these grounds must also condemn Peter and the rest of the Twelve.

'''To read more:'''
*[[Joseph Smith's status in LDS belief]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "But we cannot believe both the Bible and the writings of Joseph Smith when the Bible tells us there is only one God and Joseph Smith tells us there are many gods and we must become gods ourselves." - Pamela Robertson</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|
The non-Biblical creeds and the ''interpretation'' of the Bible chosen by Ms. Robertson are the only problems.

Millions of Christians have not accepted the post-Biblical Trinitarian creeds, and so have believed in more than one divine being.

Millions of others have had hope in the doctrine of ''theosis'': humans being made like God.

Many of these Christians were among the earliest followers of Christ. Non-LDS scholar Ernst W. Benz penned a line that responds well to Ms. Robertson's superficial grasp of the issues:

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

It would seem the Latter-day Saints are closer to the Christianity of Jesus and His Apostles than Ms. Robertson may want to admit.

'''To read more:'''
*[[Search for the Truth DVD:Who Is God%3F|''Search for the Truth'' reply: Who is God]]
*[[Deification of man|Early Christians on deification]]
*[[Deification of man#Modern Christian exegesis|Modern non-LDS Christians on deification]]
*[[Godhead and the Trinity]]
* "Do We Have the Potential to Become Like God?" {{fairlink|url=http://www.fairlds.org/Bible/Do_We_Have_the_Potential_to_become_Like_God.html}}
*D. Charles Pyle, "Early Christian Doctrine on Deification" {{fairlink|url=http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/1999_Early_Christian_Doctrine_of_Deification.html}}
*{{FR-17-1-10}}
|-
|}


{{DVDRightColumn}}
|}
{{DoYouHaveQuestions}}

Search for the Truth DVD:Who Is Jesus?

2007-03-31T02:43:08Z

SuzanneArmitage:

{{DVDHeadingBox|Who Is Jesus?}}

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

|-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

|-
|}


{{DVDRightColumn}}
|}
{{DoYouHaveQuestions}}

Criticism of Mormonism/Video/Search for the Truth DVD/Polygamy

2007-03-25T23:18:58Z

SuzanneArmitage:

{{DVDHeadingBox|Joseph Smith's Character: Polygamy}}

{| style="border-spacing:8px;margin:0px -8px"
| class="MainPageBG" style="width:85%;border:1px solid #cedff2;background-color:#f5faff;vertical-align:top"|
{| width="100%" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top;background-color:#f5faff"
! <h1 style="margin:25px 0px 0px 0px;font-size:200%;font-weight:normal;text-align:center;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Is Plural Marriage "Unbiblical"?</h1>

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim "I do believe that there are some that look to the example of Solomon and or David as an example for a biblical proof for the authorization of marrying multiple wives. When we look at their lives, they were in clear disobedience to the commandment of God. Hundreds of years before Solomon or David ever came on the scene, God had warned the nation of Israel, in Deuteronomy 17, he told them when you establish a King, make sure that your King does not gather to himself multiple wives. So we look at Solomon and we look at David we find out they were in direct disobedience." - Scott Gallatin (Pastor, Calvary Chapel)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

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

What does the scripture addressed to kings in Deuteronomy say?

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

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

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

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_not_Biblical|Polygamy not Biblical?]]
* Orson Pratt and John Philip Newman, "Does the Bible Sanction Polygamy?" ''Deseret News'' (12–14 August 1874) [debate].
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">How does Deuteronomy apply to King David's behavior?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

David is well-known for his sin with Bathsheba and his involvement in the death of her husband, Uriah. (See {{s|2|Samuel|11|1-27}}.) Nathan the prophet arrived to condemn David's behavior, and told the king:

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

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

But, David ''then'' sinned and did evil ''in the matter of Uriah.'' If plural marriage is always a sin to God, then why did Nathan not take the opportunity to condemn David for all his plural marriages? Or, why did the prophet not come earlier, when David was righteous and hearkening to the Lord?

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_not_Biblical|Polygamy not Biblical?]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">How does Deuteronomy apply to King Solomon's behavior?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Solomon's problem is described:

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

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

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_not_Biblical|Polygamy not Biblical?]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Are there any other Biblical examples of legitimate plural marriage?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Certainly—examples include:

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

If a righteous king, a righteous priest, Jacob the father of the twelve tribes, and Abraham—the pre-eminent figure of the entire Old Testament—are not condemned or corrected for legitimate plural marriages, it is untenable to claim that a Biblical prohibition exists in Deuteronomy.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_not_Biblical|Polygamy not Biblical?]]
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Jesus made it clear that God designed marriage for one man and one woman for life, '"...a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh"; so then they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.'" (Mark 10:7-9)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Latter-day Saints have no quarrel with this scripture. However, it says nothing at all about plural marriage—it merely indicates that a husband and wife must become one. It says absolutely nothing one way or the other about having more than one wife with which one is joined by God and commanded to "be one."

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_not_Biblical|Polygamy not Biblical?]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Furthermore the Bible repeatedly commands that a Christian leader is to be the husband of only one wife. (On screen: {{s|1|Timothy|3|2}}; {{s|1|Timothy|3|12}}; {{s||Titus|1|6}})."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

There would be no reason to limit church leaders to <i>one</i> wife if polygamy was not found within the early church. Jews of that period allowed polygamy and this was undoubtedly brought with them as they converted to Christianity ({{link|url=http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/scrolls/life.html}}). Latter-day Saints agree that the standard instruction to all believers is monogamy—exceptions can only be commanded by God through His prophet (see {{s||Jacob|2|30}}).

Multiple early Christian writers also understood there to be no absolute prohibition against plural marriage in some circumstances.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Early Christians on plural marriage]]

|-
! <h1 style="margin:25px 0px 0px 0px;font-size:200%;font-weight:normal;text-align:center;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Distorting Joseph Smith's Early History</h1>

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "[In an LDS film] Joseph is even shown healing the sick in Nauvoo. Although this film is very emotional and inspiring it has no more reality to it than any other fictional story created by Hollywood. Let's now examine the historical documents about the true character of Joseph Smith."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|
Joseph's healing accounts are well-attested to by multiple witnesses. There are numerous "historical documents" testifying that Joseph performed healings on multiple occasions.

Critics ought to be careful when dismissing or criticizing healing by God's power: the scribes and Pharisees likewise sought to minimize or negate the miraculous healings performed by Jesus by insisting that He was, in fact, wicked. (See, for example, {{s||Matthew|9|34}}, {{s||Matthew|12|13-14}}, {{s||Matthew|12|24}}, {{s||Mark|3|5-6}}, {{s||Luke|5|17-26}}, {{s||Luke|6|7}}, {{s||Luke|14|3-4}}, {{s||John|7|32}}, {{s||John|9|13|34}}, {{s||John|11|44-50}}, {{s||John|12|17-19}}).

'''To read more:'''
* [[Personal_failings_of_Joseph_Smith|Personal failings of Joseph Smith]]
* [[Joseph Smith healings and miracles]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "An amazing experience like [the First Vision] should radically change a person's life but by the age of 21, Joseph was arrested and brought before a judge in Bainbridge, N.Y., for deceiving Josiah Stowell, charged for glass looking and sit before the court as a disorderly person."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Joseph never claimed to be perfect, and mentioned that following his vision he made foolish errors ({{S||JS-H|1|28}}). However, the video attempts to deceive its viewers on numerous points, as discussed in the sections below.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Personal_failings_of_Joseph_Smith|Personal failings of Joseph Smith]]
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Was Joseph found guilty?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The video omits the outcome of this legal proceeding. The appearance before the judge was not a trial—as demonstrated by the Reverend Wesley Walters, a prolific anti-Mormon author. Therefore, he was not found guilty and no trial was held. The video obviously wants the viewer to conclude that Joseph was found guilty in court—after all, there is no shame in being charged with a crime if one is found not guilty. Jesus Himself was falsely condemned.

But, these facts would not serve the video's purposes, so they say nothing about the outcome.

This is one more "historical document" which the video hides from its viewers.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Joseph_Smith's_1826_glasslooking_trial|History of 1826 court appearance]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Was Josiah Stowell deceived?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Despite their claims that they are trying to "Search for the Truth," the video does not tell its viewers that Josiah Stowell testified for Joseph as a defense witness and did not believe that Joseph had defrauded him at all. Stowell testified of Joseph's claims, "Do I believe it? No, it is not a matter of belief: I positively know it to be true."

'''To read more:'''
* [[Joseph_Smith's_1826_glasslooking_trial|History of 1826 court appearance]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">If Stowell had no complaint, why was Joseph brought before the judge at all?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The charges were brought by Stowell's family members, who seem worried that Josiah would accept Joseph's religious claims. Stowell joined the Church founded by Joseph, and remained a faithful member to the day of his death.

Do the video's authors condemn Paul because he was brought before many courts because of religious persecution? (See {{s||Acts|23|6}}.)

'''To read more:'''
* [[Joseph_Smith's_1826_glasslooking_trial|History of 1826 court appearance]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "The next year he falls for Emma Hale, a girl at whose home he lodged...."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The reader will by now not be surprised that the video distorts in both what it says and does not say. Emma Hale was not "a girl"—she was, in fact, older than Joseph Smith (she was born 10 July 1804; Joseph was born 23 December 1805).

She was an adult of twenty three at the time of their marriage (18 January 1827), but the video's goal of portraying Joseph as a rake and womanizer is made easier if they distort matters.

|-

! <h1 style="margin:25px 0px 0px 0px;font-size:200%;font-weight:normal;text-align:center;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Joseph Smith's Practice of Plural Marriage</h1>

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "...Emma will prove to be a companion of such loyalty that the thought of breaking the heart of a woman like this would be unthinkable for most men, but not for Joseph Smith."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

It is no secret that plural marriage was extremely challenging for Emma. However, the authors give us no citations to demonstrate what Emma thought about plural marriage and Joseph's claim to be a prophet.

Emma asked Joseph for a blessing not long before he went to Carthage. Joseph told her to write the best blessing she could, and he would sign it upon his return. Wrote Emma:

:''I desire with all my heart to honor and respect my husband as my head, ever to live in his confidence and by acting in unison with him retain the place which God has given me by his side.... I desire the spirit of God to know and understand myself, I desire a fruitful, active mind, that I may be able to comprehend the designs of God, when revealed through his servants without doubting.''

Emma was troubled by plural marriage, but this trouble arose partly from her conviction that Joseph was a prophet. When one woman asked Emma if she felt Joseph was still a prophet despite her opposition to plural marriage Emma replied, "Yes, but I wish to God I did not know it." That she continued to support Joseph's calling and remain with him, despite her feelings about plural marriage, speaks much of her convictions. As she told Parley P. Pratt years later:

:''I believe he [Joseph] was everything he professed to be.''

If the video's producers accept Emma as an important witness, their ''search for truth'' obligates them to include her witness of Joseph's prophetic calling to the very end of her life.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Emma_Smith_and_polygamy|Emma Smith and polygamy]] (follow link for citations)

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Within a few short years, even men who were closest to Joseph like David Whitmer, Oliver Cowdery, William Law and William McLellin were repulsed by Joseph Smith's multiple adulteries and publicly declared Joseph an adulterer." </h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

It is disappointing that the Christian DVD producers think that making a public accusation against someone is sufficient to prove the case against them. Many charges were made against Jesus and the apostles, even by close friends and associates with the same purpose in mind.

That Joseph practiced plural marriage is not a matter of debate. But the video presumes that the practice is by definition immoral in all times and circumstances. To do so is circular reasoning and begging the question.

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">What do we know about Oliver Cowdery's witness?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Oliver Cowdery left the Church in 1838. But the video leaves out important details. As a lawyer, Cowdery's integrity was once challenged in court because of his Book of Mormon testimony:

:''The opposing counsel thought he would say something that would overwhelm Oliver Cowdery, and in reply to him in his argument he alluded to him as the man that had testified and had written that he had beheld an angel of God, and that angel had shown unto him the plates from which the Book of Mormon was translated. He supposed, of course, that it would cover him with confusion, because Oliver Cowdery then made no profession of being a "Mormon," or a Latter-day Saint; but instead of being affected by it in this manner, he arose in the court, and in his reply stated that, whatever his faults and weaknesses might be, the testimony which he had written, and which he had given to the world, was literally true.''
::<small> —{{JD1|vol=22|author=George Q. Cannon|title=NEED TITLE|date=18 September 1881|start=251}}</small>

Despite his harsh personal feelings toward Joseph Smith, Oliver continued to insist that the Book of Mormon was the word of God, and that he had seen an angel and the plates.

Oliver later returned to the Church and was rebaptized, remaining faithful to his death in a witness of Joseph's prophetic calling and the truth of the Book of Mormon.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Book_of_Mormon_witnesses:Recant|Oliver Cowdery's faithfulness to his testimony]]
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">What do we know about David Whitmer's witness?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

David Whitmer, one of the Three Witnesses of the Book of Mormon, remained out of the Church. Whitmer disagreed with Joseph about plural marriage. The producers have created another dilemma for themselves, however, because he steadfastly maintained the truth of the Book of Mormon up to his death. If the producers accept Whitmer as an important witness, their search for truth again obligates them to disclose his witness to the truth of the Book of Mormon.

Following their excommunication from the Church, Thomas B. Marsh approached Cowdery and Whitmer about their witness.

:''I enquired seriously at David if it was true that he had seen the angel, according to the testimony as one of the witnesses of the Book of Mormon. He replied, as sure as there is a God in heaven, he saw the angel, according to his testimony in that book.... I interrogated Oliver Cowdery in the same manner, who answered me similarly.''
::<small>—"History of Thomas Baldwin Marsh," ''Deseret News'' (24 March 1858).</small>

'''To read more:'''
* [[Book_of_Mormon_witnesses:Recant|David Whitmer's faithfulness to his testimony]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">What do we know about William McLellin's witness?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

McLellin was an original member of the Twelve apostles. He was eventually excommunicated. It should be no surprise that McLellin vilified the Saints since he took part in mob violence and theft against them:

:''He took an active part with the mob in Missouri, in robbing and driving the Saints. At the time Joseph Smith was in prison, he and others robbed Joseph's house and stable of considerable property.''
::<small>—{{HR| vol=5|start=38|end=39 }}</small>

McLellin also tried to form his own Church with himself at the head, and admitted at his excommunication hearing that

:''he quit praying and keeping the commandments of God, and indulged himself in his lustful desires.''
::<small>—{{HC1|vol=3|start=91}}</small>

If the producers are indeed searching for the truth, they are obligated to disclose McLellin's unrelenting hostility towards Joseph Smith and the Saints.

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">What do we know about William Law's witness?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

William Law continued to insist that Joseph was a prophet, but a fallen one:

:''It was not until perhaps April or May 1844 that he organized his thinking in such a way as to systematically attack his enemy. Even then he was not assailing the validity of the Restoration. The vehemence with which William Law denounced the Prophet in 1844 was not due to disbelief in Mormon polity, but to his conviction that the Mormon leader had plunged into apostate practices.''
::<small>— {{BYUS1|author=Lyndon W. Cook|article=William Law, Nauvoo Dissenter|vol=22|num=1|date=Fall 1982|start=56| }}{{link|url=https://byustudies.byu.edu/Products/MoreInfoPage/MoreInfo.aspx?Type=7&ProdID=2008}}</small>

Again, if the producers are engaged in a search for truth, they are obligated to disclose that Law did not dispute the validity of the Restoration despite the dilemma this creates for them.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Nauvoo Expositor]]

|-
! <h1 style="margin:25px 0px 0px 0px;font-size:200%;font-weight:normal;text-align:center;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Distorting LDS Doctrine</h1>

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "In 1843, Joseph Smith had a revelation and penned D&C 132, outlining the necessity of entering into a new and everlasting covenant of plural marriage."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

As the introduction to section 132 states, the evidence is clear that Joseph mentioned the doctrines of plural marriage as early as 1831—the ideas were well-developed in his mind long before 1843. ({{s||DC|132||}}, ''History of the Church'' 5:xxix–xxx, 501–07.)

Doctrine and Covenants 132 teaches of "the new and everlasting covenant" which includes ''marriage'', since celestial marriage is a gospel ordinance:

:''The gospel is the ''everlasting'' covenant because it is ordained by Him who is Everlasting and also because it is everlastingly the same. In all past ages salvation was gained by adherence to its terms and conditions, and that same compliance will bring the same reward in all future ages. Each time this everlasting covenant is revealed it is ''new'' to those of that dispensation. Hence the gospel is the ''new and everlasting covenant''. All covenants between God and man are part of the new and everlasting covenant. ({{s||DC|22||}}, {{s||DC|132|6-7}}.) Thus celestial marriage is "''a'' new and an everlasting covenant" ({{s||DC|132|4}}) or the new and everlasting covenant of marriage....''
::<small>—{{MD|start=529|end=530}}</small>

The key doctrine described in D&C 132 is not ''plural marriage'', but ''eternal'' or ''celestial'' marriage, which may (if so commanded) include plural marriage. While plural marriage was practiced, some members of the Church interpreted D&C 132 as applying exclusively to polygamy, which is understandable given that they were under a duty to obey the commands given to them.

However, as Elder Bruce R. McConkie explained:

:''Plural marriage is not essential to salvation or exaltation.... In our day, the Lord summarized by revelation the whole doctrine of exaltation and predicated it upon the marriage of one man to one woman. ({{s||DC|132|1-28}}.) Thereafter he added the principles relative to plurality of wives with the express stipulation that any such marriages would be valid only if authorized by the President of the Church.'' ({{s||DC|132|7,29-66}}.)
::<small>—{{MD1|start=578}}</small>

The video misunderstands LDS doctrine, garbles the history of Joseph's revelations on plural marriage, and distorts LDS teaching on the matter.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_a_requirement_for_exaltation|Is plural marriage required for exaltation?]]
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Brigham Young, revealed that your godhood rests on the act of polygamy saying, "The only men who become Gods, even the sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy." (Journal of Discourses Vol. 11 pg. 269)"</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Unsurprisingly, the video omits material which clarifies Brigham Young's meaning (material not included in the video is indicated by <font color="red">red italics</font>):

:''<font color="red">We wish to obtain all that father Abraham obtained. I wish here to say to the Elders of Israel, and to all the members of this Church and kingdom, that it is in the hearts of many of them to wish that the doctrine of polygamy was not taught and practiced by us.... It is the word of the Lord, and I wish to say to you, and all the world, that if you desire with all your hearts to obtain the blessings which Abraham obtained, '''''you will be polygamists at least in your faith''''', or you will come short of enjoying the salvation and the glory which Abraham has obtained. This is as true as that God lives. You who wish that there were no such thing in existence, if you have in your hearts to say: "We will pass along in the Church without obeying or submitting to it in our faith or believing this order, because, for aught that we know, this community may be broken up yet, and we may have lucrative offices offered to us; we will not, therefore, be polygamists lest we should fail in obtaining some earthly honor, character and office, etc,"—the man '''''that has that in his heart, and will continue to persist in pursuing that policy''''', will come short of dwelling in the presence of the Father and the Son, in celestial glory.</font> ''The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy.'' <font color="red">Others attain unto a glory and may even be permitted to come into the presence of the Father and the Son; but they cannot reign as kings in glory, because they had blessings offered unto them, and they refused to accept them.''</font>
::<small>—{{JoD11|start=268|end=269|date=19 August 1866|title=Remarks by President Brigham Young, in the Bowery, in G.S.L. City|author=Brigham Young}} {{ea}}</small>

Brigham Young made several points:
* the command to practice plural marriage is from God, and it is wrong to seek to abolish a command from God.
* to obtain the blessings of Abraham, the Saints were required to be "polygamists at least in your faith": i.e., it was not necessary that each enter into plural marriage ''in practice'', but that they accept that God spoke to His prophets.
* it was wrong to avoid plural marriage for worldly, selfish reasons, such as believing the Church would fail, and hoping to have political or monetary rewards afterward.
* if one were commanded to enter into plural marriage ("had blessings offered to them"), and if one refused, God would withhold blessings later because of disobedience now.

Thus, in the context of the speech, "enter into polygamy" does not mean that all members at all times are required to be actual polygamists, but that they accept the doctrine ["polygamists at least in your faith"] and be ready to practice it if so commanded without regard for worldly pressures.

It is beyond dispute that the Saints considered plural marriage to be a command from God. Even so, it was only practiced by a minority. Thus, it is troubling that a video claiming to search for the truth <i>removes</i> the portions of a quote making it clear that Brigham allows for faithful members who are polygamists in faith only.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_a_requirement_for_exaltation|Is plural marriage required for exaltation?]]
* [[Brigham_Young_in_JD_11%2C_page_269|Brigham Young in JD 11:269]]

|-
! <h1 style="margin:25px 0px 0px 0px;font-size:200%;font-weight:normal;text-align:center;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Guilt By Association and Further Distortion of History</h1>

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "In 1842 he [Joseph Smith] married, in an eight month period, eleven women. Took a five month break, and then in 1843 he married fourteen women, five of which he married in the month of May alone. So when we understand the timeline in which Joseph Smith married these women, how quickly he was marrying women we see that Joseph Smith had a voracious appetite for a new sexual partner." - Brian Mackert (Former Fundamentalist Mormon)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Once again, the video treats a complex issue with sound-bite superficiality. It is shameful that its producers will not allow the early Saints to speak for themselves. B.H. Roberts, an influencial leader explained:

:''The Saints did not accept into their faith and practice the plural-wife system with the idea that it increased the comfort, or added to the ease of anyone. From the first it was known to involve sacrifice, to make a large demand upon the faith, patience, hope and charity of all who should attempt to carry out its requirements. Its introduction was not a call to ease or pleasure, but to religious duty; it was not an invitation to self-indulgence, but to itself-conquest; its purpose was not earth-happiness, but earth-life discipline, undertaken in the interest of special advantages for succeeding generations of men.''
::—<small>{{TWL1|start=557}}</small>

Even neutral observers have long understood that this attack on plural marriage is probably the weakest of them all. George Bernard Shaw, certainly no Mormon, declared:

:''Now nothing can be more idle, nothing more frivolous, than to imagine that this polygamy had anything to do with personal licentiousness. If Joseph Smith had proposed to the Latter-day Saints that they should live licentious lives, they would have rushed on him and probably anticipated their pious neighbors who presently shot him.''
::<small>—Bernard Shaw, ''The Future of Political Science in America'' (New York: Dodd, Mead and Company, 1933).</small>

Furthermore, Joseph Smith would not permit sexual misconduct. For example, he refused to countenance John C. Bennett's serial infidelities. If Joseph was looking for easy access to sex, Bennett—mayor of Nauvoo, First Councilor in the First Presidency, and military leader—would have been the ideal confederate. Yet, Joseph publicly denounced Bennett's actions, and severed him from the First Presidency and the Church. Bennett became a vocal opponent and critic.

The critic cannot argue that Joseph felt that only he was entitled to polygamous relationships, since he went to great efforts to teach the doctrine to Hyrum and the Twelve, who embraced it with much less zeal than Bennett would have. Nor do the film producers mention the women who accepted and defended the principle as God's will:

:''Dear Cousin . . . As you are aware by my former letter to you that I am a firm believer in and do sustain the principle of plural marriage—the celestial law or higher order of marriage, which not only unites husbands and wives for time but for all eternity, which last clause is the crowning point for all. I will explain more fully, if possible, my reason for so doing, and being a firm believer in the Bible, I will take that as my guide. I find by searching its pages where God said to Abraham the father of the faithful, (in whose bosom all good Christians are praying to repose) “I will bless them that bless thee and curse them that curse thee, and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.” Now this we understand is the promise pertaining to Christ the Redeemer, who should come and be crucified to atone for the sins of the world, that as many as would hearken to his word, might be brought back into the presence of God; also in Galatians, “Now to Abraham and to his seed were the promises made,” and He saith not unto seeds as of many, but as of one, and of thy seed which is Jesus Christ, and all who read the Bible know that Abraham had more than one wife. Again, I find the same promise made of Christ that he should come through the seed of Jacob; a man having four wives, and of these plural wives came the twelve patriarchs, whose names John the revelator tells us are to be written on the twelve gates of the holy city, even the new Jerusalem. In Kings I read that David was a man after God’s own heart, and through his loins a chosen seed should be raised up even Jesus Christ the Redeemer. The Apostle Paul in his day tells the people how the Lord said, I have found the son of Jesse a man after mine own heart which shall fulfill all my will, of this man’s seed hath God, according to promise, raised unto Israel a Savior, Jesus. Isaiah confirms the same by telling us, in that day there shall be a root of Jesse which shall stand as an ensign for the people, to it shall the Gentiles seek and his rest shall be glorious. Now I learn from the Bible that Jesse, the father of David, was the son of Ruth the plural wife of Boaz and that David his son had many wives, yet in nothing did he displease the Lord only in the case of Uriah and his wife. In Revelations it says one of the Elders said unto me “weep not behold the lion of the tribe of Judah hath prevailed to open the book and loose the seven seals thereof. I am Alpha and Omega the beginning and the end; the first and the last. Again he says “I am the root and the offspring of David the bright and morning star, which makes it very plain to my understanding that God had great respect for those who believed and practised plural marriage, and indeed preferred that lineage for his holy son Jesus to come through, and as he is the root of David, who was a man after God’s own heart, it becomes a most positive proof to me that Jesus Christ, is the chief corner stone and author of this principle; therefore understanding and believing the Bible as I do, reason and my own conscience forces me not only to adopt the principle of plural marriage in my faith, but I must practise the same. I also read in John, Chapter 8, where our blessed Savior says, “if ye were Abraham’s children you would do the works of Abraham.” In Luke, he says, there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when you shall see Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and all the prophets in the kingdom of God, and ye yourselves cast out. But this is not all, as I have previously told you by letter. God has commanded us through Joseph Smith, our martyred prophet, that we must obey this law, as did his ancient servants and handmaidens that we may become one with him, or where He dwells we cannot come. For us as a people to ignore or set aside this principle would be to incur the displeasure of an offended God.''
::<small>—Nancy Arete Clark, "Letter on Plural Marriage", ''Woman’s Exponent'' (Salt Lake City: 15 Aug. 1882).</small>

Historian B. Carmon Hardy observed:

:''Joseph displayed an astonishingly principled commitment to the doctrine [of plural marriage]. He had to overcome opposition from his brother Hyrum and the reluctance of some of his disciples. Reflecting years later on the conflicts and dangers brought by plural marriage, some church leaders were struck with the courage Joseph displayed in persisting with it.''
::<small>—B. Carmon Hardy, ''Solemn Covenant'' (Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1992), 9.</small>

One can read volumes of the early Saints public writings, extemporaneous sermons, and private journals. One can reflect on the hundreds or thousands of miles of travel on missionary journeys and Church business. If the writings of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, Heber C. Kimball, George Q. Cannon, Helen Mar Kimball, Zina D. Young, Martha Q. Cannon and many others cannot persuade someone that they were honest men and women (even if mistaken) then one should sincerely question whether such a person is capable of looking charitably upon any human let alone any Mormon.

But, the producers of ''Search for the Truth'' have already demonstrated that they will not treat Latter-day Saints or their beliefs with honesty and respect, much less charity. As a result, their conclusion is unsurprising, even though the historical record tells a different story.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_because_of_lustful_motives|Lustful motives?]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Warren Jeffs has been wanted by the FBI, he's been profiled on ''America's Most Wanted,'' he's been in the headlines a lot lately and the Mormon Church tries real hard to distance themselves from him." [''Images of Warren Jeffs and Joseph Smith side by side on screen.''] - Brian Mackert (Former Fundamentalist Mormon)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

It is not surprising that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not wish to be mistaken for Jeffs, since Jeffs is not a member of the Church and never has been.{{link|url=http://www.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2bcd39628b88f010VgnVCM100000176f620aRCRD&vgnextchannel=f5f411154963d010VgnVCM1000004e94610aRCRD}}

The video now slanders Joseph Smith through the tactic of "guilt by association," because Jeffs appeals to some of Joseph Smith's teachings.

Christians ought to realize the dangers of such tactics. The name and teachings of Jesus Christ Himself have been invoked for such purposes as:
* the Crusades
* the persecution and murder of Jews
* the persecution, torture, and murder of "heretics" or "witches" by Catholics and such Protestant Reformers as Calvin and Zwingli
* justifying and protecting slavery by Southern Baptists prior to the American Civil War
* acts of political terrorism

Because these evils were done by those claiming justification in the name of Jesus, is He therefore to be condemned?

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_and_the_modern_Church|"Fundamentalist" splinter groups]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">The amazing thing to me is that Warren Jeffs simply is following in the footsteps of Joseph Smith. Joseph Smith married underage girls...." - Brian Mackert (Former Fundamentalist Mormon) </h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

This is a textbook example of judging a historical figure by modern cultural standards rather than the standards of the society they lived in to ensure that they will be found wanting.

The DVD wants its modern viewers to judge the age of Joseph's marriage partners by modern standards, rather than the standards of the 19th century. From a 21st century perspective the reader is likely to see marriages of young women to much older men as inappropriate, since under 21st century law for example, older men marrying younger women could be found guilty of statutory rape.

The video will not point out to its viewers that this is a modern cultural and legal framework.

The age of consent under English common law was ''ten''. United States law did not raise the age of consent until the late 19th century. In Joseph Smith's day, most states still had declared age of consent to be ten. Some raised it to twelve, and Delaware lowered it to ''seven.''{{link|url=http://www.law.georgetown.edu/glh/mctigue.htm}}

It is significant that none of Joseph's contemporaries complained about the age differences between polygamous or monogamous marriage partners. This was simply part of their environment and culture; it is unfair to judge 19th century members by 21st century social standards.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Joseph_Smith's_marriages_to_young_women|Marriages to young women]]: includes charts showing age differences in monogamous marriages in and out of the Church.

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Joseph Smith went to other women and said that their salvation was dependent upon them entering into plural marriage. - Brian Mackert (Former Fundamentalist Mormon)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The video's producers do not want viewers to know that Joseph generally approached a close male relative before approaching a woman about plural marriage—a strange choice for a seducer, since men zealously guarded the virtue and reputation of the female relatives. Joseph also promised those involved that God would tell them what He wanted them to do.

The video does not want its viewers to read the many first-person testimonies available from those who entered plural marriage.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Plural marriage spiritual manifestations]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Joseph Smith went to other men's wives and said that God had revealed to him that they were supposed to be his spiritual wives. - Brian Mackert (Former Fundamentalist Mormon)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

As noted above, the critics neglect to mention that those who were taught plural marriage bore witness that they had been told by God to obey regardless of how difficult it was for them to comply.

The video does not want viewers to know that faithful ''husbands'' of these women were also aware of the sealings, and often stood as witnesses.

The video also does not wish its viewers to understand that Joseph's plural marriages were motivated by the doctrine of sealing rather than carnal motives.

Members of the Church believed then, as now, that the entire human family must be sealed together in order to return to God's presence. Rather than deferring such sealing until family history work is completed during the Millennium, they would seal families to each other, and then seal a family member to Joseph Smith—given that those so sealed to Joseph were usually close friends, this might be called a kind of "adoptive friendship."

Members do not seem to have understood this process as one of abandoning an earthly spouse for Joseph, but rather a desire to be with Joseph and his close friends, by having them all sealed together by the Melchezidek priesthood, the Holy Priesthood after the Order of the Son of God ({{s||DC|76|57}}, {{s||DC|107|3-4}}, {{s||Alma|13|1-9}}).

The point was that by sealing together through Joseph (holder of the dispensational keys) into the family of Christ, the ''entire family'' was confident of being together in the eternities, not only with each other, but with their dear friend and prophet Joseph Smith.

Members have, since the administration of Wilford Woodruff, refrained from sealing their family lines to Church leaders, and await more family history information—during the Millennium, if need be—to complete the sealing of the human family back to Adam, who will then present his posterity to the Lord Jesus Christ.

'''To read more:'''
* [http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/polyandry.pdf Sealing to married women? (PDF file)]
* [http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai228.html Further resources]

|-

! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Concluding Observations</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Plural marriage as practiced by 19th century Latter-day Saints is an uncomfortable topic for many because it is easier to revile it than to understand it. Understanding plural marriage requires the compilation and mastery of a great deal of historical information. Many credible historians and scholars are attempting to do this but the film producers do not use them. They have relied on accusations and innuendo designed to shock rather than inform the viewer. Helen Mar Kimball, a plural wife of Joseph Smith, expresses the sentiments of those men and women who suffered the censure of others who so freely judged them:

:''If those not of our faith, who visit our cities, came with a determination to lay aside their prejudices, to learn the facts concerning us, or our religion, nothing would give more pleasure than to tell it them; but too many who have come here, after being treated with every politeness and escorted to seats in our tabernacle which are reserved for the stranger, sit there, under the very altar of the Lord's Supper, in the hearing of Saints who assemble to worship God, and spit out their venom, or make ridicule of everything that we hold sacred.

:''But the most despicable characters are the overly righteous souls, who are filled with such holy horror at the mention of "Mormon" polygamy, and are the ones whom we look upon with suspicion, and set them down as among the most corrupt of hypocrites."
::<small>—{{WE|author=Helen Mar Kimball|date=1 December 1881|start=97|end=99|vol=10|num=13}}</small>

The FAIR website has extensive resources on the issue of polygamy, and interested readers are encouraged to follow the links provided below for a more in-depth view of polygamy.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Template:PolygamyPortal|Plural marriage wiki resources]]
* {{tg|url=http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai049.html|topic=Plural marriage resources}}
* [http://www.fairlds.org/Misc/Polygamy_Prophets_and_Prevarication.pdf Lengthy paper on polygamy's history: 1830–1904 PDF format]

|}


{{DVDRightColumn}}
|}
{{DoYouHaveQuestions}}

Criticism of Mormonism/Video/Search for the Truth DVD/Summary

2007-03-25T18:57:06Z

SuzanneArmitage:

{{DVDHeadingBox|Summary}}

{| style="border-spacing:8px;margin:0px -8px"
| class="MainPageBG" style="width:85%;border:1px solid #cedff2;background-color:#f5faff;vertical-align:top"|
{| width="100%" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top;background-color:#f5faff"
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Has the video's stated purpose been accomplished?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|
The producers undertook their task with a bold and noble purpose:

:''This video has been produced out of love for our Lord Jesus Christ and love for our Mormon and Christian friends. We pray that it will touch the hearts of all who watch through the grace and truth of Christ Jesus.''

However, we find such declarations of love inconsistent with their disappointing behavior as they revile and demean what Latter-day Saint Christians hold dear and sacred. Perhaps we should be asking <i>how</i> the video's purpose was accomplished rather than if the video's purpose was accomplished. The viewer need only look to their abuse of scripture as we reinstate the apostle Paul's words (in brackets) that they removed in their video presentation.

"God’s word warns: “Do you not know do that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, [nor adulterers, nor homosexuals,] nor thieves, [nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers,] will inherit the kingdom of God." ({{s|1|Corinthians|6|9-10}})

The producers simply removed several words, including "revilers," to avoid implicating themselves in the same condemnation they pronounce on others. This will put the observant viewer on notice that they must carefully research each scripture and claim that this video makes.

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "From his fabrication of the First Vision to his reconstruction of the Christian faith and his desire for women it is clear that Joseph centered his life around lust, wealth, and power. Joseph Smith joins a long list of those who have used the name of Christ to enrich themselves."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

We have shown that these claims about the First vision and Joseph's reasons for practicing polygamy are false and rely upon a distorted, twisted, or incomplete reading of the historical record.

Joseph Smith's life demonstrated selflessness, humility, and a desire to serve God and his fellow man. He wasn't without sin, and he never claimed to be. But despite his weaknesses, he was a prophet of God.

Joseph published numerous revelations calling him personally to repent.({{s||DC|3|9-10}}, {{s||DC|5|21}} for example) He was quick to aid the poor, and the early Church had many poor. As members came, leaving homes and family and most of their worldly possessions behind, they were welcomed, fed, and clothed by the Church and by the Prophet Joseph Smith.

In the end, he gave his life for his testimony of Jesus Christ when he could have preserved it by recanting what he claimed to have witnessed.

'''To read more:'''
* {{lds|topic=Character of Joseph Smith|url=http://www.josephsmith.net/portal/site/JosephSmith/menuitem.da0e1d4eb6d2d87f9c0a33b5f1e543a0/?vgnextoid=934f001cfb340010VgnVCM1000001f5e340aRCRD&locale=0}}
* Reply to DVD on [[Search for the Truth DVD:First Vision|First Vision]]
* Reply to DVD on [[Search for the Truth DVD:The %22Occult%22|"occult"]]
* Reply to DVD on [[Search for the Truth DVD:Polygamy|plural marriage]]
* Reply to DVD on [[Search for the Truth DVD:The Translator|translation]]
* [[Template:JosephSmithPortal|Joseph Smith resources]]
* [[Personal failings of Joseph Smith]]
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "It’s no coincidence that Joseph was murdered in the Carthage jail. Why was Joseph in jail? He destroyed a small paper press called the ''Nauvoo Expositor'' because he didn’t like what they had written about him in their one and only publication." – Patrick Powell</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Joseph Smith was in jail because he went to answer manufactured charges of treason against the state. He voluntarily surrendered to a state official who had guaranteed him and his brother Hyrum protection.

The call for the destruction of the ''Nauvoo Expositor'' was not taken by "Joseph Smith," but by the Nauvoo city council, of which Joseph was a member. The council—which included non-members of the Church—voted to suppress the ''Expositor'' as a public nuisance.

The video will not tell you that some scholars have argued that the city council's action was ''legal'' according to Nauvoo city charter. Nor will they tell you that the council's concern was that the paper was so inflammatory that it might stir up violence.

The viewer also won't be told that Joseph was released by the Nauvoo municipal court on 13 June 1844. Anti-Mormons claimed this court was biased, so Joseph and others again appeared before non-Mormon judge Daniel H. Wells on 17 June, who discharged them (he did not have power to acquit them, so this was deferred).

Governor Ford of Missouri then asked Joseph to appear before the Carthage judge to satisfy the anti-Mormons. Joseph did so, and was freed on bail. Joseph and Hyrum were then ''arrested again'' because of a writ issued by Robert F. Smith, a Methodist minister, justice of the peace, and captain of the Carthage Grays militia.

The DVD will not reveal that Joseph was twice released by legal courts. It will not reveal that he was out on bail awaiting trial in a ''third'' court when he was ''rearrested'' by a religious enemy. Governor Ford broke his promise to protect Joseph and Hyrum, and the Carthage Grays conspired to help murder Joseph.

It almost sounds as if the video is endorsing what happened to Joseph, or saying he "deserved it." Such an attitude shows contempt for the law and Christian ethics.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Nauvoo Expositor]]
* [[Nauvoo city charter]]
* [[Joseph Smith as a martyr|Murder of Joseph and Hyrum Smith]]
* Dallin H. Oaks, “The Suppression of the Nauvoo Expositor,” ''Utah Law Review'' 9 (1965):874.
* {{CarthageConspiracy1 |start=y}}
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "But this was not the first time Joseph was arrested. He had been arrested many times throughout his adult life for things like defrauding people while he was using his glass-looking techniques and creating an illegal bank in Kirtland, Ohio, and fleeing with its monies." – Patrick Powell</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Joseph was arrested many times. John the Baptist was arrested. Peter and the apostles were arrested. The apostle Paul was arrested many times. Even Jesus was arrested. (Ironically, two of this video's contributors have been arrested.) Does this mean that John, Peter, Paul, and Jesus are to be condemned? Did they "deserve" what happened to them? Should the producers of this video repudiate the ministries of two of their contributors (Joel Kramer and Chip Thompson) because they have been arrested for exercising what they viewed as their religious rights?

The video carefully avoids mentioning that Joseph was never found guilty by any court of the charges for which he was arrested. But, for the DVD producers, the mere fact of being arrested and charged with a crime is adequate—Joseph Smith is "guilty until proven innocent."

As previously discussed, Joseph was not found guilty in the matter of the "glass-looking," and the person he had supposedly "defrauded" testified in his behalf and joined the Church. (Review treatment of this issue [[Search for the Truth DVD:Polygamy|here]].)

The Kirtland Safety Society is not an example of Joseph "defrauding" people. Joseph put more of his own money into the bank than any other person, save one. He paid more for his stock than 85% of the other owners. The bank failed, as did hundreds of other banks, because of a nation-wide banking panic.

Joseph did not "flee...with its monies"—he went further into debt trying to save the bank, and owed over $100,000 when it finally failed. Joseph had enough goods and lands to meet that debt, but converting these into cash was difficult in the early 19th-century economy following the collapse.

Joseph continued to pay his creditors after fleeing for his life. In 1843 he was far away, safe in Nauvoo, and yet continued to settle his debts from the Kirtland period. These are not the actions of a man trying to "get rich quick" or swindle others.

Once again, the DVD has distorted historical facts and omitted all information that conflicts with their conclusions.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Joseph Smith's 1826 glasslooking trial|1826 'glass-looking' hearing]]
* [[Kirtland Safety Society]]
* [[Joseph Smith and legal trials]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "So why do so many people follow this man? Because they don’t know the truth about the character of Joseph Smith." – Pamela Robertson</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The DVD producers would profit by asking members of the Church why they follow Joseph Smith. They would learn that they follow Joseph's teachings because:
* Joseph's teachings are consistent with the Holy Bible.
* Joseph's teachings bring them closer to their Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
* The power of the Holy Spirit has witnessed to their minds and hearts that Joseph is a Prophet and disciple of Jesus Christ, and the Book of Mormon stands with the Bible as a witness to the word of God.

The Saints accept that Joseph was imperfect—all men have weaknesses. But it is the doctrine of Christ which Joseph taught, and the influence of the Holy Spirit which Joseph brought, which members cherish and follow.

Brigham Young described an encounter with the 19th-century version of the ''Search for the Truth'' DVD:

:''I recollect a conversation I had with a priest who was an old friend of ours, before I was personally acquainted with the Prophet Joseph. I clipped every argument he advanced, until at last he came out and began to rail against "Joe Smith," saying, "that he was a mean man, a liar, moneydigger, gambler, and a whore-master;" and he charged him with everything bad, that he could find language to utter. ''

:''I said, hold on, Brother Gillmore, here is the doctrine, here is the Bible, the Book of Mormon, and the revelations that have come through Joseph Smith the Prophet. I have never seen him, and do not know his private character. The doctrine he teaches is all I know about the matter, bring anything against that if you can.''

:''As to anything else I do not care. If he acts like a devil, he has brought forth a doctrine that will save us, if we will abide it. He may get drunk every day of his life, sleep with his neighbor's wife every night, run horses and gamble, I do not care anything about that, ''for I never embrace any man in my faith.''

:''But the doctrine he has produced will save you and me, and the whole world; and if you can find fault with that, find it.''
::<small>—{{JoD4|author=Brigham Young|title=The Gospel Like a Net Cast Into the Sea, Etc.|date=9 November 1856|start=77|end=78}} (paragraph breaks added) {{ea}}</small>

'''To read more:'''
* [[Personal failings of Joseph Smith]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "As a Mormon, you cannot question the Church on issues such as these because you run the risk of excommunication." – Pamela Robertson</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

This is complete nonsense.

The DVD wants its viewers to trust only its sources—they know that if viewers ask knowledgeable LDS members or leaders about these issues, they will receive information that shows the DVD to be dishonest and inaccurate.

The Church has a lay clergy—this means that its leaders do not spend time in seminaries and degree programs. They come from many occupations and social backgrounds. Many leaders—like many members—are not experts in matters of early Mormon history.

Some leaders, like some members, may be unaware of the historical details which are so regularly distorted by the DVD. If a leader is unable to provide an answer to a sincere question, this does not mean that an answer does not exist. No one knows everything.

FAIR exists to fill any such "knowledge gaps" by providing accurate, well-researched information about LDS history and doctrine. Anti-Mormon attacks are repetitive; most were asked and answered decades ago.

No one will be excommunicated for asking questions. Excommunication occurs only for cases of severe unrepentant sin, or in cases where a member is guilty of ''apostasy''. Apostasy is the public teaching of doctrines believed to be false by the Church, even after being corrected by Church leaders.

If one were to repeatedly preach the nonsense taught by the ''Search for the Truth'' DVD, one could conceivably be excommunicated for apostasy. But despite anti-Mormon claims to the contrary, Latter-day Saints are not disciplined merely for not believing Church doctrine nor for believing things contrary to Church teachings.

'''To read more:'''
* Do Mormons Believe in Blind Obedience? {{fairlink|url=http://www.fairlds.org/Misc/Do_Mormons_Believe_in_Blind_Obedience.html}}
* [http://www.fairlds.org/contact.php Click here] to ask questions of FAIR. You will receive one or more e-mail replies, with additional references shortly, usually within less than 24 hours.

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "This video has been sent to Mormon leaders knowing that they will try to destroy and discredit its message but this will not change the fact that the content within is true." – Pamela Robertson</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

In reference to this statement we note the following from the [[Search for the Truth DVD:letter|letter]] that accompanied the DVD:

:''CAUTION: This video is to be viewed by CHRISTIANS ONLY until AFTER the nation-wide distribution which is scheduled for March 25, 2007. In-other-words, DO NOT ALLOW ANY MORMON PEOPLE to view the video or learn of our intended evangelistic outreach until after March 25, 2007.''

:''Why such extreme caution? If the leadership of the Mormon cult learns of our plans, they will publicly instruct their people not to watch the video and many Mormons will blindly obey.''

The reality is that the makers of this DVD wanted it to be kept secret from LDS leadership as well as LDS members. (One searches in vain for the "love" directed privately at "the Mormon cult.")

Fortunately, the DVD's message discredits itself rather well, and all members need do is to continue doing what we've always done: share the truth.

And the only ones being asked to "blindly obey" are those asked to distribute the DVD on doorknobs across the country and those being asked to believe the DVD's version of LDS doctrine and history.

'''''Note:''''' FAIR is not owned, affiliated with, or controlled by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. These replies were not prepared at the behest of the Church, and do not represent official statements. They are the opinions only of the authors, who are believing and committed members of the Church.

'''To read more:'''
* {{Offenders1| start=1}}

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Do not trust your eternity to a burning in the bosom which can be felt by simply watching a Hollywood movie. Even terrorists believe and are willing to die for something which is not of the Lord."– Patrick Powell</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Comparing Latter-day Saint convictions to those of "terrorists" is inflammatory and absurd. Terrorists lie to achieve their goals; does that mean that the DVD producers should be compared to terrorists?

It is strange that sectarian critics fault appeals to a "burning in the bosom."

'''Would they reject a witness of Jesus?'''

Following Jesus' resurrection, He walked with two disciples on the road to Emmaus. They did not recognize Jesus, but listened to Him as "he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself" ({{s||Luke|24|27}}).

After breaking bread with them, Jesus was revealed to the disciples, and vanished.

Interestingly, the disciples did not say to each other, "We should have known it was Jesus because of his scriptural teaching." Rather, they said:

:Did not our heart ''burn within us'', while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures? ({{s||Luke|24|32}}, emphasis added)

Would the critics likewise dismiss Jesus' disciples' witness because it was a "burning in the bosom"? Would they characterize this experience as merely the emotional rush of a Hollywood film?

The experience on the road to Emmaus illustrates another important point: a witness of the Holy Ghost is not "just a feeling." The Holy Ghost is both a "feeling" or "experiencing" process, but it is not empty emotion. Rather, ''information'' is always transmitted with it. Thus, Jesus did not just give the disciples a "feeling," but taught them information from the scriptures which gave intellectual or mental insight and satisfaction.

'''Mind and heart'''

LDS scripture understands a spiritual witness as always consisting of these two things: mind and heart unified:

:Verily, verily, I say unto you, if you desire a further witness, cast your mind upon the night that you cried unto me in your heart, that you might know concerning the truth of these things.
:Did I not speak peace to your mind concerning the matter? What greater witness can you have than from God? ([http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/6/22#23 D&C 6:22–23]).

Notice the information spoken to the “mind,” and the peace then follows. And, the solution for later doubts or concerns is not reliance on “a feeling,” but an admonition to recall specific information communicated earlier.

This matches a later description:

:Behold, you have not understood; you have supposed that I would give it unto you, when you took no thought save it was to ask me.
:But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right.
:But if it be not right you shall have no such feelings, but you shall have a stupor of thought that shall cause you to forget the thing which is wrong... ([http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/9/7#9 D&C 9:7–9]).

'''Following Jesus' command to ask'''

Because the video's producers haven't experienced the testimony of the Spirit, they want you to ignore it. But what did Christ say?

:And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever....
:But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. ({{s||John|14|16,26}})

So, we are to heed the whisperings of the Holy Ghost, not ignore them. Instead, the video's producers want you to believe that God would give us a stone when we ask for bread (see {{s||Matthew|7|9}}).

And then we have the admonition of James:

:If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. ({{s||James|1|5}})

Are we to believe then that God will not answer when we knock at the door? That he who asketh will not receive? Latter-day Saints believe in these Biblical admonitions to seek God, to commune with the Spirit, and to trust in Him.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Burning in the bosom]]

|-

! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Jesus alone is without sin, as we read in 1 John 3:5—'And you know that He was manifested to take away our sins, and in Him there is no sin.' Only Jesus could live a sinless life."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|
The DVD wants you to believe that this description of Christ is different from LDS beliefs of Christ. Once again, this is false—hardly an act of love. Latter-day Saints believe that Jesus Christ was the only sinless person to ever live and that his sinlessness was one of the attributes that allowed him to make an atonement for all mankind.

'''To read more:'''

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

''Other resources''
* {{lds|url=http://www.mormon.org/learn/0,8672,802-1,00.html|topic=Jesus Christ}}
* Reply to DVD on [[Search for the Truth DVD:Who Is Jesus%3F|Jesus Christ]]
* Reply to DVD on [[Search for the Truth DVD:Eternal Life|Beliefs about salvation]]
* [[Plain and Precious Book of Mormon doctrines|Book of Mormon doctrines about Jesus Christ]]
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "If someone today would model their life after Joseph Smith they would have to be an adulterer, a thief, a fraud and a liar.... You must choose to follow Joseph or follow Jesus but you cannot follow both."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|
More verbal tar and feathers for the prophet Joseph.

Of course, Latter-day Saints do not strive to "model their lives" on Joseph Smith, but on the sinless, perfect life of the Lord Jesus Christ. They imitate Joseph only to the extent that Joseph was a faithful disciple of Christ.

Throughout his life, Joseph had to endure the slurs and allegations of creedal religionists—things certainly haven't changed after more than 150 years.

Was Joseph dragged into jail many times on religiously-motivated charges? Yes, and so was Peter, so was Paul, and so even was Christ Himself.

Christ was murdered by those who hated Him, and Joseph Smith—like others persecuted for their beliefs about Christ—eventually followed the Master into violent death at the hands of those who hated his message.

Those who attack the faith of others, especially through dishonesty and misrepresentation, should remember Christ's denunciation of those who fought His message in His day:

:Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.
:Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous,
:And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.
:Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets.
:Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers.
:Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?
:Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city. ({{s||Matthew|23|28-34}})

If one wants to ''Search for the Truth'' about Joseph Smith, one will need to look much further than the superficial slogans, distortions, and untruths presented in this DVD.

As President Boyd K. Packer remarked:

:''There has been no end to opposition. There are misinterpretations and misrepresentations of us and of our history, some of it mean-spirited and certainly contrary to the teachings of Jesus Christ and His gospel. Sometimes clergy, even ministerial organizations, oppose us. They do what we would never do. We do not attack or criticize or oppose others as they do us.... Strangest of all, otherwise intelligent people claim we are not Christian. This shows that they know little or nothing about us. It is a true principle that you cannot lift yourself by putting others down.''
::<small>—{{Ensign|author=Boyd K. Packer|article=A Defense and a Refuge|date=November 2006|start=85|end=88}} {{link|url=http://beta.lds.org/portal/site/LDSOrg/menuitem.b12f9d18fae655bb69095bd3e44916a0/?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=ff120d034ceae010VgnVCM100000176f620a____&hideNav=1}}</small>

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Jesus Christ...Joseph Smith...Choose!"</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

It should be clear by now that members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints do not have to choose between Jesus and Joseph.

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">"If you don’t believe the things stated in this program look them up for yourself." – Pamela Robertson</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

At last, something with which we can agree. If you have questions, you ''should'' get the facts—all the facts.

But, you won't get them from this DVD or the ministries that support anti-Mormon propaganda.

|-
|}


{{DVDRightColumn}}
|}
{{DoYouHaveQuestions}}

Criticism of Mormonism/Video/Search for the Truth DVD/Summary

2007-03-25T18:50:33Z

SuzanneArmitage:

{{DVDHeadingBox|Summary}}

{| style="border-spacing:8px;margin:0px -8px"
| class="MainPageBG" style="width:85%;border:1px solid #cedff2;background-color:#f5faff;vertical-align:top"|
{| width="100%" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top;background-color:#f5faff"
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Has the video's stated purpose been accomplished?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|
The producers undertook their task with a bold and noble purpose:

:''This video has been produced out of love for our Lord Jesus Christ and love for our Mormon and Christian friends. We pray that it will touch the hearts of all who watch through the grace and truth of Christ Jesus.''

However, we find such declarations of love inconsistent with their disappointing behavior as they revile and demean what Latter-day Saint Christians hold dear and sacred. Perhaps we should be asking <i>how</i> the video's purpose was accomplished rather than if the video's purpose was accomplished. The viewer need only look to their abuse of scripture as we reinstate the apostle Paul's words (in brackets) that they removed in their video presentation.

"God’s word warns: “Do you not know do that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, [nor adulterers, nor homosexuals,] nor thieves, [nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers,] will inherit the kingdom of God." ({{s|1|Corinthians|6|9-10}})

The producers simply removed several words, including "revilers," to avoid implicating themselves in the same condemnation they pronounce on others. This will put the observant viewer on notice that they must carefully research each scripture and claim that this video makes.

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "From his fabrication of the First Vision to his reconstruction of the Christian faith and his desire for women it is clear that Joseph centered his life around lust, wealth, and power. Joseph Smith joins a long list of those who have used the name of Christ to enrich themselves."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

We have shown that these claims about the First vision and Joseph's reasons for practicing polygamy are false and rely upon a distorted, twisted, or incomplete reading of the historical record.

Joseph Smith's life demonstrated selflessness, humility, and a desire to serve God and his fellow man. He wasn't without sin, and he never claimed to be. But despite his weaknesses, he was a prophet of God.

Joseph published numerous revelations calling him personally to repent.({{s||DC|3|9-10}}, {{s||DC|5|21}} for example) He was quick to aid the poor, and the early Church had many poor. As members came, leaving homes and family and most of their worldly possessions behind, they were welcomed, fed, and clothed by the Church and by the Prophet Joseph Smith.

In the end, he gave his life for his testimony of Jesus Christ when he could have preserved it by recanting what he claimed to have witnessed.

'''To read more:'''
* {{lds|topic=Character of Joseph Smith|url=http://www.josephsmith.net/portal/site/JosephSmith/menuitem.da0e1d4eb6d2d87f9c0a33b5f1e543a0/?vgnextoid=934f001cfb340010VgnVCM1000001f5e340aRCRD&locale=0}}
* Reply to DVD on [[Search for the Truth DVD:First Vision|First Vision]]
* Reply to DVD on [[Search for the Truth DVD:The %22Occult%22|"occult"]]
* Reply to DVD on [[Search for the Truth DVD:Polygamy|plural marriage]]
* Reply to DVD on [[Search for the Truth DVD:The Translator|translation]]
* [[Template:JosephSmithPortal|Joseph Smith resources]]
* [[Personal failings of Joseph Smith]]
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "It’s no coincidence that Joseph was murdered in the Carthage jail. Why was Joseph in jail? He destroyed a small paper press called the ''Nauvoo Expositor'' because he didn’t like what they had written about him in their one and only publication." – Patrick Powell</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Joseph Smith was in jail because he went to answer manufactured charges of treason against the state. He voluntarily surrendered to a state official who had guaranteed him and his brother Hyrum protection.

The call for the destruction of the ''Nauvoo Expositor'' was not taken by "Joseph Smith," but by the Nauvoo city council, of which Joseph was a member. The council—which included non-members of the Church—voted to suppress the ''Expositor'' as a public nuisance.

The video will not tell you that some scholars have argued that the city council's action was ''legal'' according to Nauvoo city charter. Nor will they tell you that the council's concern was that the paper was so inflammatory that it might stir up violence.

The viewer also won't be told that Joseph was released by the Nauvoo municipal court on 13 June 1844. Anti-Mormons claimed this court was biased, so Joseph and others again appeared before non-Mormon judge Daniel H. Wells on 17 June, who discharged them (he did not have power to acquit them, so this was deferred).

Governor Ford of Missouri then asked Joseph to appear before the Carthage judge to satisfy the anti-Mormons. Joseph did so, and was freed on bail. Joseph and Hyrum were then ''arrested again'' because of a writ issued by Robert F. Smith, a Methodist minister, justice of the peace, and captain of the Carthage Grays militia.

The DVD will not reveal that Joseph was twice released by legal courts. It will not reveal that he was out on bail awaiting trial in a ''third'' court when he was ''rearrested'' by a religious enemy. Governor Ford broke his promise to protect Joseph and Hyrum, and the Carthage Grays conspired to help murder Joseph.

It almost sounds as if the video is endorsing what happened to Joseph, or saying he "deserved it." Such an attitude shows contempt for the law and Christian ethics.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Nauvoo Expositor]]
* [[Nauvoo city charter]]
* [[Joseph Smith as a martyr|Murder of Joseph and Hyrum Smith]]
* Dallin H. Oaks, “The Suppression of the Nauvoo Expositor,” ''Utah Law Review'' 9 (1965):874.
* {{CarthageConspiracy1 |start=y}}
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "But this was not the first time Joseph was arrested. He had been arrested many times throughout his adult life for things like defrauding people while he was using his glass-looking techniques and creating an illegal bank in Kirtland, Ohio, and fleeing with its monies." – Patrick Powell</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Joseph was arrested many times. John the Baptist was arrested. Peter and the apostles were arrested. The apostle Paul was arrested many times. Even Jesus was arrested. (Ironically, two of this video's contributors have been arrested.) Does this mean that John, Peter, Paul, and Jesus are to be condemned? Did they "deserve" what happened to them? Should the producers of this video repudiate the ministries of two of their contributors (Joel Kramer and Chip Thompson) because they have been arrested for exercising what they viewed as their religious rights?

The video carefully avoids mentioning that Joseph was never found guilty by any court of the charges for which he was arrested. But, for the DVD producers, the mere fact of being arrested and charged with a crime is adequate—Joseph Smith is "guilty until proven innocent."

As previously discussed, Joseph was not found guilty in the matter of the "glass-looking," and the person he had supposedly "defrauded" testified in his behalf and joined the Church. (Review treatment of this issue [[Search for the Truth DVD:Polygamy|here]].)

The Kirtland Safety Society is not an example of Joseph "defrauding" people. Joseph put more of his own money into the bank than any other person, save one. He paid more for his stock than 85% of the other owners. The bank failed, as did hundreds of other banks, because of a nation-wide banking panic.

Joseph did not "flee...with its monies"—he went further into debt trying to save the bank, and owed over $100,000 when it finally failed. Joseph had enough goods and lands to meet that debt, but converting these into cash was difficult in the early 19th-century economy following the collapse.

Joseph continued to pay his creditors after fleeing for his life. In 1843 he was far away, safe in Nauvoo, and yet continued to settle his debts from the Kirtland period. These are not the actions of a man trying to "get rich quick" or swindle others.

Once again, the DVD has distorted historical facts and omitted all information that conflicts with their conclusions.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Joseph Smith's 1826 glasslooking trial|1826 'glass-looking' hearing]]
* [[Kirtland Safety Society]]
* [[Joseph Smith and legal trials]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "So why do so many people follow this man? Because they don’t know the truth about the character of Joseph Smith." – Pamela Robertson</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The DVD producers would profit by asking members of the Church why they follow Joseph Smith. They would learn that they follow Joseph's teachings because:
* Joseph's teachings are consistent with the Holy Bible.
* Joseph's teachings bring them closer to their Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
* The power of the Holy Spirit has witnessed to their minds and hearts that Joseph is a Prophet and disciple of Jesus Christ, and the Book of Mormon stands with the Bible as a witness to the word of God.

The Saints accept that Joseph was imperfect—all men have weaknesses. But it is the doctrine of Christ which Joseph taught, and the influence of the Holy Spirit which Joseph brought, which members cherish and follow.

Brigham Young described an encounter with the 19th-century version of the ''Search for the Truth'' DVD:

:''I recollect a conversation I had with a priest who was an old friend of ours, before I was personally acquainted with the Prophet Joseph. I clipped every argument he advanced, until at last he came out and began to rail against "Joe Smith," saying, "that he was a mean man, a liar, moneydigger, gambler, and a whore-master;" and he charged him with everything bad, that he could find language to utter. ''

:''I said, hold on, Brother Gillmore, here is the doctrine, here is the Bible, the Book of Mormon, and the revelations that have come through Joseph Smith the Prophet. I have never seen him, and do not know his private character. The doctrine he teaches is all I know about the matter, bring anything against that if you can.''

:''As to anything else I do not care. If he acts like a devil, he has brought forth a doctrine that will save us, if we will abide it. He may get drunk every day of his life, sleep with his neighbor's wife every night, run horses and gamble, I do not care anything about that, ''for I never embrace any man in my faith.''

:''But the doctrine he has produced will save you and me, and the whole world; and if you can find fault with that, find it.''
::<small>—{{JoD4|author=Brigham Young|title=The Gospel Like a Net Cast Into the Sea, Etc.|date=9 November 1856|start=77|end=78}} (paragraph breaks added) {{ea}}</small>

'''To read more:'''
* [[Personal failings of Joseph Smith]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "As a Mormon, you cannot question the Church on issues such as these because you run the risk of excommunication." – Pamela Robertson</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

This is complete nonsense.

The DVD wants its viewers to trust only its sources—they know that if viewers ask knowledgeable LDS members or leaders about these issues, they will receive information that shows the DVD to be dishonest and inaccurate.

The Church has a lay clergy—this means that its leaders do not spend time in seminaries and degree programs. They come from many occupations and social backgrounds. Many leaders—like many members—are not experts in matters of early Mormon history.

Some leaders, like some members, may be unaware of the historical details which are so regularly distorted by the DVD. If a leader is unable to provide an answer to a sincere question, this does not mean that an answer does not exist. No one knows everything.

FAIR exists to fill any such "knowledge gaps" by providing accurate, well-researched information about LDS history and doctrine. Anti-Mormon attacks are repetitive; most were asked and answered decades ago.

No one will be excommunicated for asking questions. Excommunication occurs only for cases of severe unrepentant sin, or in cases where a member is guilty of ''apostasy''. Apostasy is the public teaching of doctrines believed to be false by the Church, even after being corrected by Church leaders.

If one were to repeatedly preach the nonsense taught by the ''Search for the Truth'' DVD, one could conceivably be excommunicated for apostasy. But despite anti-Mormon claims to the contrary, Latter-day Saints are not disciplined merely for not believing Church doctrine nor for believing things contrary to Church teachings.

'''To read more:'''
* Do Mormons Believe in Blind Obedience? {{fairlink|url=http://www.fairlds.org/Misc/Do_Mormons_Believe_in_Blind_Obedience.html}}
* [http://www.fairlds.org/contact.php Click here] to ask questions of FAIR. You will receive one or more e-mail replies, with additional references shortly, usually within less than 24 hours.

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "This video has been sent to Mormon leaders knowing that they will try to destroy and discredit its message but this will not change the fact that the content within is true." – Pamela Robertson</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

In reference to this statement we note the following from the [[Search for the Truth DVD:letter|letter]] that accompanied the DVD:

:''CAUTION: This video is to be viewed by CHRISTIANS ONLY until AFTER the nation-wide distribution which is scheduled for March 25, 2007. In-other-words, DO NOT ALLOW ANY MORMON PEOPLE to view the video or learn of our intended evangelistic outreach until after March 25, 2007.''

:''Why such extreme caution? If the leadership of the Mormon cult learns of our plans, they will publicly instruct their people not to watch the video and many Mormons will blindly obey.''

The reality is that the makers of this DVD wanted it to be kept secret from LDS leadership as well as LDS members. (One searches in vain for the "love" directed privately at "the Mormon cult.")

Fortunately, the DVD's message discredits itself rather well, and all members need do is to continue doing what we've always done: share the truth.

And the only ones being asked to "blindly obey" are those asked to distribute the DVD on doorknobs across the country and those being asked to believe the DVD's version of LDS doctrine and history.

'''''Note:''''' FAIR is not owned, affiliated with, or controlled by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. These replies were not prepared at the behest of the Church, and do not represent official statements. They are the opinions only of the authors, who are believing and committed members of the Church.

'''To read more:'''
* {{Offenders1| start=1}}

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Do not trust your eternity to a burning in the bosom which can be felt by simply watching a Hollywood movie. Even terrorists believe and are willing to die for something which is not of the Lord."– Patrick Powell</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Comparing Latter-day Saint convictions to those of "terrorists" is inflammatory and absurd. Terrorists lie to achieve their goals; does that mean that the DVD producers should be compared to terrorists?

It is strange that sectarian critics fault appeals to a "burning in the bosom."

'''Would they reject a witness of Jesus?'''

Following Jesus' resurrection, He walked with two disciples on the road to Emmaus. They did not recognize Jesus, but listened to Him as "he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself" ({{s||Luke|24|27}}).

After breaking bread with them, Jesus was revealed to the disciples, and vanished.

Interestingly, the disciples did not say to each other, "We should have known it was Jesus because of his scriptural teaching." Rather, they said:

:Did not our heart ''burn within us'', while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures? ({{s||Luke|24|32}}, emphasis added)

Would the critics likewise dismiss Jesus' disciples' witness because it was a "burning in the bosom"? Would they characterize this experience as merely the emotional rush of a Hollywood film?

The experience on the road to Emmaus illustrates another important point: a witness of the Holy Ghost is not "just a feeling." The Holy Ghost is both a "feeling" or "experiencing" process, but it is not empty emotion. Rather, ''information'' is always transmitted with it. Thus, Jesus did not just give the disciples a "feeling," but taught them information from the scriptures which gave intellectual or mental insight and satisfaction.

'''Mind and heart'''

LDS scripture understands a spiritual witness as always consisting of these two things: mind and heart unified:

:Verily, verily, I say unto you, if you desire a further witness, cast your mind upon the night that you cried unto me in your heart, that you might know concerning the truth of these things.
:Did I not speak peace to your mind concerning the matter? What greater witness can you have than from God? ([http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/6/22#23 D&C 6:22–23]).

Notice the information spoken to the “mind,” and the peace then follows. And, the solution for later doubts or concerns is not reliance on “a feeling,” but an admonition to recall specific information communicated earlier.

This matches a later description:

:Behold, you have not understood; you have supposed that I would give it unto you, when you took no thought save it was to ask me.
:But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right.
:But if it be not right you shall have no such feelings, but you shall have a stupor of thought that shall cause you to forget the thing which is wrong... ([http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/9/7#9 D&C 9:7–9]).

'''Following Jesus' command to ask'''

Because the video's producers haven't experienced the testimony of the Spirit, they want you to ignore it. But what did Christ say?

:And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever....
:But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. ({{s||John|14|16,26}})

So, we are to heed the whisperings of the Holy Ghost, not ignore them. Instead, the video's producers want you to believe that God would give us a stone when we ask for bread (see {{s||Matthew|7|9}}).

And then we have the admonition of James:

:If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. ({{s||James|1|5}})

Are we to believe then that God will not answer when we knock at the door? That he who asketh will not receive? Latter-day Saints believe in these Biblical admonitions to seek God, to commune with the Spirit, and to trust in Him.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Burning in the bosom]]

|-

! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Jesus alone is without sin, as we read in 1 John 3:5—'And you know that He was manifested to take away our sins, and in Him there is no sin.' Only Jesus could live a sinless life."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|
The DVD wants you to believe that this description of Christ is different from LDS beliefs of Christ. Once again, this is false—hardly an act of love. Latter-day Saints believe that Jesus Christ was the only sinless person to ever live and that his sinlessness was one of attributes that allowed him to make an atonement for all mankind.

'''To read more:'''

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

''Other resources''
* {{lds|url=http://www.mormon.org/learn/0,8672,802-1,00.html|topic=Jesus Christ}}
* Reply to DVD on [[Search for the Truth DVD:Who Is Jesus%3F|Jesus Christ]]
* Reply to DVD on [[Search for the Truth DVD:Eternal Life|Beliefs about salvation]]
* [[Plain and Precious Book of Mormon doctrines|Book of Mormon doctrines about Jesus Christ]]
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "If someone today would model their life after Joseph Smith they would have to be an adulterer, a thief, a fraud and a liar.... You must choose to follow Joseph or follow Jesus but you cannot follow both."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|
More verbal tar and feathers for the prophet Joseph.

Of course, Latter-day Saints do not strive to "model their lives" on Joseph Smith, but on the sinless, perfect life of the Lord Jesus Christ. They imitate Joseph only to the extent that Joseph was a faithful disciple of Christ.

Throughout his life, Joseph had to endure the slurs and allegations of creedal religionists—things certainly haven't changed after more than 150 years.

Was Joseph dragged into jail many times on religiously-motivated charges? Yes, and so was Peter, so was Paul, and so even was Christ Himself.

Christ was murdered by those who hated Him, and Joseph Smith—like others persecuted for their beliefs about Christ—eventually followed the Master into violent death at the hands of those who hated his message.

Those who attack the faith of others, especially through dishonesty and misrepresentation, should remember Christ's denunciation of those who fought His message in His day:

:Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.
:Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous,
:And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.
:Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets.
:Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers.
:Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?
:Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city. ({{s||Matthew|23|28-34}})

If one wants to ''Search for the Truth'' about Joseph Smith, one will need to look much further than the superficial slogans, distortions, and untruths presented in this DVD.

As President Boyd K. Packer remarked:

:''There has been no end to opposition. There are misinterpretations and misrepresentations of us and of our history, some of it mean-spirited and certainly contrary to the teachings of Jesus Christ and His gospel. Sometimes clergy, even ministerial organizations, oppose us. They do what we would never do. We do not attack or criticize or oppose others as they do us.... Strangest of all, otherwise intelligent people claim we are not Christian. This shows that they know little or nothing about us. It is a true principle that you cannot lift yourself by putting others down.''
::<small>—{{Ensign|author=Boyd K. Packer|article=A Defense and a Refuge|date=November 2006|start=85|end=88}} {{link|url=http://beta.lds.org/portal/site/LDSOrg/menuitem.b12f9d18fae655bb69095bd3e44916a0/?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=ff120d034ceae010VgnVCM100000176f620a____&hideNav=1}}</small>

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Jesus Christ...Joseph Smith...Choose!"</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

It should be clear by now that members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints do not have to choose between Jesus and Joseph.

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">"If you don’t believe the things stated in this program look them up for yourself." – Pamela Robertson</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

At last, something with which we can agree. If you have questions, you ''should'' get the facts—all the facts.

But, you won't get them from this DVD or the ministries that support anti-Mormon propaganda.

|-
|}


{{DVDRightColumn}}
|}
{{DoYouHaveQuestions}}

Criticism of Mormonism/Video/Search for the Truth DVD/Summary

2007-03-25T18:46:07Z

SuzanneArmitage:

{{DVDHeadingBox|Summary}}

{| style="border-spacing:8px;margin:0px -8px"
| class="MainPageBG" style="width:85%;border:1px solid #cedff2;background-color:#f5faff;vertical-align:top"|
{| width="100%" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top;background-color:#f5faff"
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Has the video's stated purpose been accomplished?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|
The producers undertook their task with a bold and noble purpose:

:''This video has been produced out of love for our Lord Jesus Christ and love for our Mormon and Christian friends. We pray that it will touch the hearts of all who watch through the grace and truth of Christ Jesus.''

However, we find such declarations of love inconsistent with their disappointing behavior as they revile and demean what Latter-day Saint Christians hold dear and sacred. Perhaps we should be asking <i>how</i> the video's purpose was accomplished rather than if the video's purpose was accomplished. The viewer need only look to their abuse of scripture as we reinstate the apostle Paul's words (in brackets) that they removed in their video presentation.

"God’s word warns: “Do you not know do that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, [nor adulterers, nor homosexuals,] nor thieves, [nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers,] will inherit the kingdom of God." ({{s|1|Corinthians|6|9-10}})

The producers simply removed several words, including "revilers," to avoid implicating themselves in the same condemnation they pronounce on others. This will put the observant viewer on notice that they must carefully research each scripture and claim that this video makes.

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "From his fabrication of the First Vision to his reconstruction of the Christian faith and his desire for women it is clear that Joseph centered his life around lust, wealth, and power. Joseph Smith joins a long list of those who have used the name of Christ to enrich themselves."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

We have shown that these claims about the First vision and Joseph's reasons for practicing polygamy are false and rely upon a distorted, twisted, or incomplete reading of the historical record.

Joseph Smith's life demonstrated selflessness, humility, and a desire to serve God and his fellow man. He wasn't without sin, and he never claimed to be. But despite his weaknesses, he was a prophet of God.

Joseph published numerous revelations calling him personally to repent.({{s||DC|3|9-10}}, {{s||DC|5|21}} for example) He was quick to aid the poor, and the early Church had many poor. As members came, leaving homes and family and most of their worldly possessions behind, they were welcomed, fed, and clothed by the Church and by the Prophet Joseph Smith.

In the end, he gave his life for his testimony of Jesus Christ when he could have preserved it by recanting what he claimed to have witnessed.

'''To read more:'''
* {{lds|topic=Character of Joseph Smith|url=http://www.josephsmith.net/portal/site/JosephSmith/menuitem.da0e1d4eb6d2d87f9c0a33b5f1e543a0/?vgnextoid=934f001cfb340010VgnVCM1000001f5e340aRCRD&locale=0}}
* Reply to DVD on [[Search for the Truth DVD:First Vision|First Vision]]
* Reply to DVD on [[Search for the Truth DVD:The %22Occult%22|"occult"]]
* Reply to DVD on [[Search for the Truth DVD:Polygamy|plural marriage]]
* Reply to DVD on [[Search for the Truth DVD:The Translator|translation]]
* [[Template:JosephSmithPortal|Joseph Smith resources]]
* [[Personal failings of Joseph Smith]]
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "It’s no coincidence that Joseph was murdered in the Carthage jail. Why was Joseph in jail? He destroyed a small paper press called the ''Nauvoo Expositor'' because he didn’t like what they had written about him in their one and only publication." – Patrick Powell</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Joseph Smith was in jail because he went to answer manufactured charges of treason against the state. He voluntarily surrendered to a state official who had guaranteed him and his brother Hyrum protection.

The call for the destruction of the ''Nauvoo Expositor'' was not taken by "Joseph Smith," but by the Nauvoo city council, of which Joseph was a member. The council—which included non-members of the Church—voted to suppress the ''Expositor'' as a public nuisance.

The video will not tell you that some scholars have argued that the city council's action was ''legal'' according to Nauvoo city charter. Nor will they tell you that the council's concern was that the paper was so inflammatory that it might stir up violence.

The viewer also won't be told that Joseph was released by the Nauvoo municipal court on 13 June 1844. Anti-Mormons claimed this court was biased, so Joseph and others again appeared before non-Mormon judge Daniel H. Wells on 17 June, who discharged them (he did not have power to acquit them, so this was deferred).

Governor Ford of Missouri then asked Joseph to appear before the Carthage judge to satisfy the anti-Mormons. Joseph did so, and was freed on bail. Joseph and Hyrum were then ''arrested again'' because of a writ issued by Robert F. Smith, a Methodist minister, justice of the peace, and captain of the Carthage Grays militia.

The DVD will not reveal that Joseph was twice released by legal courts. It will not reveal that he was out on bail awaiting trial in a ''third'' court when he was ''rearrested'' by a religious enemy. Governor Ford broke his promise to protect Joseph and Hyrum, and the Carthage Grays conspired to help murder Joseph.

It almost sounds as if the video is endorsing what happened to Joseph, or saying he "deserved it." Such an attitude shows contempt for the law and Christian ethics.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Nauvoo Expositor]]
* [[Nauvoo city charter]]
* [[Joseph Smith as a martyr|Murder of Joseph and Hyrum Smith]]
* Dallin H. Oaks, “The Suppression of the Nauvoo Expositor,” ''Utah Law Review'' 9 (1965):874.
* {{CarthageConspiracy1 |start=y}}
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "But this was not the first time Joseph was arrested. He had been arrested many times throughout his adult life for things like defrauding people while he was using his glass-looking techniques and creating an illegal bank in Kirtland, Ohio, and fleeing with its monies." – Patrick Powell</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Joseph was arrested many times. John the Baptist was arrested. Peter and the apostles were arrested. The apostle Paul was arrested many times. Even Jesus was arrested. (Ironically, two of this video's contributors have been arrested.) Does this mean that John, Peter, Paul, and Jesus are to be condemned? Did they "deserve" what happened to them? Should the producers of this video repudiate the ministries of two of their contributors (Joel Kramer and Chip Thompson) because they have been arrested for exercising what they viewed as their religious rights?

The video carefully avoids mentioning that Joseph was never found guilty by any court of the charges for which he was arrested. But, for the DVD producers, the mere fact of being arrested and charged with a crime is adequate—Joseph Smith is "guilty until proven innocent."

As previously discussed, Joseph was not found guilty in the matter of the "glass-looking," and the person he had supposedly "defrauded" testified in his behalf and joined the Church. (Review treatment of this issue [[Search for the Truth DVD:Polygamy|here]].)

The Kirtland Safety Society is not an example of Joseph "defrauding" people. Joseph put more of his own money into the bank than any other person, save one. He paid more for his stock than 85% of the other owners. The bank failed, as did hundreds of other banks, because of a nation-wide banking panic.

Joseph did not "flee...with its monies"—he went further into debt trying to save the bank, and owed over $100,000 when it finally failed. Joseph had enough goods and lands to meet that debt, but converting these into cash was difficult in the early 19th-century economy following the collapse.

Joseph continued to pay his creditors after fleeing for his life. In 1843 he was far away, safe in Nauvoo, and yet continued to settle his debts from the Kirtland period. These are not the actions of a man trying to "get rich quick" or swindle others.

Once again, the DVD has distorted historical facts and omitted all information that conflicts with their conclusions.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Joseph Smith's 1826 glasslooking trial|1826 'glass-looking' hearing]]
* [[Kirtland Safety Society]]
* [[Joseph Smith and legal trials]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "So why do so many people follow this man? Because they don’t know the truth about the character of Joseph Smith." – Pamela Robertson</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The DVD producers would profit by asking members of the Church why they follow Joseph Smith. They would learn that they follow Joseph's teachings because:
* Joseph's teachings are consistent with the Holy Bible.
* Joseph's teachings bring them closer to their Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
* The power of the Holy Spirit has witnessed to their minds and hearts that Joseph is a Prophet and disciple of Jesus Christ, and the Book of Mormon stands with the Bible as a witness to the word of God.

The Saints accept that Joseph was imperfect—all men have weaknesses. But it is the doctrine of Christ which Joseph taught, and the influence of the Holy Spirit which Joseph brought, which members cherish and follow.

Brigham Young described an encounter with the 19th-century version of the ''Search for the Truth'' DVD:

:''I recollect a conversation I had with a priest who was an old friend of ours, before I was personally acquainted with the Prophet Joseph. I clipped every argument he advanced, until at last he came out and began to rail against "Joe Smith," saying, "that he was a mean man, a liar, moneydigger, gambler, and a whore-master;" and he charged him with everything bad, that he could find language to utter. ''

:''I said, hold on, Brother Gillmore, here is the doctrine, here is the Bible, the Book of Mormon, and the revelations that have come through Joseph Smith the Prophet. I have never seen him, and do not know his private character. The doctrine he teaches is all I know about the matter, bring anything against that if you can.''

:''As to anything else I do not care. If he acts like a devil, he has brought forth a doctrine that will save us, if we will abide it. He may get drunk every day of his life, sleep with his neighbor's wife every night, run horses and gamble, I do not care anything about that, ''for I never embrace any man in my faith.''

:''But the doctrine he has produced will save you and me, and the whole world; and if you can find fault with that, find it.''
::<small>—{{JoD4|author=Brigham Young|title=The Gospel Like a Net Cast Into the Sea, Etc.|date=9 November 1856|start=77|end=78}} (paragraph breaks added) {{ea}}</small>

'''To read more:'''
* [[Personal failings of Joseph Smith]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "As a Mormon, you cannot question the Church on issues such as these because you run the risk of excommunication." – Pamela Robertson</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

This is complete nonsense.

The DVD wants its viewers to trust only its sources—they know that if viewers ask knowledgeable LDS members or leaders about these issues, they will receive information that shows the DVD to be dishonest and inaccurate.

The Church has a lay clergy—this means that its leaders do not spend time in seminaries and degree programs. They come from many occupations and social backgrounds. Many leaders—like many members—are not experts in matters of early Mormon history.

Some leaders, like some members, may be unaware of the historical details which are so regularly distorted by the DVD. If a leader is unable to provide an answer to a sincere question, this does not mean that an answer does not exist. No one knows everything.

FAIR exists to fill any such "knowledge gaps" by providing accurate, well-researched information about LDS history and doctrine. Anti-Mormon attacks are repetitive; most were asked and answered decades ago.

No one will be excommunicated for asking questions. Excommunication occurs only for cases of severe unrepentant sin, or in cases where a member is guilty of ''apostasy''. Apostasy is the public teaching of doctrines believed to be false by the Church, even after being corrected by Church leaders.

If one were to repeatedly preach the nonsense taught by the ''Search for the Truth'' DVD, one could conceivably be excommunicated for apostacy. But despite anti-Mormon claims to the contrary, Latter-day Saints are not disciplined merely for not believing Church doctrine nor for believing things contrary to Church teachings.

'''To read more:'''
* Do Mormons Believe in Blind Obedience? {{fairlink|url=http://www.fairlds.org/Misc/Do_Mormons_Believe_in_Blind_Obedience.html}}
* [http://www.fairlds.org/contact.php Click here] to ask questions of FAIR. You will receive one or more e-mail replies, with additional references shortly, usually within less than 24 hours.

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "This video has been sent to Mormon leaders knowing that they will try to destroy and discredit its message but this will not change the fact that the content within is true." – Pamela Robertson</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

In reference to this statement we note the following from the [[Search for the Truth DVD:letter|letter]] that accompanied the DVD:

:''CAUTION: This video is to be viewed by CHRISTIANS ONLY until AFTER the nation-wide distribution which is scheduled for March 25, 2007. In-other-words, DO NOT ALLOW ANY MORMON PEOPLE to view the video or learn of our intended evangelistic outreach until after March 25, 2007.''

:''Why such extreme caution? If the leadership of the Mormon cult learns of our plans, they will publicly instruct their people not to watch the video and many Mormons will blindly obey.''

The reality is that the makers of this DVD wanted it to be kept secret from LDS leadership as well as LDS members. (One searches in vain for the "love" directed privately at "the Mormon cult.")

Fortunately, the DVD's message discredits itself rather well, and all members need do is to continue doing what we've always done: share the truth.

And the only ones being asked to "blindly obey" are those asked to distribute the DVD on doorknobs across the country and those being asked to believe the DVD's version of LDS doctrine and history.

'''''Note:''''' FAIR is not owned, affiliated with, or controlled by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. These replies were not prepared at the behest of the Church, and do not represent official statements. They are the opinions only of the authors, who are believing and committed members of the Church.

'''To read more:'''
* {{Offenders1| start=1}}

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Do not trust your eternity to a burning in the bosom which can be felt by simply watching a Hollywood movie. Even terrorists believe and are willing to die for something which is not of the Lord."– Patrick Powell</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Comparing Latter-day Saint convictions to those of "terrorists" is inflammatory and absurd. Terrorists lie to achieve their goals; does that mean that the DVD producers should be compared to terrorists?

It is strange that sectarian critics fault appeals to a "burning in the bosom."

'''Would they reject a witness of Jesus?'''

Following Jesus' resurrection, He walked with two disciples on the road to Emmaus. They did not recognize Jesus, but listened to Him as "he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself" ({{s||Luke|24|27}}).

After breaking bread with them, Jesus was revealed to the disciples, and vanished.

Interestingly, the disciples did not say to each other, "We should have known it was Jesus because of his scriptural teaching." Rather, they said:

:Did not our heart ''burn within us'', while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures? ({{s||Luke|24|32}}, emphasis added)

Would the critics likewise dismiss Jesus' disciples' witness because it was a "burning in the bosom"? Would they characterize this experience as merely the emotional rush of a Hollywood film?

The experience on the road to Emmaus illustrates another important point: a witness of the Holy Ghost is not "just a feeling." The Holy Ghost is both a "feeling" or "experiencing" process, but it is not empty emotion. Rather, ''information'' is always transmitted with it. Thus, Jesus did not just give the disciples a "feeling," but taught them information from the scriptures which gave intellectual or mental insight and satisfaction.

'''Mind and heart'''

LDS scripture understands a spiritual witness as always consisting of these two things: mind and heart unified:

:Verily, verily, I say unto you, if you desire a further witness, cast your mind upon the night that you cried unto me in your heart, that you might know concerning the truth of these things.
:Did I not speak peace to your mind concerning the matter? What greater witness can you have than from God? ([http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/6/22#23 D&C 6:22–23]).

Notice the information spoken to the “mind,” and the peace then follows. And, the solution for later doubts or concerns is not reliance on “a feeling,” but an admonition to recall specific information communicated earlier.

This matches a later description:

:Behold, you have not understood; you have supposed that I would give it unto you, when you took no thought save it was to ask me.
:But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right.
:But if it be not right you shall have no such feelings, but you shall have a stupor of thought that shall cause you to forget the thing which is wrong... ([http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/9/7#9 D&C 9:7–9]).

'''Following Jesus' command to ask'''

Because the video's producers haven't experienced the testimony of the Spirit, they want you to ignore it. But what did Christ say?

:And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever....
:But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. ({{s||John|14|16,26}})

So, we are to heed the whisperings of the Holy Ghost, not ignore them. Instead, the video's producers want you to believe that God would give us a stone when we ask for bread (see {{s||Matthew|7|9}}).

And then we have the admonition of James:

:If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. ({{s||James|1|5}})

Are we to believe then that God will not answer when we knock at the door? That he who asketh will not receive? Latter-day Saints believe in these Biblical admonitions to seek God, to commune with the Spirit, and to trust in Him.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Burning in the bosom]]

|-

! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Jesus alone is without sin, as we read in 1 John 3:5—'And you know that He was manifested to take away our sins, and in Him there is no sin.' Only Jesus could live a sinless life."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|
The DVD wants you to believe that this description of Christ is different from LDS beliefs of Christ. Once again, this is false—hardly an act of love. Latter-day Saints believe that Jesus Christ was the only sinless person to ever live and that his sinlessness was one of attributes that allowed him to make an atonement for all mankind.

'''To read more:'''

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

''Other resources''
* {{lds|url=http://www.mormon.org/learn/0,8672,802-1,00.html|topic=Jesus Christ}}
* Reply to DVD on [[Search for the Truth DVD:Who Is Jesus%3F|Jesus Christ]]
* Reply to DVD on [[Search for the Truth DVD:Eternal Life|Beliefs about salvation]]
* [[Plain and Precious Book of Mormon doctrines|Book of Mormon doctrines about Jesus Christ]]
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "If someone today would model their life after Joseph Smith they would have to be an adulterer, a thief, a fraud and a liar.... You must choose to follow Joseph or follow Jesus but you cannot follow both."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|
More verbal tar and feathers for the prophet Joseph.

Of course, Latter-day Saints do not strive to "model their lives" on Joseph Smith, but on the sinless, perfect life of the Lord Jesus Christ. They imitate Joseph only to the extent that Joseph was a faithful disciple of Christ.

Throughout his life, Joseph had to endure the slurs and allegations of creedal religionists—things certainly haven't changed after more than 150 years.

Was Joseph dragged into jail many times on religiously-motivated charges? Yes, and so was Peter, so was Paul, and so even was Christ Himself.

Christ was murdered by those who hated Him, and Joseph Smith—like others persecuted for their beliefs about Christ—eventually followed the Master into violent death at the hands of those who hated his message.

Those who attack the faith of others, especially through dishonesty and misrepresentation, should remember Christ's denunciation of those who fought His message in His day:

:Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.
:Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous,
:And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.
:Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets.
:Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers.
:Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?
:Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city. ({{s||Matthew|23|28-34}})

If one wants to ''Search for the Truth'' about Joseph Smith, one will need to look much further than the superficial slogans, distortions, and untruths presented in this DVD.

As President Boyd K. Packer remarked:

:''There has been no end to opposition. There are misinterpretations and misrepresentations of us and of our history, some of it mean-spirited and certainly contrary to the teachings of Jesus Christ and His gospel. Sometimes clergy, even ministerial organizations, oppose us. They do what we would never do. We do not attack or criticize or oppose others as they do us.... Strangest of all, otherwise intelligent people claim we are not Christian. This shows that they know little or nothing about us. It is a true principle that you cannot lift yourself by putting others down.''
::<small>—{{Ensign|author=Boyd K. Packer|article=A Defense and a Refuge|date=November 2006|start=85|end=88}} {{link|url=http://beta.lds.org/portal/site/LDSOrg/menuitem.b12f9d18fae655bb69095bd3e44916a0/?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=ff120d034ceae010VgnVCM100000176f620a____&hideNav=1}}</small>

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Jesus Christ...Joseph Smith...Choose!"</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

It should be clear by now that members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints do not have to choose between Jesus and Joseph.

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">"If you don’t believe the things stated in this program look them up for yourself." – Pamela Robertson</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

At last, something with which we can agree. If you have questions, you ''should'' get the facts—all the facts.

But, you won't get them from this DVD or the ministries that support anti-Mormon propaganda.

|-
|}


{{DVDRightColumn}}
|}
{{DoYouHaveQuestions}}

Criticism of Mormonism/Video/Search for the Truth DVD/Call to Leaders

2007-03-25T18:39:21Z

SuzanneArmitage:

{{DVDHeadingBox|Call to LDS Leaders}}

{| style="border-spacing:8px;margin:0px -8px"
| class="MainPageBG" style="width:85%;border:1px solid #cedff2;background-color:#f5faff;vertical-align:top"|
{| width="100%" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top;background-color:#f5faff"
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">This portion of the video calls for LDS leaders to stop the supposed deception of Mormonism.

"You’d be the hero of all time to the LDS people if you finally admitted Joseph Smith was a false prophet. Beloved you know that. That Mormonism is not true. The Book of Mormon is not true. Joseph Smith is not true. Joseph Smith deceived you and deceived your people. Don’t go on with this deception. So we pray of you, Mormon leaders, have the courage to admit that you’re wrong." (Floyd McElveen)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

This charges that leaders actually know that Joseph Smith was a fraud and that the Book of Mormon is false, and that LDS leaders simply need to ''admit'' the deception and take the steps necessary to lead Mormons out of the Church. Who granted the critics insight into the minds, beliefs, hearts, and souls of the leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ?

Critics should recall the admonition of Jesus:

: Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.({{s||Matthew|7|1-2}})

The poisonous accusation that LDS leaders actually know that Mormonism is false has become fashionable in some anti-Mormon circles. This claim is designed to add credibility to the anti-Mormon accusation that the LDS Church is not only wrong, but deceptive.

The fact is, however, that LDS leaders give of their time (a tremendous amount of time) and talents, because they love Christ, they love God's children, and they believe that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is true. Many LDS leaders give up lucrative professions and sacrifice time they could be spending in retirement or with family, to dedicate themselves to the Restored Gospel. They really believe in the teachings of the Church and they labor continuously leading people to Christ and the fulness of the Gospel as found in the latter-day church that Christ restored.

Brigham Young, like many Church leaders, repeatedly taught that no member should rely on their leader's convictions— each member must seek a spiritual witness:

:''The First Presidency have of right a great influence over this people; and if we should get out of the way and lead this people to destruction, what a pity it would be! How can you know whether we lead you correctly or not? Can you know by any other power than that of the Holy Ghost? I have uniformly exhorted the people to obtain this living witness each for themselves; then no man on earth can lead them astray.''
::<small>—{{JD1|start=100|vol=6|author=Brigham Young|date=29 November 1857}}</small>
'''To read more''':

* [[Search for the Truth DVD:Call to Leaders:Individual witness|More quotes by Church leaders]] about not being deceived.
* "The Living Christ: Testimony of the Apostles of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" {{link|url=http://www.lds.org/library/display/0,4945,163-1-10-1,FF.html}}

|-
|}


{{DVDRightColumn}}
|}
{{DoYouHaveQuestions}}